Second Half of Class Flashcards
What was the Carolingian Renaissance?
okay alright then let’s move on and look at the next subject which is Medieval Theology we’ll start with the Carolingian period Carolingian is a term it’s an adjective for Charlemagne Charlemagne was really German speaking Carl de graza Carl the great Charlemagne in French well anyhow the Carolinian period then was the period around 800 and coming forward from there when Charlemagne made it his business to try to promote an educational revival remember he started a palace school he brought Avilon Abelard Anselm of Canterbury there and other scholars and paid them well to teach and he effected what some people call a Carolingian Renaissance that’s a bit of an exaggeration the the extent of its influence of his school was not very large but it was a noble experiment just the same and at least it set is set forth a model which others could use and on which they could improve and some of them did
Why was the period from about 600 to 1050 not very productive theologically?
well the period between Pope Gregory first and the scholastic irid this is about 600 from about 600 to 1050 that’s the period of Gregory first and it ends at the Scholastic Europe 600 to 1050 there is not a highly productive era theologically mainly because theologians were not looking for additional information they were instead satisfied as they already had the information they needed but they should be able to teach it well and protect it well defended well against his critics
What was the objective of scholarship during this medieval period from 600 to 1050?
there were Bible commentaries written in this period written in Latin of course and the Bible commentaries for the most part perpetuated the same interpretations that could be found in the ancient church fathers so it was as though for a long time for several centuries there was very little real fresh research taking place but the objective of scholarship was to preserve intact the learning that was already in the possession of the scholars so they’re out to defend the tradition wherever they could
What is the Filioque Controversy?
one significant theological dispute that occurred this time though shows us that there was some willingness to consider new concepts if you if you memorize either the Nicene creed or the apostles creed you knowing the Nicene Creed particularly says we believe in the holy ghost who proceeds from the father and the son and together with a father and son as his God is worshiped and glorified well that’s not the original version of the Creed the Creed originally said thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father didn’t say anything about the son just the father well so many scholars are some scholars anyhow as they looked at that they said well this is doing a disservice to the Son we are Trinitarians and since we are trinitarians we believe in the Equality of Father Son and Holy Spirit and so the Spirit of God must have proceeded not just from the father but from the Son as well and so let’s adjust the Creed to insert that term so that we believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the father and the son the latin term here is Filioque and this addition was sponsored by bishops in France
but when the news of this development reached Constantinople the bishops of the Eastern Church became outraged they said no because they believe that the ecumenical creeds alongside the Bible are the inspired Word of God and since the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the creeds no church dare ever tamper with the Creed no matter what the argument may be the argument was quite simple we’re trying to connect the Trinity here keep the Trinity intact and defend the Trinity against any slanderous attack though the Eastern Church would have none of it and if you attend that Eastern Orthodox Church today and it comes time to recite the Creed you won’t see that reference proceeding from the Son there at all only from the father
What is difficult about the word proceed?
now of course in this controversy the word proceed is as difficult to understand too it too to proceed means to go forth doesn’t it and so the Holy Spirit goes forth from the father and the son yeah I don’t doubt that that’s that’s accurate is that it’s what happens but I’m not at all clear but how it happens and I don’t think I can ever become clear because I don’t think within the scope of humanity’s ability to grasp
but members of the Trinity of course never do anything in isolation the Father the Son the Holy Spirit take a doctrine of creation which member of the Trinity created the world in the beginning Elohim God created the heavens and the earth who we said have to God the Father his God the Father yes when we come to the Gospel of John and the beginning was the word the Word was with God the Word was God by him all things were made who’s that that’s the son isn’t it now go back to the Genesis account when the father created the world the Holy Spirit came down and rooted over the waters so the whole Trinity really was involved in the creation of the universe
Why do western and eastern churches recite the Nicene Creed differently?
and so the Western Church had no hesitation in adding this clause to the creed but in in the east not so the Eastern Bishops complained that the Western Church was tampering with the content of an inspired Creed and that was therefore sinful behavior nevertheless in the 11th century the Western Church officially added the Filioque clause and that’s why today most Protestant churches too will recite the Creed doing proceeding from the father and the son that was one of the controversies which had caused a lot of discussion and contentious the time
What happened at the Synod of Orange in 529?
ok folks how much to continue our look at medieval theology we’ve considered the filioque controversy now let’s look at the disputes about the doctrine of predestination go back to the Year 529 in 529 there was a meeting of bishops at the synod of orange as it was called and at that time the semi-pelagian teaching had spread far and wide but the council orange rejected the Pelagian and semi Pelagian versions of the heresy however that rejection was not going to hold very long and before many years had gone by semi-pelagianism was still on the move and winning adherents
What did Gottschalk of Orbais believe and teach?
the church then was Augustinian in principle semi Pelagian in practice despite the decisions of that synod of orange these inconsistencies inspired some people to justify intervention one of those who was so moved was Gottschalk of Orbais I give you a little article about him it appears now right now in the current edition of the banner of truth magazine and so I want you to read that I think you’ll find it quite helpful to clarify what I’ll be telling you today
Gottschalk believed that the church was officially Augustinian but he said underneath the cloak of augustinianism is a semi pelagian formula or semi-pelagianism that’s what he said Gottschalk denied that election is based upon divine foreknowledge of man’s merit now think about that for a moment if election is based upon divine foreknowledge of man’s merit then man’s merit is decisive in the matter of salvation if man has the merit he’ll be saved if he doesn’t he won’t well the complaint from Gottschalk was that this took the matter out of God’s providence and put it in the hands of sinners themselves Gottschalk understood Augustine quite clearly far better than his critics did
Who was Hinkmar and what did he do? Why did he get help from the church?
but his bold affirmation of salvation Sola gratia caused quite a bit of tension in the church at the time and one bishop in particular emerged as leader of the opposition to Gottschalk his name was Hincmar and he began looking for support against Gottschalk and several theologians joined him but there were several other theologians who supported Gottschalk
when Hinkmar appealed for help from the church he got help in general because the semi Pelagian view had acquired such popularity - Gottschalk was bold and tactless in some ways bound to irritate people by his manner and so he presented the truth but not in a very attractive way he preached double predestination as you call it now and he cited augustine as his authority for doing so he held that not only his election based upon God’s sovereign decree but that the atonement applies only to the elect Agustin believed that too but it’s not prominent and Augustus writing and certainly not in fact if he didn’t make a big issue of it but I think it’s occurred that he did believe in what we today call particular redemption or limited atonement
What is a better term than limited atonement?
I don’t like the term limited atonement it could give the oppression that Jesus made a partial atonement that’s certainly not true Jesus did not make a partial atonement he made it an entire complete atonement so I think particular atonement or particular Redemption maybe is the better way to speak about that subject
How do we know Gottschalk taught double predestination?
here’s a statement from the pen of Gottschalk, “just as the unchangeable God prior to the creation of the world by this free grace unchangeably predicted all predestined all of his elect to eternal life so has this unchangeable God in the same way unchangeably predestined all of the rejected who shall be condemned to eternal death for their evil deeds on judgement day according to his justice as they deserve” I’ll read that again “just as the unchangeable God prior to the creation of the world by his free grace unchangeably predestined all of his elect to eternal life so has this unchangeable God in the same way unchangeably predestined all of the rejected who shall be condemned to eternal death for their evil deeds on Judgment Day according to his justice as they deserve”
What was a decisive step for semi-pelagianism and a decisive defeat for Augustiinian and Pauline teaching?
so here we have a very strict Pauline and Augustinian presentation his presentation provoked a very strong reaction and all over Catholic Europe there were complaints against him accusations of heresy were very common Hinkmar was Bishop of Rheims and he was so furious with Gottschalk that he ordered that he be arrested he was arrested put under house arrest first and then moved to a monastery where he had to live in the basement of the monastery in conditions similar to a dungeon he is forced to stay in that monastery for 20 years his condemnation worked a decisive step the decisive victory for semi-pelagianism and it’s a decisive defeat for Augustinian and Pauline teaching
Why is he known as Gottschalk of Orbais?
Gottschalk had a place in a monastery the first time when it was still a child probably about eight or ten years of age his parents put him in a monastery there, mainly they wanted him to get an education which the monks could and did provide for him in 829 Gottschalk complained that he could no longer remain comfortably in the monastic life so he asked to be released from monastic obligations and the church authorities agreed at first soon however when he became a controversial figure with his doctrine church authorities ordered that he be re-arrested and put in forced into the monastic living whether we liked it or not and he’s called Gottschalk of Orbais because it was in the monastery at Orbais that he was now confined and he was forced to live by monastic rules that he really did not personally alone
What did Gottschalk do in the monastery and what was it like for him there?
but while he was in a monastery he didn’t waste time he did a great deal of study and it seems that the other monks tormented him rather badly and toward the end of this confinement Gottschalk became insane these that is the appraisal of his problem and has come down to us from Orbais, the bishop accused him of heresy and they said oh the bishops verified the imprisonment of Gottschalk he would never however recant his beliefs no matter how badly he was abused
he was deposed from the priesthood his writings were seized and burned he was whipped mercilessly at times which was the Benedictine rule of punishment for disobedient monks his beliefs that God does not desire the salvation of the whole race and his doctrine of limited atonement or Augustinian principles which the Catholic Church has never formally denied not in the official capacity when that Church officially approves of the teaching of Gottschalk’s opponents it did so to uphold a largely sacramental view of salvation and the salvation the sacramental view included the concept of infused grace which I’ve explained to you already
What did Hinkmar say about predestination?
Hinkmar said that predestination is based upon God’s foreknowledge of human merit God knows the people who will earn his favor and deserve salvation and on the basis of that previous knowledge he has elected those people to salvation so that in salvation the choice is overwhelmingly that of the individual not of God so a man becomes his own Savior in the sense that he is the perfect freedom and perfect ability to accept or reject the grace of God
There were several synods of bishops who dealt with this dispute and there were conflicting decisions from time to time when you read the article you’ll see how the author has organized as very conveniently and very attractively as they you’ll you’ll find it I could go to help with that
Who was Paschasius Radbertus?
the next figure of a controversial nature in this era was Radbertus. Radbertus was a French Benedictine monk Paschasius Radbertus was his full name he was a monk but not a priest let’s see one could become a monk without becoming a priest in fact most folks have never been priests there are priests among the monks but the monks – lay monks as they are called are the vast majority it was the ninth century when Radbertus made his appearance in Aquitaine that one of the provinces of France he at first yeah he at first for a while received and served in the capacity as abbot of a monastery but he didn’t like that he resigned that office because he wanted to give his time to study in philosophy and theology and when he was still at liberty to do that he wrote a good deal
What book did Radbertus write? What was the view he held with particular tenacity?
one book he wrote was concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ concerning the- concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in that work Radbertus asserted what we call the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist now that was not a new idea there were people before Radbertus who held that view but he had held it with particular tenacity and acted as though subscription to that would be or should be required of every member of the church and so little by little what he called the doctrine of the real presence developed into the doctrine of transubstantiation
What is transubstantiation and when did it become a dogma?
transubstantiation means exactly what the word says trans sub trans substance to change the substance change the substance from bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in fact official Eucharistic documents refer to the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in the sacrament body blood soul and divinity in the sacrament of the Eucharist
they would not become a Dogma in the church however until 1215 at the fourth Lateran Council when Pope Innocent was on Peter’s throne then at that point the church declared it mandatory to believe in transubstantiation but at first what Radbertus maintained was something of a novelty and his vigor and maintaining it led to controversy and by the time he died the dispute had raged for quite some time and when he died people saw it was relief had thought this would be the end of this controversy it was not however others continued it and in the twelfth century history seems every be revived with great force
What other controversial belief did Radbertus promote?
Radbertus promoted another belief of controversial nature that is the perpetual virginity of Mary Mary’s perpetual virginity and very closely aligned to that was the teaching that not only did Mary maintained her virginity throughout her life and into eternity in fact she maintains it even right now she’s in heaven she’s been assumed into heaven by angels and as mandated about 1950 when Pius XII was the pope I’ve mentioned that in passing already
anyway allied with this belief in the real presence of Christ in the sacrament Radbertus promoted the idea of the perpetual virginity and and her freedom from original sin that Mary was freed from original sin she was a sinless mother of the sacred son Jesus Christ now that too was not accepted immediately but it did proceed to to acceptance again in the nineteenth century about 1854 as I recall the idea of Mary’s Immaculate Conception conceived in an immaculate way untouched by sin of any kind and for the whole of Mary’s earthly life she never entertained a sinful thought she lived absolutely pure godly Christian life
the problem with that for Roman Catholics is that Mary herself denied it no I mean what did Mary do? She called Jesus her Savior she called Jesus her Savior yeah that’s right she said my soul does magnify the Lord my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior now the only people who need a Savior are sinners and admitting her need of a savior wasn’t a fact in getting her sinful condition it’s a standing embarrassment to the Roman Church that looking back upon these controversies that particularly this one about Mary’s sinlessness the great Thomas Aquinas never accepted Immaculate Conception the single most influential Catholic theologian of all time Thomas Aquinas did not accept Immaculate Conception now at that time he didn’t get into in trouble because of that because they had not yet become a Dogma it would not become a dogma as I said until the 19th century at that point people who rejected her sinlessness or a trouble they had committed a very grave offense but Thomas could not be accused of that in his day because they had not yet become a dogma of the faith
What did Radbertus teach about atonement?
Radbertus they could say the atonement Radbertus said that the atonement for sin occurred once at Calvary but sin has continued since Calvary and so therefore there must be an ongoing atonement not just what Jesus did at Calvary but there must be ways to continue the atonement in post Calvary experience and he said that the place that that occurs is in the church when a priest celebrates the mass and the central feature of the mass is the consecration of bread and wine the priest takes the bread and wine prays over them lifts them up for adoration and braces them down again and this ceremony affects the real presence of Christ in the sacrament and this is a repetition of Calvary and since the mass is celebrated almost every day of the year there’s only one day the year it’s not celebrated and what that day is the reason why you should Good Friday on Good Friday there’s no best celebrated every other days it is in fact a priest has a responsibility to recite the Mass at least once a day if it’s all at all possible and that’s why you might go into a Catholic Church at some time and see not one altar but three the central altar would have a crucifix over it the other two altars will have statues one of the Virgin Mary and one of her husband’s st. Joseph’s and you might actually see this wouldn’t happen often three priests performing the Mass at the same time one two three because the priest had an obligation to do that at least once a day now that is an old practice I’m not sure that still occurs but it did for a very long time
and so the mass is the daily repetition of Calvary to atone for sins committed since Jesus died and atone for sin in his life and then Radbertus said that when we pray the Lord’s Prayer and say give us this day our daily bread we were there by praying for the Eucharist we’re not praying for ordinary bread to sustain our bodies or satisfy our hunger but we are praying for the Lord’s Supper which is sacrificed every day in the mass so here we have a problem where Radbertus denied the sufficiency of Jesus atonement and that is now official Roman Catholic doctrine the Roman Church denies the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement Christ did his work on the cross now that work must be continued and the priest continued it every day in mass fact they call it the Holy Sacrifice of the mass Holy Sacrifice of the mass so the mass is not just a sacrament but it’s a sacrifice comparable to what Jesus did
What made Radbertus’ doctrine official teaching in the Roman Church?
Radbertus composed commentaries and some of the books of the Bible for example the book of psalms and the gospel of matthew and the Book of Lamentations his work on the Eucharist aroused a great deal of concern and provoked attacks from other scholars but pope sylvester ii endorsed his doctrine and that made it official teaching in the roman church
Who opposed Radbertus? What was his view? Who has been associated with this view and what did he teach?
in opposition to Radbertus, an Augustinian monk named Ratramnus a monk from Aquitaine maintained that there is no change in the elements of the Eucharist but those with faith receive Christ but it is spiritual not a bodily matter this view would become known as consubstantiation eventually is that a lot of people attribute that to Martin Luther Luther would not have been pleased with that though with that attribution he never used the third God substantiation because he said that the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper cannot be explained in human terms he said it is a miracle beyond human comprehension he did only once that I know of try to illustrate this truth he said take a piece of iron and throw it in a roaring fire after a while it’ll get red-hot and that means the fire is in the iron and the iron is in the fire but the fire is still fire and the iron is still iron so his Luther’s summary was that when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper in faith Christ is really and truly present in with and under the bread and wine but the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine and he was insistentent upon that that’s where he and some of the other rich warbirds disagreed and the concept of the Eucharistic presence became a very divisive one the Protestant circles for some time after Luther made his discovery and Lutherans today when they celebrate the Lord’s Supper will often make a big issue that they believe in the real and bodily presence of Christ in with under the bread and wine because it’s not changed there’s no transubstantiation
question: Do modern Lutherans use the term consubstantiation? Modern Lutherans do sometimes use the term consubstantiation. Luther never did and strict Orthodox Lutherans never use it either they say we have to be satisfied to understand that this is a mystery if we can’t comprehend it but we believe in Jesus said we met what he said he said this is my body this is like my he didn’t say this represents my body or represents my blood and so for that reason were required to think about his worst believed that he is truly present in with it under the bread and wine but no change in the bread and wine for this reason the change in the bread and wine through transubstantiation at least questions the value of the atonement and these least reasons a student did what Jesus did is that remember adequate or must be repeated well it must not be repeated and no protestants surely accept transubstantiation but the Lutheran’s do have a work talked in the real presence tied to the body and blood of Christ they say here is present in this sacrament we don’t know but we believe it and we’ve received it that’s it whereas in reformed circles it’s usually the view that Christ is truly a present in the sacrament but has no change and the nature of his presence is spiritual rather than physical how about consecration? well the priests consecrate the bread and wine? No, they don’t really want to put it they don’t hold it up and bow down before the They are synced with the churches in Norway Sweden Denmark and Finland - and if you were attend services there you think you’re in a Catholic Church they go through a compromise all the same ceremony the Catholic’s do and their theology is dubious to say the best word well I would say about that yeah but that’s a sort of a peculiar segment of Lutheranism up there and they’re all state churches and state services are always sick that never happens okay
Did Augustine espouse transubstantiation?
you might want to note that back in the days of Augustine he rejected the idea of a bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament he regarded the sacrament as mainly a symbolic but popular piety in his day glide more and more to view the mass as an actual body actually producing the body of Christ to be received by the faithful
What was Radbertus’ treatise on transubstantiation?
in the ninth century the monk Radbertus wrote his treatise of the subject here it is “On the body and blood of the Lord” that’s the title “On the body and blood of the Lord” Radbertus said the priestly power of consecration accomplishes transformation a transubstantiation and that became came more and more popular as the influence of Augustine began to wane
What was Gottschalk’s intervention in the transubstantiation dispute?
From his imprisonment Gottschalk intervened in the dispute about the Eucharist by citing Augustine’s doctrine in which he denied that the Eucharistic bread is identical with the historical a historic body of Christ he rejected Radbertus’ claim that communion is a sacrifice of Christ Gottschalk affirmed the real presence but maintained its a mystery beyond definition which is exactly what Orthodox Lutheran’s do today
How did the Irish Celts contribute to the development of the Catholic priesthood?
and in addition to these issues I want to say something about the increasing role of the priesthood in Roman Catholic circles you know of course that the New Testament does not authorize the formation of a professional priesthood Jesus Christ is our great high priest and all of his believing followers constitute a priesthood of all believers and so a clergy laity distinction is really not that important in Protestant beliefs as it is in Roman Catholic
well one place where this shows the deviation of Catholicism is in the subject of penance now for the argument is that as the idea spread that Christ was really and truly present in the Eucharist as that idea spread the role of the priest went with it and spread far and wide and became more powerful than ever one way in which this is became evident was dealing with the forgiveness of sins in the ancient church when people sinned gravely and publicly they were often required to make a public confession before the whole congregation that of course was very embarrassing but it happened but in faraway Ireland Ireland remember was the edge of the world at the time nobody seemed to go beyond Ireland that was it never there all sorts of silly stories about monsters and falling off the edge of the world so forth anyhow in remote Ireland there was a type of Celtic Christianity established by monks and one of the developments that came from there and influenced the rest of his church radically was belief in priestly absolution from sin and this became known as a doctrine of penance the doctrine of penance as early as the sixth-century in the Irish churches it was a practice for individuals to confess their sins to a priest and ask him to act as a mediator with God and grant them absolution from their sins well when that happens the priests then dealt with sin privately where it would not be such an embarrassment as it was before the one that relieved the embarrassment it magnified the authority and influence of the priests and the priests assumed duties which were not rightly their own the priests would listen to the person recite his sins and prescribed a penalty or a penance to be exact now the penance was not always severe in fact today when the priest does that the person receiving for absolution accepts the duty usually to recite certain prayers the rosary beads for example are very popular yet in some places and the priests will order the person to recite the Rosary or a portion of the rosary or some other prayers as well sometimes the priest would require the confessing sinner to fast for a period of time or to give alms to the poor or to have abstain from sexual activity sexual pleasure after a period of time so this tooik the place of public penance which had been practiced in the early church
How did early church views on baptism contribute to the development of penance?
during the early church early the church fathers there are many disputes about the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism there was a popular belief that baptism cleansed all sin at that time not only original sin but all other sins committed prior to the baptism were washed away in the baptismal experience that was the idea there was a vigorous argument though about what happens after that what happens after a person has washed in baptism many sins again maybe you baptize the second time the answer was emphatically no baptism may be administrated once and once only well what’s going to happen people that who have sinned and they can’t have baptismal by cleansing well they go to the priest and recite the priest to the sins of the priest orally and ask him to forgive them please bless me Father for I have sinned it is 10 weeks since my last confession and then comes the list of offenses and the priest is satisfied he’ll make the sign of the Cross like this and say send absolution contingent upon completing the prescribed penance that is ordered
When did annual confession become obligatory?
well there was some resistance to the idea of private confession and there were efforts to abolish it but failed the Celtic practice eventually became the universal practice throughout the church and 1215 the fourth Lateran Council made annual confession obligatory every member of the church was obligated to go at least once a year and make a confession to a priest gradually this confession became the principal means of exercising church discipline it shows us the enhanced authority of the priesthood the priest could and did require penances that were more severe than just prayers or fasting sometimes they order the scourging of the body sometimes the payment of a very high fee and other times pilgrimage to a sacred shrine that was believed to be especially meritorious religious exercise to visit the shrine and these shrines were often many many miles away from the place where the person had confessed
Talk about the Camino de Santiago with regard to penance.
one of the most popular shrines and Medieval Europe was in Spain Santiago de Compostela Santiago de Compostela this according to legend at the end is the burial place of Saint James that raises another question which Saint James unfortunately there are seven and we don’t know for certain who’s buried in that tomb but there is a tomb there and the name of James is on it and so people choose to believe that’s the Apostle James who wrote the book of the Bible that bears his name he was there that far the half-brother of our Lord Jesus
and so sometimes people would be required to make this journey to Santiago in order to obtain order to make their confession valid and the absolution effective that could be very very arduous and experience dangerous and expensive because people had to walk usually the use of the commitment of the priests movements a walk sometimes to say walk barefoot all the way to Santiago and some people would say I can’t do that father please have mercy on me I can’t do that if I do that I’ll be glad from home maybe for years certainly for a months I have a business nobody will take care of it when I can pull off life my business is ruined and I’ve been impoverished isn’t there some other penalty you could get me and at that point the priest might intervene and say yes I’ll be merciful you gives this simulated sum of money to the church and you go you can avoid making the pilgrimage or you could pay somebody else to go in your place the series you see this year this is the high road to curb corruption copies ridiculous corruption massive corruption and by Luther’s day it was a scandal everybody knew about it and Luther then lashed out against it for the sale of indulgences but that’s a subject for another course you have to pay another fee it doesn’t all right any questions about sacerdotal absolution all in favor of it say aye. just as I suspected nobody can’t give it away let alone put it up for sale
When did universities begin to appear in Europe?
alright now next item the rise of scholasticism and please read documents five at the Bainton book when do you have a moment and we’re going to talk about an intellectual and academic movement which establishes control in the Universities which began to appear in Europe the 11th century and much more so in 12th and 13th centuries somewhere around 1100 something of a revival of interest in theological studies occurred this year of a new interest in relating theology and philosophy relating the queen of the sciences and the handmaiden of theology
What does scholasticism mean? What were the two kinds of schools which joined forces?
about the same time the monastic movement was flourishing perhaps as never before monasticism was a quest for personal subjective benefit of a spiritual nature whereas the Scholastic’s were more conservative objective understanding the theological interest became known as scholasticism which means literally the teaching of the schools teaching of the schools these schools are the monastic and cathedral schools some of which coalesce to join forces and became a nuclei universities
What method was employed to study philosophy and theology?
these schools were our congregations of thinkers what we could fit into a particular body of writing to study that or attach to some common method of study it was a very serious effort to break philosophy theology into combination and dialectics was the method employed dialectics is the art of proving something or disproving some through logical considerations
Scholasticism fused the theology of revelation and ancient philosophy into a….
this is an age which was not so much concerned about new truth but demonstrating the truth already revealed in scripture in the church fathers and in the general traditions of the Church at large scholasticism to quote one scholar fused the theology of revelation and ancient philosophy into a natural theology scholasticism fused the theology of Revelation and ancient philosophy into a natural and theology in the theological development is that featured a world view in which theology provided the only acceptable theology buttress by her handmaiden, philosophy scholasticism became the philosophical tradition underlying the curricula of the universities which remained in control there until the coming of the Protestant Reformation and the advent of humanism in Renaissance Italy and later in other parts of Europe
What became the essential occupation of scholasticism?
logic was the basic science and to say of Aristotle’s logic became the essential occupation and there were great efforts to show that Christian claims were entirely reasonable Aristotle was a pagan Martin Luther knew that, in fact he was fond of referring to Aristotle as that damned pagan like a little bit crude but he made his point I think he was right on both issues – both damned and pagan. Luther when he was in Universty of Erfurt where he got the BA and MA while he was there he was exposed to Aristotelian study and he found a lot of it to be quite shallow and trivial and misleading or so he thought
How was Greek philosophy employed by the scholastics?
Greek philosophy though could be useful to Christian thinkers that was the idea in the universities and particularly Greek philosophy could serve as an apologetic tool to defend the truth claims of Christianity against its critics there are numerous people we could study as examples of scholastic theologian philosophers and well we’re going to settle for dividing them into three periods
the first period is the rise of scholasticism which we’ve been discussing now and we’ll talk about Anselm of Canterbury Abelard Hugo of St. Victor and Peter the Lombard who we met a little bit anyhow already
Who is considered he father of scholasticism? What did he believe and do?
all right now first example of a early scholastic philosophy illusion is Anselm of Canterbury he became Archbishop of Canterbury about 1093 and he’s often cited as the father of scholasticism he held that faith should seek it understanding through rational philosophy and that philosophy could prove the existence of God Anselm’s arguments gained a lot of popularity he was very fond of philosophy yet he remained completely loyal to his church at all times he never denied any doctrinal affirmation of the medieval church but with Anselm while he believed in the great powers of human reason he held that human reason must always be in subjection to the authority of the church and her creeds
What was Anselm’s one serious error? Explain it. Why was this such a problem?
Anselm had one serious error which is is was it still is a common error that is a failure to appreciate the noetic effects of sin I hope you don’t get tired hearing me talk about the noetic effects of sin it’s an issue that is so important because it explains so many problems in the thinking of so many people the noetic effects of the sin upon the human mind sin is all pervasive every aspect of the human personality is polluted by sin and that includes the mind so there are no such thing is completely objective open minds on the contrary minds are infected by sin and therefore disposed against God and against his truth
Anselm failed to recognize that he assumed that reasonable people could understand the claims of Christianity if those claims were presented to them in a logical coherent manner so he seemed to think that he could argue people into the kingdom of God long experience in theological disputes led him eventually to change that view it tried for many years to win converts by arguing people into the faith but his results were quite disappointing
Who did Anselm’s arguments not have to deal with?
he did publish his idea that he had found proofs that would prove the claims of Christianity but he and he did not have to deal as modern people would with atheism so atheism then was almost unheard of almost nobody affirmed atheism if people did they kept the denial to themselves it was not certainly not a popular belief I don’t know even today in our secular society atheists are probably a very tiny minority although there we have a lot of practical atheists who just indifferently ignore the claims of God
Anselm built his apologetic upon the almost universal theism present in his day and he argued that the attributes of God are completely reasonable to believe the appearance of his work encouraged of course others to undertake the same studies
What is Anselm’s most famous work?
Anselm wrote a book on the atonement - and this is most famous work cordeus homo? And do you know what the translation is of his Cordus homo? Yeah, “Why did God become man?” right why did God become man he was Archbishop of Canterbury at the time he wrote that book it was a time when some Jews were denying the incarnation which Jew Jews have been doing for a long time but they become quite bold in their attacks upon the incarnation and Anselm responded with a vigorous defense
What book did Anselm write in reaction to the Filioque Controversy?
In reactions to the Filioque controversy was a Greek Church and some wrote a book entitled the procession of the holy spirit and which he defended the action of a Latin Church in altering the language of the Creed
How did Anselm argue for the existence of God and the nature of God?
Anselm published works to prove the existence of God even the nature of God he tried to verify God’s existence even without appeal to scripture he thought that there are some people who don’t believe the Bible and he thought the Jews were among them at least they don’t believe the New Testament and he therefore thought he could argue with them on another basis and prove that they were wrong he didn’t win many converts though
both of his works that day before they wrote about the nature of God and the existence of God both of these works are in the form of prayers to God asking questions and considering possible Anselm employed logic to strengthen his faith in divine revelation he attempted to place the doctrine of the Trinity within the realm of natural theology but he was not successful anyhow
What is the proper way to read Augustine?
Anselm wrote about the freedom of the will also and he used the work of Saint Augustine as his model Augustine in his early days wrote in defense of free will it’s a time when he was trying to deal with the Manicchean heresy The Manicchean heresy did deny the freedom of the will and the young Ausgustine took them on do his job of answering to that Manichees tried to prove them wrong later after several years of study and experience he came to believe that the doctrine of original sin included the paralysis of the human will and so Augustine true doctor of grace then acted accordingly
incidentally if you read Augustine in a sense you have to understand him well it’s necessary almost to read him backwards I don’t mean that literally of course but at any particular time you’re working with Augustine and you have a document in front of it find out when he wrote that and her and then see what he wrote before that what do you wrote after that because the later Agustin in some ways contradicted the early Augustine and so he want to know the real Augustine you have to take that into consideration
I heard someone saying that in the medieval age everybody wanted to be Augustinian but nobody was entirely Augustine in his theology. Would you say that’s a fair statement? well maybe so in the sense that Augustine enjoyed immense prestige he was a single most intellectual of all the church fathers and I think looked at from our point of view the best of the bunch and so it was a fashionable thing for scholars to identify with Augustine some way or another and if they could find evidence that Augustine was in support of their own arguments so much the better it made them look convincing but there was always a dangerous that their misuse Augustine too and if they did not look at his work chronologically they could be miss misleading people and even themselves so the late Augustine is the the real Augustine
speculation is quite conspicuous in the writings of Anselm. For example…
now he says for example God designed redemption of human beings so that human beings could go to heaven and fill the empty spaces left with rebellious angels were poured out of evidence splendid idea for which there’s absolutely no evidence but he was given to speculation it’s like that at times
Anselm held to which two beliefs along with his contemporaries?
purgatory and prayers for the dead
What was Anselm’s method?
a little bit more about Anselm then we’ll move on to Abelard okay Anselm’s method usually was to cite the presuppositions of so-called heretics and then to refute their contentions logically he didn’t always use Scripture in fact he sometimes deliberately did not use scripture to impress people with the illogicality of their own arguments he thought he could win arguments that win converts to the faith - by exposing their their errors and calling for them to recognize them he’s tried to show why only fools deny the claims of God and he did so by means of logical argument Anselm employed the rational method to shows that the Eastern Orthodox churches erred in rejecting the procession of the Son through the filioque controversy
he wanted to clarify all Christian doctrines by showing their logical character and doing that through a series of arguments which he called proofs and he said the proving he approves the existence of God and this is the is that this is necessary as a precondition for all consistent thought so the reality of God’s being can not be rejected without at the same time renouncing all rational arguments
What was Anselm’s background?
Anselm was Italian by birth but he spent a good deal of his career in France prior to becoming Archbishop of Canterbury he for a while it was abbot of the monastery at Bec in France his scholarship brought fame to Bec and about 180 monks bucks joined that monastery while he was the abbot and 860 became Archbishop of Canterbury in those days installing Frenchmen for example in English Church positions was not unusual
What did 1066 have to do with Anselm coming to England?
1066 was a crucial year in English history what happened at Europe not only William the Concord Norman conquests that’s right Wiliam the Duke of Normady led to conquest of England and made himself King and so thereafter he brought lots of Frenchmen into English politics and church life and so French bishops replaced English Bishop in some cases and French abbots replaced English abbots the installation then of French leaders in England was a fairly common practice after the Norman Conquest
How did Anselm defend his arguments which were not based in scripture?
now remember Anselm never denied any Catholic teaching his defense though of dogma was often rationalistic he sometimes composed entire theological treatises without citing a single verse of scripture he always insisted though he was able to compose rational arguments in defense of Christianity because of his prior faith in the God of Christianity he accepted scripture as true in every regard he claimed that all of his speculations were harmonious with biblical teaching his critics did not agree with that
What is remarkable about Anselm’s book Cordeus homo?
Anselm is a very remarkable figure in one way though his book Cordeus homo Why the god man or Why did God become man? this set forth what we now call the penal substitutionary view of the atonement now this is not to say that nobody believed that prior to Anselm people did but he was the first one to put it in a coherent logical and in this case Biblical pattern he set forth the beliefs that human beings are all sinners and sin is true moral guilt before God God is infinite in his greatness so sin against God is a crime of infinite territory it is clear that human beings cannot provide the infinite satisfaction or atonement which is needed however man has sinned and so man must make the payment and this is where God came to the rescue of humanity by sending his son into down to earth as a human being among human beings and to make satisfaction by the sacrifice of his sinless self only man can offer the adequate satisfaction and the only man who is capable of doing that is the God man Jesus Christ our Lord
How did Abelard get on the bad side of Bernard of Clairvaux?
Now that brings us to Abelard a very controversial figure who was accused of heresy several times and among his accusers was the famous monastic figure Bernard of Clairvaux. Abelard came from the french nobility and he joined the abbey of son denis or st. denis but his publication of a book on the trinity led to the charge of heresy he wrote a book entitled “Concerning divine unity and trinity” and this is the one that got him in trouble he was quite rationalistic and that aroused the opposition of Bernard Bernard remember was quite the mystic in some ways and saw it Abelard the rationalist the principle of evil itself the synod of bishops at 1114 issued a condemnation of some of Abelard’s teachings and did that in response to an appeal from Bernard of Clairvaux
What did Bernard once say to Abelard? What was the difference between Abelard and Anselm? What was Abelard’s dialectical treatise?
Bernard once said this to Abelard “by making plato a Christian you merely show that you yourself are a pagan” actually Abelard was not a total rationalist he did accept the authority of the Bible and he tried to use philosophy as an instrument for the defense of theology he believed that reason could not contradict revelation however where Anselm said I believe that I may understand Abelard said I understand that I may believe he wrote a dialectical treatise entitled in Latins sic et non “sic et non” yes and no and there he lists his statements some of them statements from the Bible some from other sources long list of statements theological in character and then on one side of the list he cited authorities affirming the statement on another side of the list authorities rejecting the statements he he did questions the writings of some of the Church Fathers and the decrees of church councils his influence was so great that one of his disciples became Pope Alexander iii in 1159
How did Abelard get into trouble?
Abelard had gotten into trouble too when he was teaching at in Paris one of his pupils was a young lady named Heloise he fell in love with her and she with him and she became pregnant out of wedlock he was not a priest so he was eligible to marry but her relatives became so furious with him that they kidnapped him and castrated him yeah they were very very angry with him for what he had done he he remains a controversial figure even today and the church has never withdrawn the judgment of heresy against him
Who was Hugo of St. Victor? What treatise did he write? Why did Bernard trust him?
another early scholastic was Hugo of st. Victor st. Victor is a monastery there was a monastery in Paris so he was Hugo from the monastery of st. Victor st. the monastery there at st. Victor’s operated a school and Hugo was one of the teachers in that school and while he was in that position he wrote a treatise entitled the sacraments of the Christian faith sacraments of the Christian faith this was a scholastic treatise an effort of producing a general dogmatic theology textbook
in terms of doctrine Hugo is rather Augustinian but by personality he was quite mystical and that won for him the friendship of Bernard Bernard didn’t trust Abelard because of Abelard’s rationalism but he did trust Hugo and his fellow mystic
To Hugo, the highest knowledge of God comes through…
not through scholarship but through a mystical union or vision of God he did not object to dialectical studies but he was not inclined to favor them for himself
What can we learn from Abelard’s autobiography? Why did he become a monk? What did he think about Greek philosophers?
Abelard wrote an autobiography and in there he gave a lot of information about his life he was ambitious for wealth and fame and when he worked at the school in Paris he taught dialectics grammar and logic his affair with Heloise though really ruined his reputation ruined his love life too you could be sure
Abelard then became a monk as he could no longer function as a man so he might as well join the monastery for consolation his writing inspired the charge of heresy from Bernard and they are supported accusations eventually innocent ii cadet Mandalore’s doctor silent pursue without mark as a theologian Abelard cited the Greek philosophers in support of his Christian doctrine they maintained that some of them had exceptional perception about the Godhead some of the pagans Renekton Socrates may have arrived at an understanding some understanding of the Trinity he thought but having he’s verifying that he had no conception of the Noetic effects of sin he hailed the Greeks as harbingers of Christianity Plato in particular Abelard thought he perceived as writing the nature of God himself they thought the Plato’s world soul in Plato’s writing he often refer to a world soul and this refers to the Holy Spirit said Abelard, but a council with the church condemned that teaching as well
Hugo’s work, which was pleasing to Bernard, illustrates that…
to come a combination of mystical temperament and scholarly interest was fairly common among medieval theologians we often think of scholarship as perhaps excluding mysticism or emotion in religion that’s not the case though get to Thomas Aquinas for example- argued that he learned more from meditating in front of a crucifix then he did from reading the learned books of scholars and apparently he meant that he was known to do that quite often
Hugo was involved in controversies that focused on ____________ he believed that the arts and philosophy should serve ___________ and numerous manuscripts of his writings have survived and they show that _________
explaining traditional Catholic beliefs
theology
his influence was great across Europe at large
What is probably Hugo’s greatest work? What did he express in it? What doctrine did he also affirm?
Hugo wrote a book entitled sacraments of the Christian faith which is probably his greatest work in it he expressed ideas about doctrine and about mystical practice as well due to Hugo’s influence a whole movement developed around the convent of the monastery of st. Victor a Victorian movement as it was called became famous for producing philosophers and mystics as teachers stressed personal piety along with academic learning
Hugo affirmed transubstantiation many treatises about the Eucharist appeared in this era most of them endorsing transubstantiation
Hugo loved _____ and ____ and blended that with _____
Hugo was quite adept at using the scholarship of st. Augustine he loved Augustine very much he loved Scripture as well and he blended that with his mystical personal habits and piety and scholarship seem to go hand in hand as far as Hugo was concerned
How did Hugo of St. Victor view faith and reason? Where did he place philosophy?
he held that faith supports reason and reason is perfected by faith faith supports reason and reason is perfected by faith as a skillful philosopher and theologian Hugo wrote commentaries and several books of the Bible and he synthesized the writings of several different church fathers from antiquity his application of philosophy to theology occurred in connection with his work to correct the errors of Abelard he placed philosophy above the liberal arts but below theology and that was pretty much the pattern that emerged in the universities as far as education was concerned that philosophy stood below theology but above the liberal arts and the Master of Arts degree was heavily philosophical no matter what other study person might be preparing undertake and in the Master of Arts is heavily philosophical
What did some people begin to call Hugo of St. Victor and why? Under his leadership the school…
his fondness for Augustine led him that some people to call him and alter-augustinist alter - another Augustine under his leadership the school at st. Victor became or the leading scholastic and mystical institutions in Europe at the time
Who was Peter the Lombard and how did he become very influential?
and now we come to Peter the Lombard the last figure we’ll work with today Peter the Lombard Italian of course it came from Lombardi in Italy Peter taught at the Cathedral School of Notre Dame and later became Bishop of Paris his importance for medieval theology is reflected in his wide use of a working entitled “sentences of theology” and unfortunately in the Middle Ages the people were not hesitant to put exactly the same title on their books even though one book may be completely different from another so this is the work entitled sentences of theology by Peter Lombard but there are sentences theology by other scholars as well so it must have been rather confusing but keep in mind the number of books available was tiny compared to now really tiny he he then presented his book as a text for the teaching of dogmatics and it worked very well for him and he became world famous as probably the single most influential systematic theologian in Christendom at the time
How did Peter the Lombard become educated?
he came from a poor family but he gained support from bernard of clairvaux and that enabled him to obtain a higher education he went to three universities Bologna Rheims Paris Bologna Reims and Paris earlier theologians had established their teachings on Scripture and the Church Fathers but by the 11th century dialectics have become so popular in academic circles that especially due to Abelard’s influence and the Peter Lombard studied Abelard’s work and endorsed Abelard’s method but did not endorse his heretical ideas
What did Peter the Lombard say about the Trinity? Describe some problematic Trinity illustrations.
Peter became a professor at Notre Dame when he wrote the sentences of theology the first book of the sentences presents an argument for the existence of God it of course affirms the Trinity but it denies that any illustrations or analogies could be helpful in understanding the Trinity I think he had a point there I really do you’ve probably heard of efforts to illustrate the Trinity they all sound nice at first, but a little examination shows that quite unsatisfactory for example the Trinity is like this h2o h2o is can be water as liquid it can be gas oxygen and hydrogen and it can be solid as ice but it’s all the same H2O what’s that what does that really illustrate modalism modalism exactly right yeah and then the classic one and this maybe it’s hardly legendary but it’s a charming idea [Music] the idea goes back to st. Patrick actually did two things for which he’s always remembered chasing all the snakes out of Ireland and converting the pagans by convincing them that the Trinity was intelligible and he said look here’s the Shamrock just pick it off the ground it has only one stem but three leaves Father Son Holy Spirit and so the conclusion has to be the father is a third god the son is the third God the Holy Spirit is a third god a third third third that God doesn’t divide themselves that way folks that’s not going to work and almost all the so-called ways of explaining the Trinity in the end fail and they really support modalism not that biblical trinitarianism at all
What took the pressure off any criticism of Peter the Lombard? Who did he owe his greatest debt to? What argument does he present in the first book?
well lombard said that he has his heaviest debt to st. Augustine whom he dearly loved and on whom he depended really heavily the first book of his sentences presents this argument for the existence of God it affirms the Trinity and but says there’s no way we can validly Illustrated divine revelation is the basis for believing in the trinity and complaints against Peters doctrine of God occurred at the Lateran Council in 1215 however and that point the Pope intervened Pope Innocent 3rd intervened at the council and he ratified the soundness of Lombard’s teaching that then took the pressure off Peter he was no longer being subject to occasional charges of heresy and his position became accepted throughout the Catholic Church by the time Martin Luther got to study theology at Erfurt and he was already reading Lombard extensively
What does Book 2 of Peter the Lombard’s Sentences deal with? What was Peter the Lombard’s view of free will?
but two of the sentences deals with the creation of of the world and particularly creation of angels it affirms free will in the sense that humans have the power to choose without coercion although their adamic nature is sinful I don’t have a problem with that do you I don’t have anything to object to there maybe if you realized that human beings do exercise the right to the power of choice they do it wrongly they choose against God instead of for him but nevertheless they’re not being coerced to sin God never coerces anybody to sin when people sin it’s because they desire to sin they’re doing what they want to do and so who could be more free than a person does what he wants to do
What view of Abelard’s did Peter the Lombard reject?
Peter rejected Abelard’s view which was one of assumed human goodness Lombard insisted on the priority of grace and salvation he said grace sets the will truly free to desire God and to perform works good works earn merit but salvation is by grace alone so there’s an Augustinian element quite apparent there in the writing of Peter the Lombard that grace enables people to perform good works which are meritorious but salvation is not a reward for merit but a product of grace alone
What was Book 3 of Lombard’s sentences? Describe it.
Book three covers Christology and is quite traditional nothing really exciting here even the language he used for Christology very much reflects traditional categories but it limits the effect of Christ’s atonement through the eternal punishment and maintains that temporal punishments remain and this is a problem he said that that what the Christ did and his atonement has saved his people from eternal damnation however temporal punishments on earth they remain and baptism and penance remit those penalties so he had a sacramental or sacramentarian view of it after all baptism and penance remit the earthly and temporal penalties which were consequences of human sin
What was Book 4 of Lombard’s sentences? Describe it.
book 4 explains the sacraments he follows Hugo of St. Victor rather closely Lombard appears to have been the first theologian to specify the number of sacraments as seven prior to this there is no uniformity at all to read St. Augustine he was not at all sure how to define a sacrament so he used the term rather loosely and as a consequence there’s no certainty about the number of sacraments but Lombard argued vigorously pursue the seven with are endorsed by the Catholic Church today he cited heavily from Scripture and the writings of Church Fathers especially the Augstine Ambrose and Jerome you know a lot about Augustine Ambrose was the Bishop of Milan who in the Providence of God became the instrument of augustine’s conversion and he was a known to be an outstanding preacher and then there was Jerome Jerome was a single greatest linguist among the Church Fathers he produced the help to produce and directed the production of the Vulgate Bible vulgate meaning common language Latins of course as a time so somewhere about the year AD 400 the Latin Bible and Jerome version appeared and became accepted broadly from that point forward in fact it wasn’t many years ago that Roman Catholic scholars of America began translating from Hebrew and Greek instead of Latin they they finally realized their error the Protestants were way ahead of them in life but they finally got wise and they’ve done it themselves
and so the work that Lombard accomplished was in general a compilation of traditional teachings arranged in systematic summaries with analysis here and there with controversies that were current in his own day
How were Western European scholars put in contact with Aristotle by the 13th century?
now we come to another stage of development and this development reached a pinnacle in the 13th century by the 13th century western european scholars were beginning to have access to the writings of greek philosophers and preeminent among them was aristotle the knowledge of aristotle became available mostly through arabic translators and Arabic commentators in the extreme south of italy and the island of sicily there were little colonies of arab and even jewish scholars patronized by that very interesting character holy roman emperor holy roman emperor Frederick ii and one of the spanish archbishops who had a lot of interest in that subject were there encouraging the arabs and the jews and most of the arabs to translate the greek of aristotle into latin and once it was available in latin then scholars all across europe would have access to it because latin was still the international language of higher learning
What was the papal reaction to Aristotle?
now at first when this movement began the papacy was somewhat worried fearing that the broadening of aristotelian studies might lead to false teaching to heresy who knows what because after all aristotle was a pagan and is there anything pagans can teach christians that christians ought to know oh perish the thought that should not happen that’s the attitude that we have the truth and we don’t have to listen to aristotle he’s a pagan
that attitude continued into today’s early days of the protestant reformation when martin luther was fond of referring to aristotle as and I quote that damned pagan well you think about it he wasn’t off the mark he was both damned and pagan so of that much we could be sure but anyhow aristotle’s logic in particular became a fascination employed by scholars in this era the church attitude of disapproval led even to the threat of excommunication and certainly the papacy issued a directive forbidding the reading of aristotle well if you ever know somebody you really like and you like his book to be published and sold far and wide just start the rumor it’s a very evil book and no good person order anyone touch it because if you do that and people think you’re serious they’ll buy the book and read it avidly and so that’s what happened scholars became truly curious when the pope was banning the book the book and they began reading it and other things that aristotle had written
What was the response to Aristotle at the University of Paris?
and by 1255 the study of aristotle’s works was becoming required reading at the university of paris that was a premier university in the latin christian world at the time so aristotle there was being acclaimed as a fountainhead of truth whose philosophy helped to prepare for the coming of christianity some people referred to aristotle as a philosophical john the baptist as john was the forerunner of christ and directed men to christ so aristotle was a pagan used by the grace of God to spread prepare the way for the coming of christianity
Dominicans and Franciscans led the way in theological study and sought to fuse what three things?
the advent of aristotelian studies brought a great revival of philosophical activities to which the finest minds in latin Christendom devoted themselves by this time there were two new orders of monks that had come on the scene and we’ll give them their due a bit later in the course but those two were the franciscans and the dominicans both of which are still in operation today in ohio there’s a franciscan university and dominicans operate a number of catholic colleges in various parts of our country
well the dominicans and franciscans led the way in theological study though they desired and through that they desired to fuse augustinian theology, canon law, and aristotelian logic to fuse augustinian theology canon law and aristotelian philosophy so that no longer would scholars have to depend almost entirely upon the work of peter the lombard remember peter had written that work entitled entitled sentences of theology sentences of theology and many other scholars wrote commentaries on peter’s work and that was the epitome of you might say the zenith of scholastic achievement so far but now that aristotle was readable in latin that was no longer the case people could go directly to aristotle and see what he had to offer and they did
The study of Aristotle produced a new method of study which produced the writings called ______ What did they do?
so a new method of study appeared which produced the writings which were called sumae s-u-m-m-a-e-summa would be the singular you can see the word summary or our english word summary and survive from that and so summary’s then used the method of study developed as a scholastic method and they made extensive examinations of aristotle to see where his work could be useful in the explication and or defense of catholic christianity
Who was the first to make use of Aristotle’s works as they were known earlier among the Arabs?
the franciscans produced a very notable scholar whose name was Alexander of Hales 13th century theologian he was the first to make full use of aristotle’s works as they were known earlier among the arabs and arab commentators written on them
he was the name of himself Alexander of Hales he was an arab israel he’s not an arab himself no okay but he learned arabic and he was able to communicate with the arab scholars he was also known as a great advocate of scholastic piety which meant deep personal piety instead of just cold formal academic piety
Who were the two important scholars whose work provided something of a hinge away from earlier and similar theology and doing more advanced and academic theology?
another one who fits that description was bonaventure so Alexander of Hales and bonaventure were two of the important scholars whose work provided something of a hinge away from earlier and similar theology and doing more advanced and academic theology
Tell about Alexander of Hales.
a little bit about each of these men alexander of Hales a franciscan received the the master of art from the university of paris and five years later received the master of theology at paris he was the first one to lecture on the sentences of peter lombard at paris the interpreted aristotle enacts in augustinian ways and he employed the logic of aristotle in his form of teaching he affirmed the authority of the bible in principle but he emphasized a philosophical approach to the study alexander became famous as the originator of a doctrine which was going to become a permanent fixture in the catholic church it’s the doctrine of purgatory
purgatory is hell but hell on a temporary basis not an eternal one so purgatory place of purging the souls of lost people don’t go if if they’re extremely evil they go directly to hell if they’re not extremely evil and they’re in the good graces of the church they will eventually be forgiven after a time in purgatory to atone for their sins so it’s a very very serious deviation from biblical doctrine it undermines faith in the sufficiency of jesus work on the cross
alexander wrote commentaries on peter the lombard he wrote commentary on the apocalypse of the bible and he wrote a summary of all theology at least we think he did he’s the most likely candidate summary of all theology two popes in a row they are innocent fourth and alexander fourth required all schools of theology to use the summary which which alexander had compiled
What was Bonaventure’s book? talk about it.
Bonaventure was a student of alexander at paris another franciscan who defended his order in the monastic order against critics Bonaventure eventually became a bishop and a cardinal he and other franciscans placed piety before scholarship and by the veteran wrote a book entitled itinerary of the soul to god itinerary to the of the soul to god which is a work by a great scholar but he intended it for less academic people so that everyone could feed his soul on the word of god as understood at the time he rejoined his philosophy as a religious activity leading to god and he held that all creation reflects god’s reality and the human soul is the place to find god all knowledge of god is partial but god is present within believers although creatures are always separate from god keep that in mind because in this period of history even in the religious circles of the church influences or infiltrations of pantheism began to make themselves known you saw some of that Abelard earlier study last week and so the scholars who were loyal to the church and supposedly orthodox and doctrine had to be on their guard whenever the elements of pantheism made themselves felt
On what fundamental point did Bonaventure sharply disagree with Aristotle?
bonaventure sharply disagreed with aristotle about one very fundamental point that fundamental pointer issue was the eternity of the world that there never was an actual creation but the world itself is eternal now from there you could you can deduce a clear element of pantheism the world is eternal so that really if you take it to its logical conclusion the world is the only revelation anybody will ever have in fact we might draw a circle and in the middle of a circle write it that’s it that’s it don’t talk about outside the circle there is no outside everything that is is in this system we call the universe and that’s the way it always has been always will be well that’s a pagan philosophy aristotle believes that and so some of his disciples were even more rigorous than he about it bonaventure had to deny that and he held that life in heaven will bring a union of the soul with god for those who desire to love god
What roles did Bonaventure take on? hat did he believe about scripture and tradition?
bonaventure gradually eclipsed alexander as the preeminent franciscan theologian Bonaventure eventually became minister general of the franciscan movement that means he was the director he was the head of the of the order as a scholar he led the defense of his brothers against their critics at paris and it defended the the authority of scripture and tradition but bonaventure said that scripture and christian tradition are co-equal sources of authority scripture and tradition side by side
Did Bonaventure acknowledge the noetic effects of sin?
he has some perception but a rather dim one some perception of the noetic effects of sin for example he taught that reason sometimes fails to see the existence of God and and as truth and thereby they is necessary to deal with those people who hold that view by presenting them with irrefutable arguments to prove the existence of god and he seemed confident that he had achieved that very thing
What did Bonaventure believe about the immaculate conception?
to the embarrassment of the catholic church Bonavenure denied the immaculate conception of the virgin mary now what is that immaculate conception the simplest birth of mary what about the sinless birth of mary that mary had no sin yeah sinlessness of mary it started by saying that mary was not soiled by original sin the catholic church has always taught the transmission of adam’s offense to adam’s posterity right down to the present moment in history but the catholic church does not teach what we today call total depravity or total inability
bonaventure denied that mary was sinless in fact it was easy to show she’s not because mary herself admitted it do you recall when mary went to visit her cousin elizabeth and both women were pregnant at the same time and what did mary say my soul does magnify the lord and she refers to the lord as her savior yeah she said behold i was born in sin like david said in psalm 51 and born in sin in my in more concepts deceiving sin and my mother bore me and so uh we have biblical evidence from david in the old testament and marry herself in the new testament so mary cried out to god her savior my spirit my spirit has rejoiced in god my savior now if mary needed a savior as she admitted she did then mary was not sinless the only beings who needed a savior are sinners and mary was not excluded from that assembly of of people everyone else has been soiled by sin
Who was Albertus Magnus?
albertus magnus means albert the great he didn’t call himself that others called him that he was a bavarian german who went to italy and graduated from the university of padua and he established a reputation for being an outstanding student especially in the liberal arts he was not a franciscan though he joined the order of preachers the dominican friars and he earned his phd later at paris and taught in several monasteries as a skillful interpreter of theology in 20 in 1260 he became Regensburg the french call it Regensburg because they don’t speak well but i got some war but if you signed you resigned that position after only two years and returned to state teaching at cologne oh that’s french cologne the germans know better they say comb go k-o-l-n
When was Albertus Magnus canonized?
when the critics attacked the works of aquinas albertus defended him against the charge that he was relying too much on pagan philosophers the catholic church canonized albert as a saint in the year 1931. pity albert wasn’t around to enjoy it but he’d been going a long time canonization creates a special category of saintly people who bear the title of saint and it’s awarded almost always after extensive examination and the attribution of miracles to the person being being canonized [Music] it doesn’t happen often anymore it happened in the middle ages so the middle ages were better well possible probability of being declared a saint was much better than than now
Name Albertus Magnus’ many accomplishments and proficiencies.
albertus wrote a commentary on peter the lombard but then he wrote his own summary of theology commentaries on the psalms and the prophets commentaries on the gospels and in addition to all of that he was a very skillful scientist now i mean that in a complimentary way he was a pioneer in what we now call observational science not just logical deductions drawn from phenomenon but actual observations that confirm or deny the theorems being promoted at the time he was especially gifted as a botanist probably was the greatest botanist in the world at the time in philosophy he made extensive use of aristotle but with a very critical attitude he attacked the arab rationalists and he attacked the advocates of pantheism who were making trouble for the church
in 1270 albert recruited troops for the eighth crusade we’ll get to the crusades toward the end of the course and he went about as a preacher recruiting soldiers to march to the east to fight against the turks it was a miserable failure in the end albertus with thomas aquinas would be considered among the highest and most beloved most respected scholars of the mature scholasticism
albert was a professor at cullen or cologne as i said and he had very broad philosophical and theological interests as well as botany astronomy and other sciences he was thoroughly conversant with the arabic language and he could use them as well as the greek text of aristotle he worked energetically to adopt aristotelian philosophy for the use of the church he wanted to harmonize theology and philosophy and his importance was that he led laid a foundation on which his famous people thomas aquinas would build so he made quite an Albert made a quite a name for himself at the time but in the long run he was completely overshadowed by his more famous pupil
Describe the relationship between Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas.
now i’ve been in higher education now 55 years college seminary 55 years and i have had the experience where several of my students have far excelled me in terms of scholarship and teaching i’m jealous as you know what no i’m not i’m delighted i’m delighted that’s the uh mark of success a successful teacher produces students who can outdo their teacher and that’s what thomas did and so albert was not the least bit distressed by that he was he he considered that mark of his success in his profession and he was glad to see thomas take front and center which thomas did well thomas was always very respectful toward albert and their lives were co-extensive almost albert died in 1280 thomas dried in 1274.
Who was Thomas Aquinas?
let’s look at thomas thomas was an italian aristocrat who against the wishes of his family became an a dominican friar the dominicans had earned a reputation for fine scholarship and they were very influential in church affairs and sir thomas was drawn toward them because he’s impressed with their learning and with their devotion to duty and their piety
thomas studied under albert at paris then at naples and then finally at rome aquinas surpassed his teacher in bringing the new aristotelian concepts and the christian tradition together in one organic union to say that thomas was a genius would be almost to make an understatement i don’t know what higher dignity to award him wrote commentaries on aristotle there were many books of the bible he wrote two of the most influential catholic theological works of all time one is in latin is the summa cultura gentiles that means summary against the gentiles gentiles in this case would be the unbelievers and then the second work morphem is still summa theologicae summary of theology that is his most famous and influential treatise
When was Aquinas canonized as a saint? What further distinction did he receive?
in 1323 the aquinas was canonized as a saint see much earlier than Albertus and in 1880 the papacy declared thomas aquinas as the patron saint of all catholic schools all catholic schools once when somebody asked thomas for what he thanked god most he replied here is his own words i have understood every page i ever read boy i wish i could make that bonus of course he didn’t have to grade examinations like i do i feel it’s safe to say no one reads them like you do way either right like the people in england say over there you americans drive on the right side of the word road we drive on the correct side now
What was Thomas Aquinas’ nickname and why?
in addition to that because he was a rather quiet and retiring personality aquinas earned the nickname the dumb ox of sicily his family lived on sicily and had extensive lands and a castle there and so he was called the dumb ox of docks of sicily when albert learned that listen to what albert said as a rebuttal you call him a dumb ox i tell you the dumb ox will bellow so loud his bellowing will fill the whole world and there was no exaggeration he was correct
Describe the family of Thomas Aquinas. What did they want him to do? Why did he refuse? What did they do? Why did he flee?
thomas’s family was part of the feudal nobility in south italy his father was a count count landdolph and as his father wanted to place him in a monastery but not a dominican house the older and larger and more traditional monastic movement was the order of saint benedict benedictines as we’d say and the benedictines had a very large and influential establishment in italy on mount casino monte casino and so that’s where thomas wanted to go his family actually tried to prevent him from going in fact tried to prevent him by force at one point his brothers locked him in a room and wouldn’t let him out they slid slid food under the door to him but they wouldn’t let him out and they they weren’t getting anywhere with him he wouldn’t agree to become a Benedictine she’s invented neckties old and well established owned a lot of land very valuable land and this family of thomas was involved in a sort of career ecclesiastical corruption involving the sale of church lands to wealthy aristocrats who could afford them and that would enrich the church financially but the benedictines had taken a vow of poverty when they joined the movement so they were contradicting their own vow by seeking riches and thomas was aware of that and he wanted none of it whereas the franciscans and dominicans were serious about the vow of poverty they too eventually succumbed to the temptation of wealth but for during thomas’s life they were an example of strict adherence to the vowel of poverty
once when his brothers were losing patience with him entirely they hired a harlot a prostitute and they pushed her into the room where thomas was locked locked the door behind her and told her to seduce him she tried thomas walked over to the fireplace picked up a burning log wave under her nose and said don’t you touch me or i’ll set you on fire now you talk about dealing with temptation that’s effective really works so if you’re ever tempted to lust go find a burning lock somewhere take the log out of here
thomas had to flee from them they finally gave up their persistence he let him have his way and despite the disapproval of his relatives he did become a dominican friar order of saint albany
What two kinds of knowledge did Aquinas distinguish between? What did he say about them?
aquinas wanted to refine the works of others particularly aristotle aristotle has some pantheistic elements as i’ve noted to for you and thomas recognized that and he wanted to purge them from the works of aristotle and then too he dealt with some of the commentators the arab commentators of aristotle and he found unwholesome ideas there which he exposed he held that knowledge is of two kinds natural and supernatural natural knowledge is the realm of reason while supernatural is the realm of revelation so natural knowledge is the realm of reason while supernatural knowledge is the realm of revelation however there are not two sets of truth rather the two supplement each other reason and revelation philosophy and theology are parts of one system and according to aquinas human beings may arrive at a knowledge of god’s existence through the exercise of reason reason is competent to prove the existence of god said thomas however reason can’t go far beyond that it cannot comprehend god’s actual nature or god’s attributes this knowledge comes only by divine revelation the supernatural knowledge of god is the proper subject of theology and this knowledge is received by faith and is distinguishable from rational verifiable knowledge the area of reasoning
Talk about Thomas Aquinas’ soteriology.
the influence of aquinas upon theology was huge in soteriology reading thomas can be a surprising experience because we know him as the preeminent catholic thinker of all time now i would i would say that until about the middle of the last century almost all roman catholic theologians made made thomas aquinas the authority when they wanted to know something they turned to thomas he was a canonized saint and they declared to be a doctor which means teacher of the church a doctor term doctor we generally think of first of all physicians as doctors that’s correct they are but the term doctor itself or doc doctrina in latin means teaching a person who teaches is a doctor needs to be just something’s useful many times they’re not useful
anyway aquinas then was a huge influence upon theology in soteriology doctrine of salvation he believed strongly in predestination now he was no inventor of the concept back Gottschalk in the middle ages was one of the well-known ones and then probably more than anybody the famous than St. Augustine of hippo but the teachings of those men seem somehow or enveloped or encapsulated in all sorts of deviant ideas vaguely written three diseases and their influence paled away to almost insignificance but thomas revived it in affirming it very quickly quietly
he spoke of an infusion of grace now that goes way back to the third century to the church father tertullian from north africa infused grace means a person that does something that makes him worthy of salvation but he does it because god has granted him an infusion of grace so it’s not salvation by works as such but salvation by works made possible by preceding grace so human beings cannot initiate salvation this comes in response to the infusion of what he called uncreated grace it is this grace which enables one to have faith and once this infused grace has been received additional grace will be imparted as God is pleased with that person and comes to his aid and enables him to perform meritorious works
What was Aquinas’ view of providence?
thomas had a strong view of providence too he referred to in these words god’s planning and arranging immediately engages every event though his providence is carried out executively and the world is governed through secondary sources any protestant reformer of the 16th century would have shouted amen to that i’ll read it again god’s planning and arranging immediately engages every event though his providence is carried out executively and the world is governed through secondary causes
What were Aquinas’ views on eternity, evil, pelagianism, and grace?
although thomas rejected the eternity of the universe he did make this admission the world has not always existed this belief is to be held by faith and cannot be demonstrably proven i’m sure it can he said take away evil well the problem of evil he used augustine’s idea that evil is a deficiency of goodness evil is an deficiency of goodness thomas wrote take away all evil and much good would go with him god’s care is to bring good out of evil with and not to abolish evil itself [Music] at least not till the end of time although god is the final cause of all events human beings are genuine secondary causes and they operate without compulsion so god doesn’t grab people by the scruff of the neck and drag them kicking and streaming into heaven no he respects their freedom the knowledge that they have and without any compulsion he urges them to perform good works thomas therefore was not a pelagian he was much closer to augustine on soteriology and he was the pelagius he did affirm original sin as inherited from adam all human beings including the virgin mary have been contaminated by the sin of adam souls become sinful at conception as god and conception infuses them into bodies and then they are infected personal sins follow original sin and the sin this designates a deed or desire against the law of god thomas said that free will remains in fallen creatures but free will alone cannot and will not conquer sin thomas wrote this when we speak of man doing what lies in his power we imply that his being moves is moved there too by god so god’s action comes first and human’s response to that action comes second man needs grace to please god and if he pleases god sufficiently he will prove himself deserving of everlasting life yet man cannot prepare himself without the aid of grace sinners can by free will refuse grace and in doing so they deserve damnation here is his own remark those only are deprived of grace who of themselves offer hindrances to grace again those only are deprived of grace who of themselves offer hindrance to grace now this takes us to the all-important topic of justification of the sinner justification that god demands i think we’ll stop there and take a 10-minute recess go back and begin looking at thomas on justification
What were Thomas Aquinas’ views on justification and sanctification?
now then let’s take a look at what thomas has to offer us on the doctrine of justification and its consequent doctrine of sanctification according to thomas justification is by grace but that grace is a grace that god infuses into undeserving people to enable them to perform good works which will merit salvation and therefore they would escape damnation and he said only those who are deprived of grace or are the only ones who are deprived of grace are those who offer a hindrance to grace well justification is by grace and that grace that uses spiritual power into the souls of people and disposes of souls to seek the glory of god
and so he looked upon justification and sanctification as two parts of a continuing process it begins with an infusion of grace and that is usually accomplished through the sacraments of the church so people who avail themselves of the sacramental grace are on the pathway to justification but the sanctifying grace unites people with god and makes them pleasing to god this grace is always effectual in god’s elect and the elect by free will embrace the work of christ thomas wrote god selects those who are infallibly directed to heaven from among others who are not so blessed election is without regard for human merit although it leads to meritorious deeds no human work or on his own could accomplish the work of election or justification such work is made possible only by grace but you might underwear the term possible there that that it is made possible grace is made possible the grace of election such work is made possible by grace grace is the meriting cause of glory the meriting cause of glory thomas exclaimed
but he made the mistake of confusing justification and sanctification and so this was part of an ongoing process it begins with the infusion of grace probably with baptism and then goes forward from there and as a person avails himself of the means of grace through the church he acquires merit and that merit is pleasing to god and it helps prepare him to make the free will gift a funeral decision to accept the gift of god faith is a gift from god which produces the believers ascent to the truth that is declared in the word of god thomas what taught that no one could be certain of his election or his perseverance so instead of assurance the best believers can claim is what thomas called confident conjecture confident conjecture in other words assuming a person is showing a good example that is faithful to the church and always lrelating to the doctrine of grace this person then can be confidently conjectural that he has won the way of salvation but and grace removes the eternal punishment of sin but it does not remove the temporal punishment from sin god sometimes punishes sinners for offenses committed on earth and he punishes them while they’re on earth in fact there are biblical examples of people being struck dead by god as punishment but grace then removes the eternal punishment but the temporal punishment requires the purgatorial cleansing and when jesus descended into hell he freed the elect souls who were there so that prior to the atonement the christ made in calvary all saved people were detained and not permitted into heaven itself and would not be until the atonement but christ did make the atonement and he freed all the elect souls who are confined in purgatory christian souls in purgatory may be relieved of their suffering and even to shorten their time in purgatory if the living people on earth will have masses said for their benefit and they will pray for these souls the repose of the souls in purgatory they may give alms for the benefit of souls of purgatory and they may undertake fasting for people in purgatory the eucharist of the mass is the most powerful aid for departed souls the eucharist would be that point in the mass where the priest consecrates bread and wine and they become the body blood soul and divinity of christ not they represent anything but they literally become the body and blood of jesus christ transubstantiation to change the substance changing from bread and wine into body and blood yet the accidents or the appearances of bread and wine remain when people receive that sacrament it tastes like bread it smells like bread it feels like bread same with a wine but it is in reality been transposed into the body and blood of christ
What did Aquinas say about God’s accepting some and rejecting others?
now people ask thomas the question that sometimes you may have asked somebody or somebody may have asked you why does god choose some and reject others have any ideas on that it’s a good pleasure his sovereign good pleasure nothing more than that that’s it thomas knew that thomas do that he said yes he said that god’s will is a sole reason for election
What was Aquinas’ view of the church fathers?
thomas revered the fathers of the ancient church but he did not believe they were infallible and he did not allow their authority to intimidate him from doing his own work and to come into his own conclusions in academic circles the universities of cologne and louvain their lands in belgium became thomas strongholds strongholds of thomas’s teaching this is a major victory for scholarship because it helped to discredit the belief that all valuable truth resided in the patristic sources that was common thinking so that’s for most of the middle ages when so school so called scholars were doing their work and publishing their findings they very often cited the ancient church fathers as authorities for what they believed and what they should do and thomas had the courage to depart from that and to expose all of the ancient fathers to critical analysis whenever he had opportunity
In part, opposition to scholastic treatises reflected distrust which was due to…
in part opposition to scholastic treatises reflected distrust which was due to arab influence upon scholastic authors arabs had undertaken the study of aristotle before christians made a serious attempt to do it and once the christians made that attempt then they became subject of criticism and complaint that they were allowing the arabs to mislead them and they were becoming dependent upon anti-christian sources but the scholastic wanted to reconcile faith and reason and faith and reason were important to muslims as well some muslim authors like their catholic counterparts resisted this tendency to merge faith and reason or to merge christianity and muslim philosophy
Who was muhammad Ghazali and what did he write?
there was one muslim by the name of muhammad now this is not muhammad the prophet his name is muhammad ghazali g-h-a-z-a-l-i muhammad al-ghazali he lived from 1058-1111 and he was the foremost theologian of the muslim faith at the time and he wrote a book entitled the destruction of the philosophers the destruction of the philosophers and this was his effort at rebutting muslim dependence upon aristotle and other greek thinkers
later however he softened his attitude and he wrote a work entitled the agreement of religion and philosophy thomas and other catholic scholars had to endure much criticism when they resorted to pagan philosophers as interpreted by muslims especially you understand why that happened
What was Thomas Aquinas’ view of the atonement?
now another point that needs to be made about thomas is that he had his own doctrine of the atonement now everybody believes that christ died for sinners on the cross that is all professing christians believe that what did he actually accomplish though when he died in the place of sinners that was often the subject of debate by his death said thomas christ sufficiently merited salvation for the whole human race again by his death christ sufficiently merited salvation for the whole human race and each of us must seek his own cure again although by the death of christ by his death christ sufficiently merited salvation for the whole human race each of us must seek there his own cure baptism and penance are necessary to obtain the benefits of the atonement so that what christ did in itself itself is not sufficient not sufficient he made an atonement which became of the benefits of which were available through the sacraments of baptism and penance baptism would wash away original sin and penance would observe would obtain forgiveness for post-baptismal offenses in baptism a person is a passive recipient of grace in penance the person is a deliberate actor trying to secure forgiveness for post-baptismal sins so the key to remembering thomas’s error is that he said that the death of christ was sufficient for the whole human race but the benefits of his sacrifice were to be obtained by believers receiving the sacraments of baptism and penance
the order of preachers the dominican friars and their theologians interpreted aristotle or augustine rather within the framework of aristotle and thereby they modified aristotle to make elements of his system suitable for inclusion in christian theology although the primitive church had only two sacraments baptism and the eucharist or the lord’s supper
What does the word eucharist mean?
incidentally there’s nothing wrong with the word eucharist protestants seem to be scared to death of it because of the catholic misuse of it but it means thanksgiving lucaristia means thanksgiving and says thanksgiving is always appropriate for christians thanking god thanking one another thanking our our families and so forth it’s a good thing and so if we could very well revive the use of the eucharist and explain what it means it would be completely suitable there are only two of them though baptism and the lord’s supper
Who said there were seven sacraments? Name them. When were these officially adopted as the teaching of the Roman Church?
peter the lombard though said there are seven sacraments now this was in a time when there had been a lot of confusion and debate and and confused debates sometimes nobody seemed to know what a sacrament was exactly and how many of them should be observed now then the primitive church said there were only two but the medieval church following the lead of lombard said there were seven
and here they are baptism confirmation holy eucharist penance extreme unction holy orders and matrimony once more baptism confirmation holy eucharist penance extreme unction holy orders and matrimony these were officially adopted as the teaching of the roman church at the council of florence which met in florence italy in 1439.
