A Catechism Defending the Crusades and other Aspects of the Medieval World Part II

Please read the first part of this article before proceeding.

Objection 2: Crusaders killed Jews
 Response: This one is true, and sadly unfortunate. If anyone should be apologized to about The Crusades, it should only be the Jew. Even then, the popes often excommunicated knights for this anti-Semitic behavior. Last, some Christians were not anti-semetic. Saint Bernard believed God alone had the right to judge the Jews.
 Further Sources The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages by Edward Synan.
 Objection 3: The Crusades were power hungre movements to rule the earth under the authority of the Catholic Church.
 Response: This objection is based on reading men's hearts, which we cannot do. By this reasoning of judging men's hearts, we could thus be against the Protestant Reformation simply by claiming that Martin Luther was just jealous of not being promoted in the Catholic Church and that's why he reacted as he did. As crazy as this accusation of Luther maybe, some Catholics have taught it in their own writings. Likewise, it is just as absurd to oppose the Crusades out of some great conspiracy with zero evidence.
Objection 4: The Crusaders killed other Christians
Response: Again, this fact too is unfortunate, though historical context sheds more light. In the Fourth Crusade, it is indeed unfortunate that many crusaders raped, pillaged, and killed the Greek Christians in Constantinople. Pope Innocent III was against this movement however, and while the actions of the Fourth Crusade were wrong, the Greek Christians had slaughtered thousands of Latin Christians in 1183, long before the Fourth Crusade. Finally, the pope felt God's sovereignty allowed Constantinople to be destroyed so that the faith of the Latin Church would succeed over that of the Greeks.
 Sources: Pope Innocent III and the Greek Church by Richard James Clearly
 Objection 5: The Crusaders should have tried evangelizing the Muslims instead
 Response: Actually, this attempt was made. Saint Francis of Assisi is an example of one that went to, and preached the gospel, to the Muslims. The Muslim king had said that if more Christians were like Saint Francis, he would have become a Christian. Though Francis was willing to be martyred by the Muslims for preaching the gospel, he actually supported the crusades.
 Sources: The Crusades by Thomas Asbridge, Positively Medieval: The Surprising Dynamic Church of the Middle Ages by Jamie Blosser, Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims by Frank W. Rega. 
 Objection 6: Medieval Christians were ignorant of what Muslims believed.
 Response: This one is just a liberal lie. Peter the Venerable and Saint Thomas Aquinas were quite familiar with the teachings of Islam, and wrote writings against it. John of Damscus was an arab Christian that was quite familiar with Islam.
 Sources: On Reasons for our Faith against the Muslims, Greeks, and Armenians by Thomas Aquinas and translated by Father Peter Damian Fehlner, The Fathers of the Church: Medieval Continuation: Peter the Venerable: Writings Against the Saracens. 
 Objection 7: Christians should not have invoked the name of Christ in fighting a war against the Muslims.
 Response: Actually, it was the Muslims that had come together for a holy war from the start. All the eastern lands were once Christian before the rise of Islam. Thousands of Coptic Christians were killed or forced into Islam during the early Middle Ages. When Pope Urban II called for the first crusade at Clermont France, in July of 1095, he was acknowledging the Holy War that was already at place. The pope urged the Latin Christians to defend their Greek Christian brothers in the east, as well as to retake the holy places back from the infidels.
 Objection 8: Jerusalem was not the right of Christians to Control
 Response: Augustine's City of God served as the principle basis besides the Bible, for the Latin Christian worldview. Christians largely of both Catholic and Protestant churches largely supported The Crusades. Along with this, many Catholics and Protestants also historically believed in Christian government, and state sponsored churches. Many today wrongly assume that separation of church is just at odds with the historical Roman Catholic teachings. Actually, separation of church and state was at odds with many of the first Protestants. Likewise, many Roman Catholics and Protestants looked back upon the Crusades as a heroic attempt to drive out the infidel. Many would be surprised to learn that even in Colonial America, some states still had sponsored churches of their own. Gradually, the Enlightenment rather than the Protestant Reformation, was what led more to the concept of Separation and Church and State as we think it today. Christians that believe Separation of Church and State owe much to Thomas Jefferson and John Locke. Though many Protestants did believe in Separation of Church and State during the Reformation era, it was held differently than it would be conceived later on.
 All of that said, Jerusalem was in the hands of Christians when the Roman Empire was Christian. Further, Christendom saw itself as the successor to the role of the Hebrews in the Old Testament in a view called Supersessionism. With the view that Christians are now the people of God and unbelieving Jews in Christ are not, this was foundation to the Medieval worldview in general. Medieval man came largely from the theocratic worldview. To them, to not institutionalize the authority over the church over all things, was a sin all it's own. Though later Protestants went against the papacy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church, Protestants frequently supported the king recognizing their own religion as the state church. Further, many Protestants supported the killings of Catholics as much as Catholics supported that of Protestants. Why is all of this significant? Because, the Medieval Worldview did not hold the concept of Separation of Church and State as the Deist thinkers of the Enlightenment would later conceive it. 
On a final note to this objection, these reasons alone were not the basis for the Crusaders recapturing Jerusalem from the Saracens in 1099. The first Muslims, or Arabs as they were known centuries earlier, had actually let Christian Pilgrims peacefully journey and visit the holy places even after the conquest made by the Muslims. But in the Twelfth Century, this all changed. The Seljuk Turks overtook the Arab Muslims in the 1100s, and were much more violent and oppressive on the Christians than their predecessors had been.
 Sources: The Usborn Time Traveller Book of Knights and Castles by Judy Hindley, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism by John Zmirak, City of God by Saint Augustine of Hippo, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers by Brion McClanahan.

A Review of Quest of the Holy Grail Part II

In Chapter Two of the Old French epic adventure: The Lancelot-Grail, Galahad takes refuge at a monastery of the White Monks. There he is given a white shield bearing a red cross. A mysterious knight appears in the area and calls for a local squire, by the name of Melias, to find Galahad. Melias asks for the knight's name, though he refuses to give it. Galahad returns and is told by the mysterious knight of the story of Joseph of Arimathea. The knight continues by saying the cross bears a red cross because Joseph of Arimathea's nose bled on it years ago. Last, the knight also tells Galahad that only a holy man may carry the shield before he vanishes from Galahad's sight.

According to legend, Saint Joseph of Arimathea was the one that held the cup of Christ which contained Christ's Blood. This is scene in the picture above. 

 Meanwhile, Melias begs for Galahad to knight him. Galahad knights the squire at the monastery, whom has agreed to join him on the quest for the grail. As this all happens, the monks tell Galahad that a strange voice arises from one of the tombs at the abbey's cemetery. One of the monks speak of a marvel in the particular strange tomb.

 Galahad approaches the tomb with the company as the strange voice of the tomb tells him to go away, but the knight proceeds towards it anyways. The devil comes out of the tomb but cannot hurt him, as he is protected by angels. The devil flees, and the knight finds a body in the tomb which the monks remove from the grave. Galahad asks the monks the spiritual significance of all of this. The monk then gives a long spiritual explanation, which parallels Galahad to Christ. In the allegory spoken of by the monk, the dead body signifies mankind, men are dead because of their sins, the tomb signifies the hardness of heart of the Jews, the body of the tomb represents the Jews's great sins and deaths. The monk further adds that the voice of the tomb is representing of the Jews when they did cry to Pontius Pilate in Matthew 27: 25 ''His blood shall be on us and our children!''  The monk tells Galahad last that the devil did flee the company of so noble a knight as Galahad as he is without the any sin, and this made the devil fearful.

 Galahad and Melias then set out together but come to a crossroads that sends them different ways. The sign at the crossroads gave warnings of the roads that each knight go to. Galahad takes the right road, and Melias the left.  So ends the second chapter of Quest for the Grail.

 For my personal thoughts, the second chapter really got me interested in this story. I love monks and allegory, and there was a lot of that here! Anyone that knows me, also knows that I love knighthood, and there is a lot of that here too. Purity is shown again and again in Galahad's character, and moral and spiritual lessons are gained chapter by chapter. The creepiness of the tomb particularly interested me also, as did the layer and layer of Spiritual significance behind the story. One cannot understand Medieval Literature without understanding the Holy Scriptures as there is plenty of reference and themes taken from Holy Writ in Medieval Texts and stories. That is a truth I am learning more and more! This book is now among my favorites of Medieval Literature, and one I will reread in the future.

 Fiction has it's own portrayal of knighthood and Medieval Legend however. Most Americans today get their knowledge of history from either liberal textbooks, or Hollywood. A great ignorance of the past, especially of the Medieval era, has caused many to falsely denigrate upon the Middle Ages the ''Dark Ages.'' Some historians have come to clarify common misunderstandings of the Medieval World to modern ears, though the Medievalist movement has still a long way to go.
 Sometimes Hollywood rarely gets history right, and most of the time it doesn't. When it does, it seems to not usually be a box office hit though.

 I mentioned in a previous post that I recently watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I watched this film on ClearPlay, which took out some of the film's crude humor thankfully. I enjoyed this film, and found it to be more historically accurate than Robin Hood: Men in Tights, though I probably found the latter more entertaining. The historical accuracy of Monty Python and the Holy Grail probably had some to do with the fact that one of it's directors: Terry Jones, is a Medieval historian. The film has some good humor and definitely very Medieval like scenes including the film's depiction of Peasants working in the fields in one scene, then later, the peasants trying to kill a witch in another.   

 The 1975 film: Monty Python and the Holy Grail certainly touches aspects of King Arthur and his Knights that no other Arthurian films that I have seen touched on. Albeit, Camelot, with Richard Harris, is a better film about the knights of the round table in my view. The Sword in the Stone is another great film about King Arthur that comes to mind.

To me, the best part of the film was the fight between King Arthur and the Black Knight. I found this scene both funny and entertaining. The fact that the Black Knight's arms are cut off by Arthur during the battle, and he treats it just as a scratch, is enough to give me a good laugh. 

    All that said, I found the film did not portray the pure innocence of Galahad as he had had in the original story. Rather than a pure and wise knight that flees the lust of women, Galahad is more of a vulnerable and naive knight that is caught off guard by the pursuit of Medieval maidens. I don't think the film horribly garnished Galahad's character, though I felt it did not give him his proper due. Some people may respond that the film is a comedy, but even in comedies pure and holy characters should not be treated flippantly. 
 Another disappointing issue I had with the movie, was that the film ends with a modern car interpreting the coming battle. The grail is never found, and Galahad and Lancelot disappear before the film's ending, even though Galahad was the one that found the grail in the stories.

                                                       



    Don't get me wrong, I love Comedy. Arsenic and Old Lace is one of my favorite movies. But to me, Monty Python and the Holy Grail was a good film, though one that I think that is quite a bit overrated. I won't even get into the fact that I felt the film was somewhat irreverent in the way it portrays God glaring out of the Sun in the sky when he tells Arthur and his knight to find the grail. There are certainly better Medieval movies I can think of than this, and I was dissapointed that this comedy film did not follow the actual story of The Lancelot-Grail account. Anyhow, if you love the Middle Ages, you may want to see the film, though I would recommend the original story much more.

 ''For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'' -Matthew 26: 28
                               

Some Further Thoughts on the Westminster Confession of Faith

 So things have been a little busy with Christmas time! Anyhow, I recently viewed Monty Python and the Holy Grail for the first time and enjoyed it. I was asked to expound on a previous post about The Westminster Confession of Faith, so I thought I'd do that now. In the future, I'd like to read The Book of Concord, which is the Lutheran statement of faith. I will also be posting more about the theology of John Calvin in the future, especially now that I got Calvin's Doctrine of the Church by Benjamin Charles Milner in the mail.
 The Presbyterian Church has its origins in the Calvinist movements of France and Scotland. The Huguenots were so named by their opponents for their loyalty to a past French King by the name of Hugo. The Huguenots took their Cross from the Hospitaller Crusader Knights. These French Calvinists were superstitious and believed in the presence of ghosts as taught in Medieval Literature, especially King Hugo of France. 

The Huguenot Cross above shows much resemblance to the Maltese Cross used by the Knights of St. John, that fought in the Medieval Crusades. 

 The Westminster Confession of Faith is a brief summary of Presbyterian doctrine. It was formed by Presbyterians in the 17th century, largely in the context of the English Civil War. I have found the confession to be nicely written and to the point in regards to doctrine. I disagree with some of the doctrines laid out in this historic confession. All in all, the confession is a worthy and well-written standard of Presbyterian Faith. Whether you like it or not, it is an important Confession to read in helping to understand a major branch of Protestant Theology.

 The Westminster Confession of Faith is not simply important as a statement of doctrine. Its true importance arguably is that it helps us understand the worldview of many Protestants from the 16th and 17th centuries.

A Review of Quest of The Holy Grail Part I

 

I am now beginning a series of posts on The Quest for the Holy Grail, also known as The Lancelot-Grail. I will be doing blog posts on the book. 

When many think of the Holy Grail perhaps Indiana Jones or Monty Python comes to mind. Whatever one imagines about the grail, no doubt many legends and stories have been made about it. The Grail originated from Celtic legends, and found it's way into French Literature. The story makes many references to Catholic theology including frequent mentioning of Mass, and promotes the idea of chastity as exemplified by the life of Galahad. In short, Galahad, son of Lancelot, is the hero of this legend. 

 During the Twelfth Century, the Arthurnian stories hit a new height of acclaim in the court of Henry II, king of England. From the 1170s on, the stories if King Arthur came into the world, and so did many inspired legends about wizards, kings, and courtly love follow thereafter. 

 Today, I finished Chapter One of Quest for the Grail. The first chapter I found to be an easy read (kind of unusual for Medieval stories.) I would now like to share some thoughts on it with you. 

 King Arthur and his Knights are told by local nuns about the Holy Grail, and warned that penitent men alone must go on the quest to find it (sound like Indiana Jones?). The queen weeps as the company sets out, Galahad, Perceval,  Gawain, and Lancelot go on the search for the Grail. The Grail appears one day before the knights of the Round , before vanishing. A sword is stuck in a stone outside the palace, and Galahad goes to unsheath it from the rock as did King Arthur in a previous story. Shortly thereafter, the knights begin their quest. 

 

 Galahad is described as being pure and without any lust. He is young and handsome, and above all saintly. He is contrasted from his father Lancelot, whom is still in love with King Arthur's wife. 

 Gawain is rash and Perceval is perhaps the least memorable. 

A Review of Primary Confessions of Presbyterianism

Black Friday shopping has been a busy event for the last few days. Still, I usually get around to my blog posts!
 This year I read several Presbyterian statements of faith which were written during the reformation. Wherever you are theologically, these writings greatly reflect the religious worldview of the Scottish Protestants.
 
 The Scots Confession by John Knox: This one is short and to to the point. I personally preferred it to the later Westminster Confession of Faith. It no doubt heavily promotes a strong predestination view.

The Westminster Confession of Faith and Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms are among the most important documents of Protestant theology from the Reformation era. Their criticisms and objections of Roman Catholic Theology are also important to understanding the Reformation.  

Thoughts on the Gawain Poet Part II: Patience

Some of you may remember me posting about the works Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Pearl. Both of these of course were written by an anonymous author. Well, Patience was another work by the writer that we refer to as the Pearl Poet. The story is rich with allegorical themes and references to Scripture. For this work, I read the translation by Marie Borroff.
 Patience is essentially the story of Jonah, and it has had an important place in the canon of Medieval English Literature. The story is quite short, written in the Middle English tone of the author's other works. As it has been noted by literary scholar Marie Borroff, ''Patience'' in Medieval Times meant much more than we think of today. In those days, it meant not simply being good tempered at the traffic light for instance, but also implied the ability to suffer. The story thus is about the suffering Jonah went through.
 Read Patience, especially if you like Biblical stories. The account is quite short as I mentioned earlier, but still a must read for any Medievalist.
 

Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly,
 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell  cried I, and thou heardest my voice.
 Jonah 2:1-2 A.V.

A Review of Robin Hood Men in Tights

 Satire can help us see errors in other people's religion, politics, or social life. It can also though, demonstrate a good amount of humor about a given literary work. The Comedy of Robin Hood Men in Tights {which I watched with Clear Play to remove the crude humor}, I found most amusing.

 The film gives many pokes to some other well know Robin Hood films: The Adventures of Robin Hood, and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Cary Elwes played a Robin Hood much akin to Errol Flynn, but the film as a whole was mostly directed with satire toward Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. Between cheap sets and exaggerated sword play, I thought this film also had a good amount of development between the characters {which we rarely see any more.}Also, it had a remarkable cast of actors including Patrick Stewart as Richard I. This has been the sixth Robin Hood film I have seen.
 If you like satire and Medieval humor, you may enjoy this film{ though, there is a lot of crudeness and content in it without a TV blocker}.  Anyhow, I was genuinely surprised that the film did not mock the Middle Ages as an ignorant and barbarous time. So for me, that was also a big brownie point for it!

How White Supremacy Gives the Middle Ages a Bad Name

 Frequently, people mock the Middle Ages as the ''Dark Ages.'' Conservative Christians are often condemned as Medieval for holding theological or socially conservative views. There is already much ignorance about the Middle Ages among modern people, and White Supremacist groups don't help enlighten may people's ignorance about the subject.
 First of all, it should be noted that many White Supremacist are actually atheist, not Christian at all. Add further to that, many of them are not even conservative. Richard Spenser is a leading White Nationalist that supports the rights of abortion and universal healthcare. Spenser also believes people's rights are not from God but from communities.  Although the mainstream media condemn these groups as ''Far Right'', that is not the entire story. Some of them even supported President Obama, and many of them are clearly left on a number of issues. For more information on this topic see Death of a Nation by Dinish D' Souza.
 Moving on, my point is not to demonstrate that racist are all left or right, but simply to demonstrate that there are many racist on both sides of the spectrum. The KKK may tend to be more religion and right leaning than Neo-Nazis, yet a racial identity they all hold too. With that as a background, I will now discuss some of the dangers White Supremacy has posed for defending the Middle Ages.

 



  White Supremacist have a long history in America, and some trace the early roots of White Supremacy to the Spanish Conquistadors that came to America centuries ago. While the roots of White Supremacy, would make an interesting post all it's own, for now I just to want to address the given topic.
 White Supremacist quite often use Medieval Symbols on their flags, outfits, and groups. Of course, the anger of White Nationalist groups only enrages the current racial tensions in this country, and not only that, but gives the mainstream media another opportunity to criticize The Crusades and Medieval World all over again. And sadly, many modern people don't think for themselves, nor do their own research. Whatever is popular, whatever is socially acceptable, the culture goes for, and if culture went left or right tomorrow, so would the majority of people.
 There is a significance difference between The Medieval Church's stand against heresy and paganism, and what the rising trend of White Supremacy promotes. Contrary to liberal lies, The Crusades were initiated out of an act of love,   as I have written about elsewhere, White Supremacy is out of hatred for minorities. The Medieval World based it's worldview upon The Scriptures and Tradition, White Supremacist only use these when they are convenient for them. In fact, White Supremacist admire the power of a White controlled Western Medieval Europe and admire it, but all the while not imitating it's religious worldview. White Supremacy is not rigid Orthodoxy that attempts the world of heresy and paganism, but rather to make an all powerful White race akin to the worldview of Adolph Hitler. The Catholic Church has never promoted racism in all of it's history. In reality, racism, which has always existed, has been more promoted by Charles Darwin and Social Darwinism than it has ever been by the Middle Ages.
 In short, I pray and hope that many will stopping blame Medieval Culture for the sins of the present growth of White Supremacy in the West. 

Roman Catholics and The Crusades

                                                         Saint Bernard pictured above
 In a post from last week, I discussed some of the major views Protestants had towards The Medieval Crusades. Today, I will touch briefly on how Roman Catholics understood this subject.
 First of all, The Crusades were usually called upon by the Catholic Church, so it's no surprise that Roman Catholics historically supported the Crusades. In fact, Roman Catholics almost universally supported The Crusades even centuries after the Middle Ages.
 There was some criticism towards events that occurred during The Crusades. Pope Innocent III did not approve of the Fourth Crusade's Sack of Constantinople is one such example. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux was proclaimed ''as the greatest preacher of the gospel,'' by Martin Luther. Saint Bernard preached against killings of Jews during the Second Crusade, and later Saint Francis of Assisi was against the immorality of Crusaders in Egypt. That said, Pope Innocent III, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Saint Bernard all supported The Crusades.
 All Crusaders were Latin Christians { Medieval Christians did not use the term Roman Catholic}.
 During the Reformation era, the Saracens tried to invade Southern Europe but were stopped at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.  This victory has often been attributed to the help of the Virgin Mary. Today, many Roman Catholics are unaware of the origins of ''Our Lady of the Rosary.'' In reality, this came from The Battle of Lepanto, which gave the Crusaders a great victory over the Saracens.  Roman Catholics historically called it ''Our Lady of Victory'' though. 
 Though The Crusades are the subject of heat in the modern world and continue to face backlash by the hatred promoted by White Supremacist, The Crusades were actually supported largely by both Roman Catholics and Protestants.

                                         Saint Bernard drinking milk from Mary's breast.



Further Sources: Encyclopedia of the Crusades by Alfred J. Andrea.

A Catechism Defending The Crusades, and other Aspects of Medieval Western Culture Part One

This catechism has been written primarily for misunderstandings of The Middle Ages and The Crusades in particular, by Evangelical Christians, though it can certainly be used for all. It is written in a typical objection response format, so that I respond to those objections raised by the criticisms made of Medieval Times. I felt that form of writing was needed, to best explain this subject to readers. 
 Before I proceed to the catechism, it should be noted that entire volumes of books could be written on this subject. History is very complicated, and more complicated than hecklers on street corners or politicians often present it. The most glorious events of history are usually imperfect, due to man's sin. But mistakes or abuse don't illigintimize a Holy Cause, what matters was if something was a Holy Cause from the start or not, more than how it was abused or later exaggerated.  For this very reason also, unfair generalizations of cultures, religions, or people groups should always be avoided. I have said it many times, those that criticize The Medieval Crusades will regret the day that the Islamic armies invade the West for the kill, capture, and slaughter of all Christians and Jews. Apologizing to Muslims for the Crusades, in an attempt to convert them to Christianity is an act of conformity to the Jihad the Muslims brought on against the Christians from the start this. Let me add further, we don't apologize for truth to ''convert'' people. Also, no matter how well the intent of these same Christians are, they are actually be foolish by apologizing for wars that were clearly acts of self defense against an aggressive Islamic invasion on the West.
 This paper has included works from various historians and theologians.



 Objection I: Pope Urban II said every Crusader was guaranteed a place in Heaven, and he got involved in a Conflict, in which church leaders have no right to be involved. 
 Response: To the first part, I will respond first. Actually no, Pope Urban II did not say this. What he said is actually more clear in the several accounts written of his speech by his contemporaries including Fulcher of Charteres. First of all,  The pope promised a Plenary Indulgence to those that repented, which is quite different than him promising salvation also to the unrepentant. Second the pope didn't even promise salvation to the repentant, though he did promise them if they were repentant free of debt, both monetarily , and spiritually. What this meant, was that any Crusader did not have to pay debts of money he now owed, and second, no knight had to pay restitution for certain sins he had previously committed, so long as he repented. Whether or not one agrees with Indulgences is another discussion. For now, however, let me affirmed that the pope did not promise a free ticket to Heaven to anyone who went on Crusade, and if the pope had, he would have contracted both the Roman Catholic and Protestant understandings of justification, but Urban is not guilty of this on either account. Those that have accused the pope of this, should not only correct their error, but inform others of the actual truth.
 To the second part of the above objection, much of this can go back to historical context, the pope was not only a spiritual leader, but a political one. Some criticize the Crusades because the pope called for it, and say that wars should be fought by kings rather than by popes. They that make these assumptions and hold to these views forget or ignore several important facts, Medieval Culture was much different than our own, the concept of Separation of church and state did not really come about until the Enlightenment. Also, in many cases, it was the church that granted kings the authority to preside over local kingdoms. But last and most important, Emperor Alexius asked the pope to help them against the Islamic Invasion on the East. That too, is quite different than Pope Urban II just suddenly asking for a Crusade with no employment made toward him of the wars already existing between Muslims and Christians.  The pope had a responsibility to do, and that was not simply to preach the Gospel, but to protect Christendom from heresy, which would have arisen from the abominable sect of Mohammed in the West if the pope had not made this move. In reality then, The Crusades were protecting the flock from heresy, and church leaders always have the responsibility to protect their flock, just as Urban did here. 


Further Sources: The First Crusade by Edward Peters.

Protestants and the Crusades

How did Protestants historically view the Crusades? This topic will be covered in this article. Next week, I will discuss how Roman Catholics historically saw these Medieval movements.
  

                                                             A picture of the Lollards

  John Wycliffe was a late Medieval reformer, who saw himself as a student of Saint Augustine. He faced opposition from within the Roman Church and would be sent into exile for his commitment to his beliefs. Wycliffe's followers were known as the Lollards. Their name etymology is unclear, though some believe it was named after a Franciscan. Their theology was also quite broad, though poverty was a big part of their movement. Some of them were involved in the Peasants Revolt against King Richard II, for which Wycliffe was blamed, though he had never condoned this.
 The Lollards later revolted against King Henry V of England and were subsequently defeated. By the reformation, they seemed to have still existed, however, and they have always been honored as forerunners of the English Reformation.
 In 1394, 10 years after Wycliffe's death, The Lollard Conclusions were written. These documents criticize the Roman Church in several areas, including ''manslaughter'' in the tenth article. The document does not clearly refer to the Medieval Crusades, though it does criticize those who invade Christian lands and conquer them only for land, and for those who kill heathens to give themselves a better name. After a careful reading of this document, in contrast to my previous conclusions, however, I am not convinced that the Lollards were not criticizing the entire crusades movement. It seems more likely that they opposed those who in the crusades man-slaughtered all in their way. Regardless, Wycliffe's influence was beyond them and unto the great Chaucer. 
 Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales is one of the most important works of Medieval Literature, and certainly one of my favorites. Of the traveling pilgrims, we have the knight, from whom we are told The Knight's Tale. Chaucer speaks of this knight having fought in crusades, wars, and many battles, and is likewise praiseworthy of the knight's character. This is all relevant, as we are unclear where Chaucer was theological. He was a student of Wycliffe, and there are strong arguments that he was a Lollard himself. On the theological side of Chaucer, he purposely intended to teach doctrine from his book. Perhaps Chaucer's own desire to teach theology through his writings can be one indicator that he was a Lollard.  Below, I have given a passage from a book to indicate this evidence.

Chaucer is theologically correct when he incorporates the same quote from Saint Paul that he used in ''The Nun's Priest Tale'': All that is written is written for our doctrine'' {X, I, 1083, VII, 3441-3442, Romans 15: 4}. The purpose of all literature is to teach ''doctrine,'' lessons conducive to salvation. Composing such works, Chaucer says was his ''intent.''
 -A Companion to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales by Margaret Hallissy, p. 92.

Of course, one may argue for Chaucer having been a Catholic rather a Lollard. Indeed, I think there are strong arguments to be used on both sides of this debate which I do intend to address here. Assuming that Chaucer may have been Lollard however, is important considering that would make him among the pre-Protestant English writers. 

                                       
                                                            Geoffrey Chaucer in the above pic.


The views of Protestants and the Crusades went on for much longer than Wycliffe and his followers. During the fifteenth century, many pre-Reformation movements helped to change ideas about the church and the world. For example, the Hussite Wars of 1419-1436 were fought between Crusaders and the followers of Jan Huss. The Radical Hussites would be defeated, and for the next century, there would not be major threats to the Roman hierarchy.
 1517 marked an important year of great change for the Medieval/Renaissance West. A German Reformation followed Martin Luther in opposition to what they perceived as the works-based salvation that was taught by Rome.  Luther's position hardened as his life went on and he eventually denounced the papacy as well as the Crusades in his 1529 treatise, On War Against the Turk. His attacks on the Crusades were mostly aimed at the papacy, and the fact that Luther believed just wars should have nothing to do with church clergy. He also believed that Church clergy should only preach the gospel and that it was the greatest of sins to force a person into one's religion. Luther's despise of the pope can above all be seen in the track. Indeed, wrote about the pope being worked than the Turk while wishing the latter's damnation. His views on the Medieval Crusades helped to shape the view of many in the Protestant Reformation after him. 
In England, John Foxe's Voice of the Martyrs was quite notorious for its criticism if not demonizing of the Roman Catholic Church. The book also criticized the Crusades, though it did speak well of Richard the Lionheart.
 Other Protestants, however, pressed on with the concept of ''Holy War''. The Puritans were not at all short of burning witches and killing heretics in the name of God. To them, there was a Holy War against Roman Catholics. Indeed, some have called the conquest of Oliver Cromwell of Ireland to be a Protestant Crusade.
 The Protestant Reformation brought many changes to the Western World of the Middle Ages.: Religiously, theologically, politically, socially, and much more. For many centuries afterward, Medieval Times was seen as a dark ignorant time, full of inquisitions and bloodshed. While the Renaissance wanted to bring about a return to the Classical Golden Age of Rome, the Enlightenment wanted to distance itself entirely from Medieval Times, which it saw as superstitious.  All of this changed with the Romantic era.
  It was during The Romantic era (early nineteenth century), that many writers and poets began to appreciate the Medieval world again. Ballads were popular during this time as they had been in the so-called ''Dark Ages (a term which most historians now reject).'' It is no surprise that one finds such Medieval values of courtship in Jane Austin's novels, and in Sir Walter Scott's writings. Scott himself was a Calvinist Presbyterian elder, who took a generally positive view of the Crusades. He wrote important works of literature that have glorified Medieval life and culture including Ivanhoe and The Talisman.
 During the Modern Age, The Crusades became a subject of hot debate. But that will be discussed in another post.

For more on the English Reformation's view of the crusades see

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-crusades-in-english-reformational.html




Further Sources: Holy Warriors: A Modern History of the Crusades by Jonathan Phillips, The Hussite Wars 1419-36 by Stephen Turnball, Crusades edited by Thomas F. Madden, Documents of the Christian Church Fourth Edition by Henry Bettinson and Chris Maunder, England and the Crusades 1095-1588 by Christopher Tyerman, Ireland 1649-1652: Cromwell's Protestant Crusade by Michael McNally, Richard Coeur de Lion: Kingship, Chivalry and War in the Twelfth Century by John Gillingham, English Literature by Benjamin W. Griffith.

A book review of Medieval Beasts by Ann Payne

 Medieval Art helps us understand the Medieval mind as much as Medieval Literature does. While some see Medieval art as boring or not advanced, I feel it brings out things about humanity that the later more humanistic art of the Renaissance doesn't. This is the first book I have read on Medieval Art, and for any Medievalist, I think it is a must read.

 The book is largely about the great allegory of animals in medieval art. Dragons and foxes are symbols of the devil, whereas the lamb and the unicorn are symbols of Christ.

 The book is full of illustrations from The Bestiaries, which included Medieval Artwork of various mythical and non-mythical animals.  No doubt, C. S. Lewis must have known of this work, and I can see how it would have inspired The Chronicles of Narnia.
 Medieval Art can be quite illuminating. It shows much about the people of it's time, including their religious worldview, and the settings of their culture. 
 While this post was brief and basic, I expect to take on topics of Medieval Art more in the future. 

A Review of Purgatorio by Dante and The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis

I recently finished Purgatorio by Dante Alighieri and found it a great sequal to The Inferno, though perhaps as usual, also inferior to it's predecessor.  The most memorable part of the story besides it's creepy tone is the fact that the gluttons are chained back from the foods they desired in life. Dante is guided by Virgil through most of the book until last cantos when he is directed by Beatrice instead.
 Related to this Renaissance classic is the more modern Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis.  In this book those that have died go on a bus and visit eternity. The damned actually do not desire Heaven, and those in Hell have their own theology clubs. Purgatory is also a key place in Lewis's work.
 Purgatory was taught by Saint Augustine of Hippo in The Enchiridion: On Faith, Hope, and Charity. While it was not as popular in the east, it was certainly in the west for at least a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation.
 Lewis actually believed in Purgatory though not in the sense that the 16th century Roman Catholic Church did. He discusses the subject of Purgatory and praying for the dead in Letters to Malcolm  Whereas, Purgatory had been originally about purification, it became more and more about suffering instead. Hence, one can see how the change of understanding on this issue was used as a tool of power by many of the corrupt Roman Catholic hierarchy of the Reformation era.
 That said, some Protestants have thrown the baby out of the bathwater. As one that was raised Evangelical Protestant, then became Roman Catholic, and now being a High Church Protestant, I have personally experienced and read the weak arguments made against Purgatory from evangelicals that are usually themselves not based off Scripture. Some Protestants contend that Purgatory takes away from what Christ did at the cross, but in no way is this true. Even in this life, after we are born again, we still face the consequences of our own sinful actions. Purgatory does not take away from Christ did at the cross, it's existence proves our lack of worthiness.
 1 Peter 3: 19-20, 1 John 5: 6, 1 Corinthians 3: 13, and 2 Maccabess 12: 46 are common Scriptures used for the support of Purgatory's existence, and the need to pray for those that have died.

 
 The Roman Catholic Douay Catechism was written for Protestants, and from my point of view is one of the best defenses of the Roman Catholic Faith.  It gives no short exception to it's Biblical defense of Purgatory.

Two wrongs don't make one right, and throwing out doctrines because the Roman Catholic Church sometimes abused those doctrines is no exception. 

The Cause of the Schism of 1054 According to The Western View Part One

When we think of splits from church history there are probably two that most likely come to our minds: The Protestant Reformation, and The Great Schism of 1054. Church splits have significant consequences, and some of them, at least so far, have never been healed. This post will focus briefly on The Great Schism of 1054, from the Western perceptive.
 I was looking at several Crusade accounts recently, and found it interesting that they talked about their distaste for the Greek Christians. Of those differences from the Greek Christians they named, The Filioque, and some differences over the priesthood, as well as their rite of Mass were all that was essentially mentioned. Nothing was mentioned of Papal Supremacy. Yes, that is right! I believe that that is because the papacy was not nearly as powerful at that time in the sense of infallibility or great supremacy, as we think of it today.
 While the issue of papal supremacy deserves attention for a future post, for now I'd like to reflect on what Western Christians said about the Greeks from their own words. This can give us perspective to what Western Christian believe, as well as insight to why the Great Western Schism happened.
 What was it that sparked the Great Western schism? I won't get into that long history, though I may do some of that in the future! For now, let the accounts speak for themselves.
 ''We think it worthwhile to make a brief note of the beliefs of the Greeks that differ from the faith of the universal church, namely that of the Holy Roman Church. They are in error about their belief about the Holy Trinity, since they teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not from the Son, and is less important than the Father and Son. In the Eucharist, they use Azyme, and in that sacrifice of solemnity of the Mass they do not offer that reverence, care and compunction of the heart with which we, although sinners and unworthy, celebrate and use. They make no distinction between their priests and other clerics, apart from the bishops, and peasants, and thus show no respect for the divine cult. They make no change to the chant or to the prayers from the collect for the feast days during the year or the saints' days, apart from the Biblical readings and the Gospels. They anathematise all those who do not agree with their beliefs: they describe all Christians, whether spiritual or secular people in the popular idiom, as secular, and they pour out arrogant prayers for their conversion. They describe themselves alone as spiritual and orthodox.  They separated themselves a long time ago from the jurisdiction of the Holy Roman Church, and they make themselves subject in divine matters only to their own patriarch, whom they describe as 'universal, ' giving this Greek patriarch of Constantinople precedence over the other two patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch by name alone. Their priests and clergy are neither vowed to nor observe continence. ''
 -The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa: The History of The Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Text translated by G. A. Loud.

As you can see, this Crusade account actually criticized the Greeks for the concept of a universal bishop. While many today wrongly assume that it was just the Popes of Rome that taught this, in reality, Greek Patriarchs taught it. It was to the concept of universal bishop by a Greek Patriarch that Pope Gregory the Great wrote was ''Antichrist.'' Though properly understood, Gregory actually saw himself as the head of the church. For more information on this, check out the following link:
 https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/incontext/article/gregory-the-great.

Those ways the Classical Greeks and Medieval Man were alike

If I were but a pagan, I would now implore the Muses to come help me write, but I have a greater inspiration to write, and that is from The Blessed Trinity.

It maybe a surprise to modern readers to learn that the pagan Greeks of Ancient history and the Western Europeans of the Middle Ages shared much in common. Both valued and loved the earth, both enjoyed plays and drama, and both were very artistic. Medieval man indeed drew much from the classical Romans and Greeks.

 The influence of the classics upon Western man is perhaps never more tangible and obvious than in Medieval Literature. For instance,  The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri was influenced by Virgil's The Aeneid.
 Beyond literature however, Medieval man learned much from the Greeks, including philosophies from Plato and Aristotle that were adopted in Scholasticism, which defended the dogmatic teachings of The Latin Church. As examples of this, Augustine was influenced by Plato, and Aquinas by Aristotle. Even in their historical understanding, those writers and poets of the Middle Ages, especially the English, believed they were descendants of the Trojans. This theory, was promulgated in Geoffrey of Monmouth's The History of the Kings of Britain.
 Medieval man took much from the scientific understanding of the Greeks including Geocentrism, the belief that the earth is at the center of the universe.
 Medieval times saw a loss of of knowledge concerning the Greek language in the West, though it was preserved in the east. Western Europeans more commonly spoke Latin in the early Middle Ages, and it would not be until shortly before The Renaissance that knowledge of Greek would again be common in the west. Scholars of the era, valued the writings of Virgil and Cicero.
During the Renaissance, the Christian Humanists wanted a return to the knowledge of Greek.
Desiderus Erasmus greatly contributed to this endeavor, with his Textus Receptus forming the basis for the later King James Version of the Bible. The ideals of Christian Humanism, are expressed in The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A Kempis.
Renaissance art took much of it's style from the arts of the classical age. This was a bit controversial, as some Christians felt it was inappropriate with it's emphasis on naked individuals, such as the Nudity of David by Michelangelo.

                                              Above, Minerva, The Roman goddess of Wisdom. 


 
                                           


The similarities between the Classical Greeks and Romans compared with the Medieval Western Europeans, do not override the differences of course. The Greeks worshiped drama, Medieval Christians used it to convey Biblical stories and Morality Plays, especially as concerning the role of man in eternity. The Greeks also did not derive their worldview from the Bible, whereas Medieval man did. The Greeks worshiped many gods, whereas Medieval man worshiped only one God, The Blessed Holy Trinity. The purpose of this article has been merely to show that despite great differences, Medieval man took much from his ancient predecessors of the Classical Mediterranean world. Much more detail could be written on this, and I'd like to take that endeavor for sometime in the future. For now however, I wish to stick to merely an introduction to this very subject.

          The Greek theater introduced the world to many things, including to the the genre of Tragedy.

The Nudity of David from The Sistine Chapel

The artwork of the Renaissance world reflected humanity much more personally than Medieval art had done. Truly the golden age of art, was reborn with the Renaissance, as artwork moved further and further away from the The Icons and earlier handwork, that had placed much emphases on the divine. Still, some of the most famous Biblical and Christian artwork is from the Renaissance, though that is a worthy subject all it's own for another day. 

The Roman poet, Virgil, would greatly influence Saint Augustine, and later lead Dante through Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven in Dante's Divine Comedy. His poem, The Aeneid, includes the story of the Trojan horse which was seldom actually mentioned in Homer's stories. The Aeneid has been called the most influential poem ever. His story promotes humanness and piety, as well as mercy towards those that suffer. 

                                        They can conquer, who believe they can. -Virgil




 Further Sources: Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature by C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature by C. S. Lewis, The Golden Book of the Renaissance by Irwin Shapiro, Western Civilization I by Robert Ziomkowski, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization by Anthony Esolen.

A Review of the Trojan War by Olivia Coolidge

 

I recently finished The Broadview Anthology of British Literature Volume A. This book gives a good start for anyone interested in the history of the subject. Now that I have finished it, I have gotten back to the reading of literature again.

As I am making my way through The Iliad and The Odyssey, I attempt to post more about the literature of the Classical world in the following weeks. While this literature is not ''English Literature'', it no doubt influenced it, and thus has reason to be conversed about here. Many English writers including Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare, and John Milton took from Greek mythology, and that's just naming a few. In more recent times, C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and J. K. Rowling have all been heavily influenced by Greek mythology. Lewis, Tolkien, and Rowling were Readers in Classical Studies during college after all.
  I first became interested in the Greek Myths as early as I can remember, but it was a friend librarian that encouraged me to read Homer and Virgil when I was around the age of twelve/thirteen. As he was into the American Civil War as I was, he recommended that I read the Greeks as their stories and warfare were heavily influential on the Americans during The War Between the States. I first studied the history of the Greeks for the next few years, before reading The Trojan War by Olivia Coolidge. This book greatly influenced me, perhaps one of the most influential books on me that I have ever read. Immediately, I became fascinated by the Greek Culture, and incorporated much of it's history and literature into my stories.
I would recommend all readers not yet familiar with the classics, to buy The Trojan War by Olivia Coolidge. This book is an easy and enjoyable read, that can be a good start for anyone that wants to understand The Iliad or The Odyssey. It gives a brief history of the Trojan War, with special emphasis on key characters like Achilles or Hector. Coolidge's book incorporates Homer and Virgil's stories, along with Aeschelues in one volume, made especially for young adults.

Not all Medieval Studies are the Same

For the record, I will be returning to my posts on The Canterbury Tales soon. Since Spring, I have had many distractions on things going on elsewhere, though I feel pretty sure that I will be able to get back to my emphasis on Medieval Literature again soon. I hope that especially by 2020, that I maybe able to give more time to the reading of poetry, prose, and drama again.
 Colleges can very significantly on the courses, requirements, etc, needed to gain a degree. As some of you are aware, the certificate of Medieval Studies is something I'd like to pursue at the master's level.
 It turns out, that at the University of TN for instance, Medieval Studies at The Master's Level is actually an addition to the History or English department, one gains the certificate not separately , but with their actual major. In some colleges, The Medieval Program gives the degree at the graduate level, though it is not that way at UT.  With that known, I'd like to eventually pursue an M.A. in English, with the certificate of Medieval Studies.
 It is an unfortunate fact that many Medieval Study programs in this country are currently liberal. I was warned this by a close friend some years ago.

 Next year, I will be enrolling online for my undergraduate in English. All prayers will be appreciated.