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.