An Update on my College Work and Major

Hey, hope everyone is dealing well! I've had a pretty good week so far in credit largely due to the academic stuff I have been learning. I am very blessed to have some of the well college educated people in my life, and often gets directions and insights from them.
 I would probably be enrolling for Liberty University online shortly from now. Up until this point over the last few years, I have been doing college courses from home through other means.
 Very consistently I have wanted to teach history over the years. That desire indeed still remains, but perhaps with a little more color to it than ever.
 Liberty University now provides a B. S. in English and Writing online. As I have considered getting an English Major in the near past, this opens another doorway to me if I decide to take that route. As it is, Liberty still gives a minor in History online. That is helpful to me, as I would like the freedom to teach both subjects.
 Most of my life I actually did not so nearly distinguish the two subjects of English and History, as many do.  I read The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara while studying the actual events of the Battle of Gettysburg. Likewise, it is hard to separate the historical study of the Puritans without enjoying the English Work of Pilgrim's Progress. On a final note, my own Kings and Crusaders novels are historical fiction, despite the fact that much of the historical information for them have been from non-fiction.
 Some of my mentors include C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Michael Shaara. What do all three of these people have in common besides being writers? They were all either English majors or literature majors. Perhaps it is only natural then that I take such influence in part from them. Of these in particular, C. S. Lewis has been a lifelong mentor to me. It was through the reading of The Chronicles of Narnia that I would become inspired to be a writer.
 While I am no filmmaker, I have often been inspired by Steven Spielberg's films. He too was an English major.
 I am no lover of Grammar, though I have often found at least some if it, interesting. But I do love English literature. I also like to analyze and niterpret literature.
 I love both Medieval History and Medieval literature. Some of you may know that I have had a desire to gain the double masters in English and Medieval literature. Indeed, to get formal education in Medieval literature from a college, one needs to be in a English Studies or a literature class.  That may also give more reason to my interest in this field.
 I like literature in general, but English literature is clearly my favorite. The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer, I think had a lot to do with my more recent appreciation of English literature.
 The study of the historical Crusades would be history, but the study of the stories about it, like Ivanhoe or Robin Hood, would be literature, often English literature.
 My point is that I have taken largely from both history and English my whole life. I would love to teach either subject.
 Up until this point, some of you maybe aware that I desired a B. S. in History, and an M. A. in English. If I choose to get a B. S. in English and Writing now, I may even drop the master's idea, though I am keeping the option of going or not going that route open either way for the future.
 My desires for a life long career besides that of a writer, are teaching in a school, or being a public librarian.
 Only God knows the future, but I plan to major in one of these fields, and minor in the other. One of my professor friends, informed me that by me gaining a minor in one of these two degrees, I could likewise teach in it. He advised me against a double major though, seeing it as no more beneficial than one major, with a minor.
 Prayers would be appreciated for my work in College, my degree, and my future career. For now, Adieu! All praise be to the Lord Jesus!

Medieval People Knew the Bible

 This post goes alongside my previous from some weeks prior to now. In fact, in many it expounds upon it.  You can read it here.
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/were-medieval-people-ignorant.html?showComment=1559098007035#c8571142453869200045

I am about to write a post that may cause some controversy. But for me that won't be the first time, so why stop now!
 Many of my closest friends come to different conclusions on things than I do. We often debate, yet still get along. I think that's how things should be after all.
 Theologians don't often agree, so when some of them resort to which seminary they have been too to boost their ego and ''win'' the argument by putting the other person down, it is irrelevant. Many of the most educated people in the world disagree with each other.  I met an atheist once that claimed he knew so much more than me because he had went to a seminary. College diplomas do not give the satisfaction of one knowing they are right or not, nor does believing something because the majority does. What is perhaps most disturbing about ''who has the most college or seminary education is right'' argument, is that many Seminaries now deny the Virgin Birth and other core Christian doctrines. The fact that one has went to college or seminary makes a person no more right for his belief than he that hasn't. I often find it ironic that many pastors in almost all denominations resort to this argument about seminary education when they have no other substance to argue from.  Truly, many today would not be satisfied with a simple fisherman that preach the gospel. The Wisdom of this World { 1 Corinthians 1}, now matters more to many in the church than the humility of the Apostles.
 We may debate truth, but the facts of history cannot be denied. The Egyptian Pyramids are real buildings of stone built thousands of years ago, Julies Caesar was a real man, the Roman Empire lasted for centuries, and, the bloodiest battle in American History, happened at Gettysburg Pennsylvania .
 What I am getting at is that people who subscribe to a certain theological belief, often resort to changing the facts of history to fit their system. That's why you will find entire theological books give different opinions not only on whether John Calvin or Thomas Aquinas was more Biblically right, but the authors will go further by demonizing one or the other. This is all to fit one's agenda more of course. To do so successfully, facts of history will be denied or twisted to do this. Last, when one questions such people, no matter how polite you are, they will usually resort to putting you down in some way or the other by making you not look credible, so that the attention is off them. This is of course a bullying tactic, and by this point, it has strayed away from good substance of a true debate.
 Whether we like it or not, history is history, and there are obvious things about it that cannot be denied. Issues of dating certain battles or events in general, maybe complicated, but for the most part, we know of many key events and characters as once existing. Some of the details historians may debate, and why certain things happened in history, are left to interpretation. But again, the facts are not.
 Jesus Christ was a real man, whether or not you believe he was the Son of God, as I do. The Bible did not fall out of Heaven, but was put together for centuries. Councils as early as the fourth century taught there were seventy- three books of Scripture for instance. We can agree or disagree with a council based on our free will, but we cannot deny the fact that the Council of Trent for instance, was not the first council to teach that Maccabees was canonical.
 We can agree or disagree with Martin Luther. However, we are doing ourselves an injustice by denying facts of history. For example, if we held him responsible for some of the atrocities committed by his followers, we would be unfair.
 I think it's also important for people to remember that history be understood by the context of the times. When reading Homer for instance, the better you understand Greek Culture, the more you will understand his writings. People wrongly judge the past by the present, often giving way to illogic; of judging past events by our standards or culture.
 I am no theologian, but as a history student, I know what I am talking about. My debates are almost always based on substance, not emotion, or personal attacks. I have studied history for years, so that the study comes natural for me, and sometimes I read it without subjecting it to the title of ''history.''

 It is hardly ever denied the the Catholic Church has played a significant role in the History of Western Civilization.   The Catholic Church institutionalized establishment of hospitals or universities, it has given both education, as well help to the masses for 2000 years. This does not erase greedy red dressed cardinals or popes from their actions, but nor does the latter erase the former.
 Let us be open to the facts of history, as we evaluate our thoughts. But I do pray, that our decisions for the future, and beliefs of the past, not be one from pride, but rather humility.
People often make unfair generalizations about people based on sex, faith, or color of skin. Perhaps this is never more true than when it comes to religion. Catholics and Protestants have a number of occasions where both saw each other as the Whore of Babylon from the Book of Revelation. While much of the division between these Christians has dwindled down, there are still many cases of ignorance or biasness on both sides of the aisle. As the split between Protestants and Catholics goes all the ways back to Medieval Times, it is one I intend to write more about in the future.
 Lest some accuse me of bias; I can give well account of sources, information, and scholars that I have read over the years from both sides.
 As I have said elsewhere, historians tend to be less biased than theologians are. The latter is out to convince people of his church, rather than to be faithful to the facts of history. Protestant Church Historian Alister Mcgrath,  is an example of one who acknowledges the fact that most Christians did once see the Pope as the head of the church, despite the fact that many Protestants deny this.
 On a final note, before you continue, hear me on one more thing; I expose fallacies of history that people often believe to be true. In another post I gave evidence that many Medieval Christians did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, despite the fact that it is seen as a Dogma by Rome now. Later, I will write a post on controversies on Infallibility of the Pope and important facts showing that many Medieval Christians did not see the pope as infallible outside the context of a general council, despite the fact the fact that Vatican I upheld that he was so. In fact, many historians, both Protestant and Catholic, have illustrated from their works their belief that the pope was not seen as infallible until later in history. Again, I am not writing this post to demonstrate who is theologically right or wrong, but to expose false conceptions people have of Medieval Times. As to Papal Infallibility, that shall be a topic for another time.  I say this last note, so that no Catholics or Protestants can accuse me of believing things out of bias. On the contrary, I think for myself. I am convinced that most Christians just accept what their particular church believes so that they can fit in a box. Others do it, out of fear. Still others do it because they are too lazy to their own research. None of these things can be said of me. 

''Once the Coin the plate rings, the soul from Purgatory Springs.'' Although indulgences had been practiced by the Christian Church since at least the 5th century, much abuse went on with it primarily in the 15th and 16th centuries. This abuse would give rise to Luther's 95 Thesis at the doors of Wittenburg. It also would inspire the Council of Trent. 

In this Protestant Woodcut, it contrasts indulgences being sold in the right picture with a bishop presiding over the scene, with that of the abuse of the Hebrew Temple that Christ drove out on the left. 

From time to time you may hear historically false accusations that peasants or even priests, didn't know the Holy Scriptures. For many that make these accusations and claims, this is a huge glorification of the Protestant Reformation, which in their view, suddenly taught man the Scriptures.
 Now, as many of you are aware, this blog is no ''Apologetic related material''. I am not a Catholic Apologist out to convert Protestants, nor am to show them their alleged errors. In fact my views can often contrast with many Catholics and Protestants alike. In my view, I certainly have much in common to C. S. Lewis on many fields of interest and beliefs.
 So, let me again reinstate what my blog is not. This is not a blog for doctrine as I see it, or as Catholics see it.
 In fact I out call out false biases on the parts of both Catholics and Protestants. As I have said elsewhere, I try to see things more as a historian or an English teacher, than that as a theologian. As I intend to be an English teacher in the future, that is all the more true as well.
 Let me start off by saying that I am quite fair in pointing out unfair biases on the parts of Catholics of Protestants.  Some people really just  twist the facts of history to fit their agenda. This is certainly true of both sides. I won't be guilty of this.
 My post here is not intended to either glorify or demean the Protestant Reformation but rather to illustrate that many Protestants have over exaggerated the Medieval Church by making it look all corrupt with it's greedy bishops and it's Peasant members as deceived illiterates. It is interesting to also note, that in recent years many historians went against these fallacies commonly believed by Protestants about the Medieval Church.
 Although it is true; that Protestants will hardly search in vain to find crooked bishops of the past; they will also find; if they open their yes, monks that built the first clocks and contributed greatly to agriculture, and Francis of Assisi and his followers living on absolutely nothing for the service of Christ, some quite saintly popes that suffered for defending their flocks from heresy or infidels.
 It is interesting to note that during the Protestant Reformation, the Protestants portrayed the pope as Antichrist in their artwork, and the Catholics portrayed Luther, as a fat glutton. 

        This Protestant Woodcut above contrasts the humble life of the Apostles washing each other's feet, with that of the pope and cardinals, which it portrays as indulgent church leaders. Woodcuts were common during the Reformation Era.

  Woodcuts from the Catholic perspective, often portrayed a devil influencing Luther's thought.



 Of course despite my interest in Woodcuts, I am not trying to switch topic. They are beautiful in and all, but that maybe a subject on it's own for another post.
 Okay, now to continue.
There are multiple examples of the fact that even the illiterate Medieval Christians were not ignorant of the Scriptures. In fact, many of them certainly knew some of it. Emperor Charlemagne, of the Holy Roman Empire, promoted literacy, and pushed for the addition of the Filioque of the creed, despite the fact that he himself, was illiterate. Many Medieval Christians may have been illiterate, but they were not stupid. Those things they were ignorant in, they made up for in knowledge of subjects that modern man is ignorant of.
 Throughout the Middle Ages Monks studied the Scriptures intensely. Those that mock at the isolation of the monks from towns and culture, should let loose of their pride and give thanks to God that these Monks so seriously preserved the Holy Scriptures in their beautiful illuminated manuscripts. Even besides the preservation of the Word of God, some people have lost sight that it was largely both Greek and Roman Monks that brought the gospel to all of then pagan Europe during the early Middle Ages.
 Several Medieval Councils required that sermons on Sunday teach doctrine. Along with this, some charge that many did not know Latin, despite the fact that many did know some of it. They will complain  of the Bible or liturgy of the church being in Latin, as it was in most cases throughout the Middle Ages. But in fourteenth century England, for instance, more knew Latin than English.
Friars preached to the Masses, whether in the churches, or in the streets. Yes long before the Methodist, Wesley or Whitefield, there were Catholic saints that open air preached.
 A synod at Canterbury in 1281 commanded priests to teach those at their parishes the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the sacraments. Even several Protestant Reformers acknowledged the fact that they learned the ten commandments growing up as Catholics. Priests in the Anglo-Saxon Churches preached in English. 
More commentaries were written on the Bible in the Middle Ages than any other era. I just thought I'd mention that as well. That is important, primarily to show the seriousness and devotion Medieval Christians had towards the Bible.
 Another interesting fact is that many of the Greek Christians in the early Middle Ages were quite learned, despite the fact that many in the West were not, and were just suddenly becoming Christians during the early Middle Ages from recent evangelism. Even then, the Roman Church was essentially always well taught and knowledgeable of theology and scriptures.
 In the High Middle Ages, Pope Innocent III quotes the Scriptures extensively through his writings. If one is to deny the knowledge of Scriptures by his Holiness, they should at least have read his works. If they do read his works however,  I would argue that they would come to acknowledge Innocent's knowledge of the Scriptures. Innocent much like Saint Augustine of Hippo, had an amazing knowledge of the Word of God. He certainly knew for instance, the Scriptures used in support of the papacy. Yet Pope Innocent, knew much more from the Scriptures than the authority Catholics have always believed Christ gave Peter. Of Innocent's knowledge of the Scriptures, and of his personal theology, I will leave that however, for another post.
 Also, it should be noted that there were no printing presses until the 15th century. Up until then, most priests did not have a complete Bible. Medieval Bibles were commonly in illuminated manuscripts, and thus not in print form as we often think of Bibles. It was not easy just to go and buy a Bible like we can easily today. Modern man has underrated and unappreciated his reach of the Bible. I mention this because it is one thing for Protestants to claim the Catholic Hierarchy of the late Middle Ages withheld the bible from the common man for about a century or so, it is another as some Protestants do, who take it much further. Some Protestants wrongly think the Catholic Church withheld the Bible for a thousand years or longer from the Peasants. What many of them fail to understand, is that it was not easy until the printing press to distribute books. So falls this great fallacy about the Catholic Church withholding the Bible for a thousand years. On a lesser note, parts of the Bible had been translated into English centuries before Wycliffe by Anglo-Saxons. But again, some of the Protestants that make these claims do not simply argue that the common man should have been given a Bible, but they add exaggerations to the facts of history to fit their propaganda.
 Many Catholics and Protestants alike fall to guilty of unfair generalizations of each other, as well as phony facts of the past to fit each's own agenda. It is a pity more people of today in this modern world,  don't dwell on the ten commandments as Christians once did. Of course, humility is where a lot of it begins!  I pray to Almighty God for humility and strength for all Christians.



 Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation: on thee do I wait all day.
 -Psalm 25: 5


 Further Sources


https://catholicbridge.com/catholic/did-the-catholic-church-forbid-bible-reading.php

 Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages by R. W. Southern.
 Pope Innocent III and the Greek Church { 1198-1216} by Richard James Clearly
 Introduction to the Roman Catechism, Tan Publishing
 The Complete Illustrated Guide to Catholicism by Ronald Creighton-Jobe
 Reformation: A Picture Story of Martin Luther by Dietrach Steinwede
 How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods
 Origins of Papal Infallability 1150-1350: A study of the concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages by Brian Tierney
 The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300-1870
 Papal Primacy: From it's Origins to the Present by Klaus Scatz

Some thoughts on Sense and Sensibility Volume Three

 There are only a few books I have read that I know I do not want to die before reading them again. Sense and Sensibility, which was actually originally named Eleanor and Marianne,  is one of those books that must carefully be put on my shelf, and is one I may very well read many times in the future.
 I began Sense and Sensibility after starting the Iliad by Homer, a work I plan to return in reading soon. With respect to Homer, I found his writing much more archaic and less plot driven that Austen's own. The Iliad was thrilling to me until I picked up and began reading Sense and Sensibility.
I recently finished the third volume of Jane Austen's first book, Sense and Sensibility.  While doing this, I also began the great Medieval Classic, Sir Gawain And the Green Knight. These are two entirely different works of course but I like to read books of different themes at once. This usually helps me not get bored with one subject.  I also will be rereading Sense and Sensibility shortly from now. In fact, I own a hardcover edition of it from Penguin classics that I find most pretty!
 I'm not going to give away many spoilers here! But I can certainly speak of many resolved and completed plots in the third volume of this book. Perhaps of central importance to this book is the relation of the Dashwood sisters to Colonel Brandon and Edward Ferrars. The Third volume again heavily told from Eleanor's perspective, as she watches her sister Marianne, heal from a broken heart. The story ends on a note about the youngest sister, Marguerite Dashwood, and mentions that she has come to a point of maturity that she would be quite noble for a gentleman to seek. Perhaps we can envy the possible sequel that could have been to Austen's classic about the youngest Dashwood sister.
 That is all I am going to say of the plot here. Jane Austen's works are of course relevant to things Medieval as I have mentioned in another post.
 All that said, I encourage lovers of literature to pick up this great piece of English Literature, and to read it. Also check out a few of the film adaptions of the novel, most notably the one from Emma Thompson!
  On a critical level, I was most pleased with this book. I would possibly rank it among the top ten novels I have read. It would be hard to be certain that it is my favorite novel since it is the only one of hers that I have read. But I do think that even if I read all her works, this probably would still be my favorite.
 Though I have seen it before, I just ordered the blue ray multi format of the 1995 Sense and Sensibility film. Indeed,  I do look forward to watching it again!
 Jane Austen may go down, as if she has not already, as one of the greatest writers of English Literature. Indeed, we are much indebted to the great stories that she wrote that have given joy to millions.
 With some of my brief analyzing of Austen's Sense and Sensibility on this blog now done for now, I am ready to share the excitement of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, as well as other works of Medieval Literature. But who knows, maybe I will post about Austin at some point again.
 On a different subject, I have something to my readers to say briefly here. Different Christians from Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Protestant beliefs read my blog posts. That is all completely fine and welcomed. In fact, I am no apologist for any of these branches of Christianity, and that is not the intent of this blog. I do wish to help people think by the reading of my posts, and I hope my reflections on various subjects will be seen less as propaganda than good ole reading. Last, this blog was largely set up to propel my future career as a teacher and writer.
 Some of you may now be aware of the various topics on this blog: History, Social Sciences, Art, Philosophy, Religion, Theology, Politics and Literature. In short, anything about or related to Medieval Times is consummated here. By Medieval I am also including the late Renaissance by the way.  My blog thus incorporates a timeline of starting in the 4th century and ending in the 18th. Added to this however, are also events or things before or after that timeline, though they are related to it somehow. So for example, I may find ways to tie in Charles Dickens or Homer to topics on this blog, despite that fact that neither lived in Medieval Times.
Of course, I only began this blog back in January so I have now just begun. I try to evaluate things more as a historian or an English teacher than as a theologian. I find the latter, is usually filled with more particular agendas of defending one's church, even if those defenses are unfounded historically, or only half truths. Again this blog is not Apologetic related material, I'm not denying my posts reflect my worldview though. But my theological opinions are usually less relevant here.
As always, thank you for taking the time to read my posts. It's one thing to a have particular view, it's another to twist facts of History or Literature for example, to fit them. God bless, Joshua.
I know some of that is a little off of the topic of this post, so let me get back to the subject of Austen. I will end by a few quotes from her and the Holy Scriptures.

'' My Beloved lifts up his voice, he says to me, 'Come then, my love, my lovely one, come. For see, winter is past, the rains are over and gone. The flowers appear on the earth. The season of glad songs has come, the cooing of the turtledove is heard in our land.''
 -The Song of Song Chapter Two, Verses 10-12.

The Virgin Mary in Medieval Art and History

And the angel said to her, ''Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. '' -Luke 1: 30

The Mother of God is often shown with red hair and a fat baby Jesus in her arms in Medieval paintings. While this may sound strange to modern ears, many pictures in Medieval Art portrayed Mary as such.
 Since the earliest days, Christians have shown honour to the blessed Virgin. Contrary to some Evangelicals's beliefs, early Christians in no way learned their prayers to the saints from Pagan Rome.  In fact, these were some of the Christian practices the Romans never understood about Christians. Much like the fact that Romans accused Christians of being cannibals by eating the Body and Blood of Christ, or like how the Romans claimed the Christians had incest with one another since they called each others brothers and sisters, the Romans found it strange likewise, that Christians would ask those that had already died to pray for them. Of course, Christians since the earliest of times believed in the Communion of Saints, that those on Heaven and Earth are able to pray for one another { though those in Heaven of course need no prayer for}.   Perhaps most surprising of all is that Christians have always asked the saints, and especially the Virgin Mary, to pray for them. This was no less true than the leader of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther. Until his death, Luther would ask the Blessed Virgin to pray for him. Of significance to all this about Intercession of the saint also is that prayers to the saints are written on ancient stones from the Roman Empire. 

 Peter and Paul pray for Victor!
 I commend to Saint Basilla the innocent Gemellus,
Anatolias,...intercede for your sister.
 Pray for your brothers and your friends.
Pray for your parents.
Martyrs and saints, keep Maria in mind.
 O Hippolytus, remember Peter a sinner,
Master Crescentio, heal my eyes for me!
 O Saint Sixtus, remember Aurelius Repentinus in your prayers!
 Oh holy souls, remember Marcianus, Successus, Servus, and all our brethren!

Saint Augustine often asked the Apostle John to pray for him. This is an ancient practice indeed. There are dozens of examples of historical evidence for this.
 Throughout the ages, because of the role she was blessed to be given in giving birth to our Savior, Christ Jesus, Mary has been seen as a Mother for all of us.  The Virgin Mary in particular of course, has had a tremendous influence on Christian art. On the catacombs of the early church, one will find paintings of the Virgin Mary. Even apparitions are recorded of the Virgin Mary are well known to have appeared. The first such recording of an apparition was in 250 A. D. to Saint Gregory the Wonderworker.
 The Church fathers spoke high of the Mother of God. Some called her the second Eve. The Western Church generally held to her sinlessness, though the East did not as much.
 The Blessed Virgin has been honored essentially by all Christians for 2,000 years.  Again to mention the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Saint Jerome claims Saints Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr,  and Irenaeus taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Seems awfully strange that the very disciples of the Apostles would be wrong about the Virgin's Perpetual Virginity.  After all, were they not closer to her in time than we are? As a example, Ignatius of Antioch was a student of the Apostle John. Let us not be arrogant in thinking that we know more about the people spoken in the Scriptures then they did! Anyhow, over time however, more and Protestants down through the ages seemed to turn away from the veneration of the Virgin, well known to the early church. This is especially true of Evangelicals.
 On the other hand, when Pope Piux IX declared the Immaculate Conception in 1854 he would be teach directly at odds with what Saints Ambrose of Milan,  Augustine of Hippo,  Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas had taught.
 Some of the Western Fathers held that the Virgin Mary was born without sin, while others said she was born with it, but lived without ever personally sinning. But those mentioned above, did not teach { except for perhaps Aquinas} that the Virgin was conceived without original sin. In fact, some of these saints believed, that the doctrine of the Immaculate of Conception took away the need for Christ to save Mary if true.
 Last, there are many other doctrines of the Virgin of Mary that have been proposed throughout the ages. But none of that I find to be relevant here.

  Despite differing views among Christians over certain doctrines of the Virgin Mary, it is indeed clear, that she has inspired many Christians since the times of Christ.


Of Oon that is so faire and bright,
Velud marts stella,
 Brighter thanne the dayes light,
 Parens et Puella

 I crie to thee, thou sees to me.
 Lady, preye thy Sone for me,
 Tam Pia, That I m oot to come to thee Maria.
 -Geoffrey Chaucer.

My influence from Saint Augustine of Hippo

 Some of you may know by now that I have loved Augustine for many years. I did so when I was a Protestant, and I now as well as a Catholic. As someone who has not only read some of Augustine's works, but also studied them with extensive notes, I am very familiar with this Doctor of the Church.  In fact, I probably agree with just about everything Augustine ever said.
 Saint Augustine had tremendous influence on Roman Catholics and Protestants. Thomas Aquinas was strongly Augustinian in his theology. John Wycliffe considered himself a follower of Augustine. Martin Luther, an Augustinian Friar, and leader of the Protestant Reformation, was heavily influenced by Augustine. John Calvin quotes Augustine of Hippo more than anyone in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Like Luther, John Wesley claimed to have converted to Christ, by Augustine's Commentary on Romans.

 I am so Augustinian that sometimes people are surprised by my strong vigorous support of Augustine beliefs. Whether it be predestination, theocracy, or baptism, or elsewhere,  I am Augustinian. This is of particular importance in relation to Augustine's influence on me, as many see Augustine's theology as being too harsh.
 I have read up to this point the following works, Confessions, On Faith, Hope, and Charity, On Faith and Works, the Retractations, and On the Trinity. I have also read some rare sermons of Augustine about Perpetua and Felicity. I am currently reading the City of God by Augustine.
 I may post more on Augustine's theology on here for the future, but for now I just wanted to aware my readers of my Augustinian worldview. I believe Baptism is necessary for salvation, I believe Predestination of the saints is not based on foreseen merits, I believe all men have free will, I believe the damned are damned out of their disobedience, I believe in the 73 canon of books decreed by the Council of Carthage, I believe in Apostolic Succession, I believe in Original Sin, I believe the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, I believe marriage is indissoluble, and I believe in Purgatory.

 Of Augustine personally, I will post some other time. This great saint is worth much more than the topic of one blog post.
 To say that Augustine was not a Catholic is false and absurd. On the other hand, Augustine believed things contrary to what the Roman Church would later teach. Like many of the Western fathers, Augustine taught the Virgin Mary was free from personal sin, but still born with original sin. Augustine's view is contrary to the later Dogma of the Immaculate conception of Mary, promulgated by Pope Piux IX. Also, while Augustine did teach the papacy, he did not give it many of the clear and precise definitions the papacy is known for, especially in comparison to what Vatican I would later define as Papal Infallibility.

 Yes, those are just some examples of things Augustine taught. All of them can be easily proven from his own writings. This is not debate but factual. One can agree or disagree with Augustine, but we must also be careful not to read our views into his own.
 But to my own influence also, I would not have thought nearly so much of the doctrines of the Trinity if it had not been for Augustine. Likewise, I would have never had a good Catholic understanding of Predestination without him.

Morality Plays and their role in Literature

   This is a little bit of a longer post today, than normal, but it has a lot of content to cover. I hope you enjoy, and if you don't, I'd appreciate you throw your rotten tomatoes out for the rats to eat than at my performance here. That said, I proceed to my post.
 A little earlier this year a Shakespearean actor got in a conversation with me at a bookstore. We discussed some of our interest in Shakespeare, and shortly thereafter, he told me that I look like an actor. What looking like an actor is I am not sure, but I supposes he would know as he frequently performs here in Knoxville.
 While I currently don't think of myself as a public actor, I am very much interested in filming, and what makes some films or plays great or not great. By my knowledge of how books or movies are revived by critics and audiences, I try to evaluate what it is that ultimately leads to art catching us away into a good story, or into some cases, where we are about to throw rotten tomatoes at the actors or director for a bad performance. Also, I try to learn from the artistic successes and failures of movies and books.
 Yes, Drama itself, is in many ways at least almost as interesting to me as is English Literature. People underestimate the role that the arts have in affecting the human mind and soul, and as will be discussed in this post, Drama in particular.
 I have had seldom experience in public acting, but that does not mean I do not study it or find it interesting. I probably study Drama more than other part of Literature.

As someone that loves Drama, this has been something I have been waiting to post on for a while. One of the interesting things of course about Drama, is that it is not intended to be read, but performed. It is possibly my favorite form of literature, and not just because of my enjoyment of watching Shakespeare plays done live. I find Drama moves us in ways that sometimes other works of literature do not. Although I have written few plays, Drama has heavily inspired my stories for years. In fact, I frequently act out the scenes of the characters in my books before, during, or after I write them in my stories. So for me, Drama is more than a sense of entertainment, it has given much foundation to my career as a writer.

Drama was of course essential to Medieval Western Culture, which is largely the focus of this week's post. Medieval plays existed long before Shakespeare, as will be written about below.

I was reading recently about how Medieval People had a lot more holidays in their year, as well more holy days of obligation to attend mass. In short, they had more time from work than many do today. Medieval People frequently enjoyed dancing and festivals to brighten their spirits.  Studies have actually shown that Medieval people were more happier than people are today.

  Medieval People were the most part, not rigid unreachable and bored people. They played football as an example, a game play much different from that era. Football was one of many sports that many Medieval people enjoyed.  No doubt the arts were essential to medieval Western Culture. Although many Medieval people were illiterate, they had more of a knowledge of literature and books than many do today.
Writing comes in many forms: Comedy, Tragedy, History, Satire, Religious, poetry, prose, etc. I probably like essentially all forms of writing, and consider myself well rounded in my appreciation of entertainment from different genres. For example, I love Comedy. I frequently watch Looney Tunes and other related slapstick cartoons in the breaks between when I write.  Whether you like the high comedy of Pride and Prejudice, or the low Comedy of I love Lucy, we all like to laugh. It is no wonder then that many people will sometimes put something on just to make them feel happy.
 Then there is Tragedy. Who cannot appreciate the tone Shakespeare sets in Hamlet, with the well thought out lines of the characters? And let us not forget of the loyalty between Romeo and Juliet for each other, that they would take their own lives before sacrificing their love for one another.
 Of History, the Killer Angels by Michael Shaara will always be one of my favorites. The Battle of Gettysburg contained in Shaara's novel, could not be more realistic or exciting then how it is is presented. Homer's The Iliad and The Odyssey, are no exceptions to stories with historical and mythological settings, that in every way brings the Siege of Troy to life.
 These are just some examples of great written works that have laid the standard for other works in their own genre. Stories impact culture, and set the stage for future stories.
 Going back to what I said earlier, people like to laugh. That is understandable. What person admires he that walks around with a frown on his face all day, or is negative in every possible about the future? We admire true optimism, because that is how we want to feel. That is probably why we generally prefer stories where things ''go happily ever after'' for the hero and heroine, rather than end in tragedy.   People often resort to entertainment, to fill in the vacancies of their own life. The arts can help us evaluate deeper things about ourselves and others. Studies continue to show that children that read books are more sensitive to other people's feelings. So our desire to laugh and be happy is all a good thing. But happiness that is in this life is not the purpose of this post, as much as I hope that people will live happier lives by watching or reading Comedy.
 As much as we like to laugh or be happy in life I would argue our own happiness is not nearly as important as the pleasure our conscience is given when we trust in God and obey him. As one of the old hymns say, ''Trust and obey, for there is no other way to be happier than in Jesus, than to trust and obey...''
 We as humans will do many things in life to fulfill our insecurities  by trusting in something greater than ourselves. This is but one reason that most people in the world practice some form of religion or another. We want to believe that there is something larger than life beyond and ahead of us once this life is over.  It is not he that admits this about himself and his relation to his Creator and turns to God for faith that is the fool, but he that willfully rejects God while holding on to his sin.
 Reason of course, I would argue is the principle reason most people believe in God. We know nothing creates itself, therefore the Universe must have been made by Someone, though I will say no more of that here
 All that said,  at the end of the day, how can any man live in self denial of his soul's very eternal existence? We all know God's existence, yes, even so does the atheist. Also, all of us know we are going to face God on Judgment day. 
We live in a society today in which of entertainment contains foul language, sex outside of marriage, and many abominations before the Lord. Society is losing more and more a good taste of what makes books or movies great. Non-stop action has seemed to replace good scripts, and grand visual affects has seemed to put largely an end, at least for now, of genuine good stories.
 With the above said, I thought I would write a post about the forms of entertainment that were once dominate in Medieval Culture. Hopefully, this will will remind people of how much the arts has truly changed!
 Something that seems to be disappearing more and more in churches, if it has not already disappeared, is the use of morality plays. Less and less emphasis from pulpits is about the reality of Heaven and Hell in American Churches, and more emphasis is about silly jokes or sweet homilies to live by.
 It is no wonder then that many have probably forgotten how serious Medieval man took eternal things. Not just Medieval Roman Catholics, but Puritan Protestants well knew of the the grip reality of Heaven and hell. In this post however, I will narrow down the focus of eternal things on their influence upon literature as told through Morality Plays.
 Now many Christians may have their different opinions of entertainment. This is obviously not new, it goes back a long ways. Tertullian rejected influence from the Greek Philosophers, while Augustine embraced their ideas with support for Christianity. Over time, Augustine's view became the more accepted one in the west.  John Milton, a Puritan prolific author, used Homer's stories for inspiration for his Paradise Lost.

 I come from the point of view, that Christians have all freedom to use many secular works to bring God glory. For example, I think Christians have much to learn from the wisdom of many of Shakespeare's Plays, even those that are the least explicitly religious. Another example, would be the use of learning foreign languages.  Are we going to avoid reading any secular books, even when from such books we can draw information, and build arguments to defend our Christian faith.  I take the opposition to those who claim we can use nothing but the Bible, especially considering that the Holy Scriptures never say that. It's one thing to claim as traditional Protestants do that Scriptures supersedes any church authority, it is another to claim Christians have no right to watch movies or read books other than the Bible. It's one thing if that is your personal conviction, but it is another to mandate that on other people, when Scripture supports no such notion.
 Before any one takes my words out of context, I have affirmed again reasons why Christians should be concerned about the Harry Potter Series. I think there are dangers from the Harry Potter books and movies, especially for children, that could confuse, or even mislead the faithful.
 Obviously, there is much of music, as well as many movies, I would not encourage Christians to pursue interest in. All that I am saying is that Christians have the right to enjoy entertainment that does not violate God's laws, or does not mock the Creator.

 Now to return to Drama, let me again affirm how pleasurable it is not only to post about this, but to dwell on eternal things. I do think, that Christians should especially pursue arts that gives direct credit to the Godhead found in the Holy Trinity alone. To my view, there is no such better art.
  One particular Morality Play that has been a longtime favorite of mine, is Everyman. This story's author was unknown. The play was written in the later part of the Middle Ages. Everyman is about God's coming judgment for the world and the sacraments men must seek to gain grace before God. The story reads very alike to the later Puritan classic, Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan. The latter work I will post about some other time!

Everyman was not the first morality play however. Morality Plays originated in the Catholic Church, by telling Bible stories of Noah and the Ark etc. Biblical Plays were performed inside or outside of churches. Over time these Biblical plays led into the Morality Play, which did not necessarily have to be Biblical as much as it's very focus on eternal things.
 It is a pity that more people do not see plays today of eternal things. Perhaps people do not realize the danger and the warnings the can be given to the watch of the eyes. As Scripture says, '' For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.'' -1 John 2: 16.   Pornography has a dangerous effect upon men's eyes.  How much would be the reverse to many man's addiction to pornography if churches put more plays of the seriousness of Heaven and hell as thy use to. Morality plays likewise, affect people's visuals as well, watching characters dressed as angels or demons etc, and of the great Spiritual forces and wars around us.

As we speak, or whatever we do, those things in life that seem so important to us, are nothing in comparison to the coming Armageddon and return of Christ. If only more of us, truly thought every moment of the day, on how short this life is in comparison to the endless of eternity, and spent more time thinking of eternal things than carnal ones, this world would truly be a better place, and methinks more souls would enter the straight and narrow path to Heaven. 
 To often we treat eternity as a dream or as a fantasy. Even those of us who believe in it, often think more of worries in this life than how we will be rewarded or punished in the next. Where is the famous standard of the Pilgrim merely passing through this world to the Celestial city, that was well known to Medieval man?  What was once priorities to culture have now become vain ambitions, and those issues that were of less importance are now seen as the successes of life. The world has seemed to flip upside down, and people have lost sight of what is most important, eternity.
 The arts reflect our values. Compare Cecille B. Mille's The Ten Commandments to James Cameron's Avatar, and think about what I am saying. When did culture go from having superheroes like George Baily to the Countless Marvel heroes? Whereas, the former was a hero by his love for family and his moral convictions, the latter have become heroes by their physical strengths and god likeness.
 Maybe you don't agree with all my comparisons and that is completely fine! People disagree with me all the time, and I with them. But one thing I will never understand is the lack of eternal focus in many churches today. Why even have church if your intent is not to get men to imitate Christ in their actions? If church is simply about social gathering for you, you need to re-examine the New Testament Church from the very Scriptures.

 Anyhow, I would like to see Morality Plays brought back to churches again, and hopefully, to the big screen. But if the church does not itself preach of fire and brimstone, then how can we expect Hollywood too? Let's slowly reform our culture by grassroots movements at the local churches, that emphasize on the need for people to think about eternal things. Who knows, maybe they will be even interested in performing a Morality play of their own?

 Now to quote my favorite Bible verse for many years, to wrap up this post:  '' But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murders, and whore-mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death. -Revelation 21: 8.


 Our views of salvation, eternity, righteousness and sin, affect how we see God and vice versa. Let us please our Creator by taking up our Cross daily to follow Him. The Early Christians would not so much as partake in the events of the Gladiator or Chariot races of Ancient Rome, as they saw them as world. God has given us the arts to enjoy, yet there is a balance with that. While we should not resort to legalism by setting up more standards for people to live by, than what God Himself has commanded of people, we ought also to be careful not to be guilty of idolizing or even partaking in those things which are offensive to God. Let us Christianize our world, let us us reform Western Culture. The Patristic Christians did it to Ancient Rome. With God's help, I think we can do likewise for America. Let us take back the arts, throw out those things that God despises, and use the arts for God's glory.
 As to sports, early Christians and Medieval Christians dealt with a different situation of context. Whereas the former dealt with over glorified sports in Pagan Rome, Medieval Christians enjoyed sports games that were not nearly as connected to immoral ideas { though immorality could happen in Medieval sports as well.}. Many Christians are currently in disagreement of whether or not Christians have the right to be involved in sports. Well the short answer is yes, they do. But briefly let me also say to the reader, that sports today, least many of them, are also associated with universities that teach the very things that God hates. Of course, the same could be said for many Hollywood films, though one significant difference between the two,  that film studios are not indoctrinating youth and kids by countless lies as are public universities that get funding after funding by those that support their sport games. My advise if you love football for example, buy a ticket to a Christian School and enjoy a game of it. There are many ways to enjoy sports other than seeking out and supporting the very institutions of the states, that are so often leading and responsible for the high numbers of youth that will never again return to church or Christianity.
 Okay, that is all I have to say for now, and I feel all the bolder for saying all of it! Perhaps because much of this post has been circling around my head for years, and today I had the freedom to say much of what I really felt.
 One last point though, we should not be quick to judge other by the standards we live. St. Francis of Assisi did not do so when he lived a much more committed life than most. Just because we feel that we have a convection to do right, does not mean it is in our power to judge other men for what they do not do. While many could also use this as an excuse not to correct others when that is needed, let us also be careful of those that think a man is in sin for enjoying those things that are not in themselves sins, though maybe unwise to seek out or enjoy. There is much in this life that is certainly not evil, but there is also much in life that is certainly better to live by. Let us strive for the higher calling, let us strive to judge ourselves before we judge others. All Praise be to the Creator.