Podcast appearances and mentions of Peter Abelard

St. Bernard of Claivaux (1090 - 1153 AD) was the founder of the Cistercians, a reform order of the Benedictines, and was one of the Church's true mystics. He opposed the “intentionalism” of the heretic Peter Abelard with his quip: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” He also opposed an anti-pope, corrected a king, brokered peace in Europe, and had to nuance the doctrine of “just war” in the face of Christian losses in the Crusades. Links Check out this article on St. Barnard of Clairvaux and the Active Life: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/bernard-clairvaux-and-active-life/?repos=6&subrepos=0&searchid=2539743 Here's the Classics of Western Spirituality volume on St. Bernard: https://www.paulistpress.com/Products/2917-5/bernard-of-clairvaux.aspx SIGN UP for Catholic Culture's Newsletter:  https://www.catholicculture.org/newsletters/ DONATE at:  http://www.catholicculture.org/donate/audio Dr. Papandrea's Homepage:  http://www.jimpapandrea.com Dr. Papandrea's YouTube channel, The Original Church: https://www.youtube.com/@TheOriginalChurch To ask questions, make comments, or interact with Dr. Papandrea, join the conversation in the Original Church Community: https://theoriginalchurch.locals.com/ Theme Music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of Corpus Christi Watershed:  https://www.ccwatershed.org/

Ep. 684: Cranford | Chapter 6 Book talk begins at 15:15 Oh, you're not ready for this one. This week, Miss Matty lets us in on a long-held family secret—and you know when the ladies of Cranford whisper, it's worth leaning in. --------------------------------------------------------------- 00:00 Episode start 01:45 Plum Deluxe Also, MAY RAFFLE - Sir Walter Scott Cross stitch from Rebecca S (Of Book it with Becca, who wrote the wonderful post: 03:30 Parkrose Permaculture video on Then I found that I'd watched several of her videos on the subject of Individualism: Rugged Individualism (and another video on the book 8:20 (I love this guy's VERY DIY attitude) and and 12:00 Barbara Edelman show - BEE EPISODE 15:15 Read all the letters and ended with “poor Peter” which will be where we begin today 15:30 Reminder From Ch 5: Bonus Bernardus non video omnia* The Blessed Bernard does not see everything - maybe said by St Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)— This quote is often attributed (possibly apocryphally) to Peter Abelard, the 12th-century theologian, as a gentle jab at St. Bernard of Clairvaux, with whom he clashed theologically. Meaning: Even the wisest man (here, Blessed Bernard) can be wrong sometimes. 16:00 Hoaxing - slang when it first came in to use 1796 but by 1820 it was common use. So by 1840-50 it was no longer improper to use. 16:44 St James's Chronicle - 18:00 Rhododendron - in late 1840s and in to the 1850s, Botanist Sir Joseph Hooker bro und exotic species back from the Himalayas which was VERY exciting and the reason that the Rhododendron Dell was put in at Kew Gardens… IS IT STILL THERE? heather@craftlit.com or 1-206-350-1642, or 20:10 Queen Esther and King Ahasuerus - LOOK! ⬆️ It's a Whole Megillah!

Ep. 683: Cranford | Chapter 5 Book talk begins at 9:31 A mysterious stranger arrives in town, and you just know the ladies of Cranford are ready to investigate... politely, of course. --------------------------------------------------------------- 00:00 Episode start 01:28 2:42 Plum Deluxe . Plum Deluxe's CraftLit tea collection is here: Also, MAY RAFFLE - Sir Walter Scott Cross stitch from Rebecca S (Of Book it with Becca, who wrote the wonderful post: 04:25 Gardening! 09:30 - START BOOK TALK: Last week, the lovely Mr Holbrook and his very sad passing. 12:06 Joint- Stock bank: > A bank owned by shareholders, operating under a charter or act of Parliament, and offering services to the public. Unlike older private banks (run by individuals or families), joint-stock banks were corporations, meaning shared risk and more capital. How bank books worked— A bank book (also called a passbook) was given to bank customers to record all transactions in their account—- Every deposit and withdrawal was manually written into the book by a bank clerk. The customer's copy was their only proof of the account's balance. 14:12 Envelope usage / turning inside out (ETSY doing this NOW) Whole vs half sheet and crossed letters 16:36 STRING and Indian-rubber rings 17:24 “India-rubber” was the 19th-century term for what we now just call rubber—and India-rubber rings were small rubber loops or bands like we use today. Came from the latex of tropical trees (especially Hevea brasiliensis) 18:42 TONQUIN beans: TONKA beans: Tonka beans are the wrinkled, black seeds of the Dipteryx odorata tree, native to South America. Chefs outside the US use them in desserts and to replace nuts. AND ILLEGAL in the USA since 1954 due to the presence of liver damaging “coumarin” - - and 20:54 22:43 PADUASOY: heavy, rich corded or embossed silk fabric, From French - peau de soie, a cloth resembling serge (twill fabric with diagonal lines/ridges on both inner and outer surfaces per a two-up/two-down weave.) 24:19 Bottom of page a small “T.O.” = turn over / Molly's writing is full of spelling like “Bewty” which is a subsequent joke line 25:49 Dum memor ipse Mei, dum Spiritus regift artus - Virgil, Æneid, IV.382, “While memory shall last and breath still control my limbs” 25:28 Carmen (lowercase) like CARMINA (song poem or verse) 26:54 Gentleman's Magazine 1782—Kind of an Atlantic Monthly—guess who contributed? Samuel Johnson! 27:18 M. T. Ciceroni's Epistolae: The letters of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43BCE) Roman statesman, orator, philosopher, and writer with 800+ letters surviving Heather before recording, in garden, with skewer pack: 28:41 “Rod in a pickle” - rod, method of punishment; pickle, something preserved for future use. 29:42 Life is a vale of tears: Psalm 84:6 also, description of a helicopter parent feels marvelously modern 30:21 Mrs Chapone (1727-1801) Contributed to the Rambler AND Gentleman's Magazine and wrote “Letters on the Improvement of the Mind (1773) and Mrs Carter (1717-1806) many languages and in 1758 published first translation of Epictetus THE Stoic Philosopher. 31:32 “Before Miss Edgeworth's ‘Patronage' had banished wafers from polite society…”: Patronage was a book (1814) with a character who was offended by a letter she received that was sealed with a wafer: “I wonder how any man can have the impertinence to send me his spittle” (I, 248) 33:06 “Old original post with stamp in the corner” not exactly the right watermark, but you get the idea… 34:30 “Sesquipedalian” writing - foot and a half long sesqui = 1-½ pedalis =foot looonng polysyllabic words 35:13 Buonaparte (Bony)1805 invasion fears - In case you still need to build your own 36:55 David and Goliath, son of Jesse (I Samuel 17) Apollyon (Greek version) and Abbadon (Hebrew version) are names for an archangel In Revelation 9:11—> _“And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.” (Revelation 9:11, KJV) Meaning: Abaddon (Hebrew) means “destruction” or “place of destruction.” Apollyon (Greek) means “destroyer.” It's overblown biblical satire—calling someone “Apollyon” in Cranford is like referring to a strict schoolmarm as “Beelzebub.” 38:08 Bonus Bernardus non video omnia The Blessed Bernard does not see everything - maybe said by St Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)— This quote is often attributed (possibly apocryphally) to Peter Abelard, the 12th-century theologian, as a gentle jab at St. Bernard of Clairvaux, with whom he clashed theologically. Meaning: Even the wisest man (here, Blessed Bernard) can be wrong sometimes. Post-chapter Notes Chapone and Carter and Bluestockings (see below for big notes) real historical women writers, both part of the 18th-century English Bluestocking movement—educated, literary women who promoted female intellectualism and moral development. Gaskell is absolutely name-dropping intentionally here for Cranford's themes of domestic gentility, moral seriousness, and self-improvement. ⸻ Mrs. Hester Chapone (1727–1801) Best known for Letters on the Improvement of the Mind (1773), addressed to her niece. It was a conduct book for young women, offering advice on moral character, reading habits, and proper behavior. Hugely popular—Cranford-adjacent readers would know her by name. ⸻ Mrs. Elizabeth Carter (1717–1806) A respected scholar, translator, and poet—a genuine intellectual heavyweight. Famously translated the Discourses of Epictetus from Greek in 1758—the first English translation by a woman, and one of the first of Epictetus at all. She knew multiple classical and modern languages and was close friends with figures like Samuel Johnson and Hannah More. *CraftLit's Socials* • Find everything here: https://www.linktr.ee/craftlitchannel • Join the newsletter: http://eepurl.com/2raf9  • Podcast site: http://craftlit.com • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CraftLit/ • Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/craftlit • Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/craftlit/ • TikTok podcast: https://www.tiktok.com/@craftlit • Email: heather@craftlit.com • Previous CraftLit Classics can be found here: https://bit.ly/craftlit-library-2023   *SUPPORT THE SHOW!* • CraftLit App Premium feed bit.ly/libsynpremiumcraftlit (only one tier available) • PATREON:   https://patreon.com/craftlit (all tiers, below) ——Walter Harright -  $5/mo for the same audio as on App ——Jane Eyre - $10/mo for even-month Book Parties ——Mina Harker - $15/mo for odd-month Watch Parties *All tiers and benefits are also available as* —*YouTube Channel Memberships*  —*Ko-Fi* https://ko-fi.com/craftlit  —*NEW* at CraftLit.com — Premium Memberships https://craftlit.com/membership-levels/ *IF you want to join a particular Book or Watch Patry but you don't want to join any of the above membership options*, please use PayPal.me/craftlit or CraftLit @ Venmo and include what you want to attend in the message field. Please give us at least 24 hours to get your message and add you to the attendee list.     • Download the FREE CraftLit App for iOS or Android (you can call or email feedback straight from within the app) • Call 1-206-350-1642

In this episode, Dr. Alan Strange and host Jared Luttjeboer discuss the rich theological landscape of the Later Medieval period, exploring pivotal figures like Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas. They unpack the significant theological debates and doctrinal developments that shaped church history, examining the strengths and weaknesses of these medieval theologians' work and their lasting impact on Christian thought. Tune in now to hear Dr. Strange break down how these scholars approached questions about faith, reason, and the existence of God.

In this episode, Dr. Alan Strange and host Jared Luttjeboer discuss the rich theological landscape of the Later Medieval period, exploring pivotal figures like Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas. They unpack the significant theological debates and doctrinal developments that shaped church history, examining the strengths and weaknesses of these medieval theologians' work and their lasting impact on Christian thought. Tune in now to hear Dr. Strange break down how these scholars approached questions about faith, reason, and the existence of God.

The complete audiobook is available for purchase at Audible.com: https://n9.cl/l2znyh Eloisa to Abelard By Alexander Pope Read by Denis Daly The romantic epistle was published in 1717 and aroused considerable interest because of its mildly suggestive content. It portrays an incident in which Héloïse d'Argenteuil, now immured in a convent chances on a letter from her former lover and later, husband, the brilliant philosopher Peter Abelard. The two met when Abelard was engaged as tutor to the precious Héloïse. A passionate love affair ensured, as a result of which Héloïse gave birth to a son. In an effort to protect her from the wrath of her family Abelard married her and removed her to his family estate. However, the family tracked Abelard down and castrated him in revenge. The former lovers then entered monastic institutions where they remained for the rest of their lives. The poem is essentially a meditative reflection by Héloïse on love, human and divine. She confesses, that despite the passage of time and changes in circumstances, her passion for her former lover still smoulders, and has been awakened into flame by her perusal of the letter.

See the signs of the cross: the hellish darkness, the torn curtain, the anguished cry, and the heartfelt confession, and believe in Jesus as the Son of God. - SERMON TRANSCRIPT- Almost two weeks ago, the staff went out and went onto the roof over here to look at the solar eclipse. Some of you may have done that day as well, it was about 3:15 in the afternoon. We had a similar eclipse back in August of 2017. I went out there and there were these special glasses, these NASA approved glasses that you were supposed to use when you looked at the sun. I hadn't had my turn yet, and I thought, "What can the harm be in taking a quick glance." I mean, we look at the sun all the time, don't we? The answer is no, we don't. We learned a long time ago not to do that. There's way too much brilliance that comes from the sun and it's blinding. So those special glasses that are designed to enable us to look directly at the sun without damaging our eyes. That whole thing is kind of a strange metaphor as we come this morning to the cross of Christ. The glory of God is the radiant display of the attributes, the perfections of God. I've said for many years there's no greater display of the glory of God than the cross of Jesus Christ. But amazingly when we look at it, we don't see most of the light that comes from it. We have a different kind of blindness that's on us. We need a different kind of glasses to look at the cross— the glasses are faith. It is by faith that we can see invisible spiritual reality, and none of us sees all of the light that flows from the cross of Christ. None of us takes it all in. It's impossible. But it's important for us to come again and again to this greatest display of the glory of God and understand it. The theme of today's sermon is how easy it is to misinterpret the cross, to misinterpret the events and the significance. Across the centuries people have done this. They have misunderstood and misinterpreted the cross of Christ. It was going on even while Jesus was dying. They didn't even hear His statement correctly. They thought He was calling Elijah, so they didn't even interpret that properly, waited to see if Elijah could come get Him. Jesus' enemies utterly hated Him and despised Him. They didn't understand who He was. They considered Him a blasphemer and a deceiver of the people. So for them, Jesus hanging on a Roman cross was clear vindication of these views. He was condemned by the high priest who tore his clothes and says, "You've heard the blasphemy. What do you think? He's worthy of death because of his blasphemy.” Therefore, these religious leaders saw Jesus' death on the cross as a punishment directly from God for His blasphemies and His deceptions. The chief priests and the Pharisees, the teacher of the law mocked Him, saying, "He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now. If he wants him for he said I'm the son of God." For these religious leaders this shameful death on the cross was proof that Jesus was dying under the curse of God and obvious proof that He was not the Messiah and still less the son of God. Instead, God was killing Him for His blasphemies. It's amazing that Isaiah centuries before that, and David, centuries even before Isaiah, had predicted this misunderstanding. In Isaiah 53:4, it says, "We considered him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted." Psalm 22:7 and 8, "All who see me mock me. They hurl insults, shaking their heads. 'He trusts in the Lord. Let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him if he delights in him.'" And when He didn't, it's proof that He didn't delight in Him. The population of Jerusalem at that time also misinterpreted the cross of Christ. As they passed by in the road, they called out this exact mockery as well, "Come down from the cross if you are the son of God." The Roman soldiers, as we saw last time in the Praetorium, had taken part in this shameful mocking. They knew less about Jesus' life and ministry and doctrine. To them, He was just a rabble-rousing Jew accused of being king of the Jews. So they mocked Him, putting a scarlet robe on His shoulders, a crown of thorns on His head, a scepter of reed in His hand, and they scourged Him and beat Him and spat upon Him. Finally they led Him away to be crucified. How did they interpret the cross of Christ? Just another dead Jew, like thousands of others. This has been going on across 2000 years of history. People have misinterpreted the cross of Christ. Thomas Jefferson went through all of the Gospels and culled out Jesus' moralistic teachings. He said it was as easy for him to do as finding diamonds in a dung heap. He thought that Jesus was a moral reformer who came to bring the Jews into a more enlightened morality, better than that of the old covenant. But they couldn't handle it. They weren't ready for it, and so they killed Him. In his abbreviated gospel, Jefferson cut out any reference to the atoning sacrifice, any reference to the resurrection or any of that at all. He was a moral teacher whose teachings were ahead of his time and He died for that reason. The 12th century French theologian Peter Abelard came up with a moral influence theory saying Jesus died as a demonstration of love. That we're estranged from God. God doesn't want us to be estranged, so He kills His son to win us or woo us back to Him. But there was no substitutionary atonement in his theory. Mahatma Gandhi said this, "I could accept Jesus as a martyr and embodiment of sacrifice and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born. His death on the cross was a great example to the world. But that there was anything like a mysterious, miraculous virtue in it, my heart could not accept. The pious lives of Christians, including Christ, did not give me anything that the lives of men of other faiths had failed to give." To Gandhi the cross of Christ is just another example of heroism, no different than any other inspirational example. To others the cross of Christ is worthy of scorn. So it was to the philosopher elites in Athens at Mars Hill when Paul preached the crucifixion and resurrection, they mocked and scoffed. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:18, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." He also wrote, "We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." All of these people were misinterpreting the cross of Christ even to this present day. But frankly so to did Jesus' closest followers. They grieved over the death of Christ. They mourned over it, and that grief continued after accounts of His resurrection had come. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus were depressed and downcast. Mary is weeping in front of the empty tomb looking directly at the evidence of His resurrection and weeping and mourning over it. None of them expected an atoning death and a bodily resurrection. It says in Luke 9:45, when Jesus warned them ahead of time what was going to happen, it says they did not understand. It was hidden from them so that they could not grasp it. They had the opposite of those dark glasses; they had blindness over their mind so they could not see the light of the glory of God in the cross of Christ. In the end, only God the Father can properly interpret the cross for us. He's the only one that can tell us what it really means. This lines up with one of my favorite lines from William Cooper's hymn, “God Moves in a Mysterious Way.” The final stanza says this: "Blind unbelief is sure to err and scan his work in vain. God is his own interpreter and he will make it plain." That's especially true when it comes to the cross of Christ. God must interpret the cross to us. He must tell us what it means, and He began to do it that very day. He did it even more on the third day when He raised Christ from the dead, and even more after that when He inspired the apostles to write the epistles giving us the theology of the cross. But it began when Jesus was still on the cross. We're going to look at four elements of it from the account: the darkness, the cry, the curtain, and the confession. I want to seek to show how the Father was interpreting the cross through each of those elements. I. The Darkness First, the darkness. Look at verse 33, "At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour." This was a physical darkness, a literal physical, actual darkness that came over the land. God shut the daylight down for three hours from about noon until about three in the afternoon, usually the height of the sun's rays. There is evidence, historical evidence that this stunning celestial event was not merely local but extended over that entire region of the inhabited world. The text says darkness came over the whole land, and that could either mean just that immediate area, Palestine, or it could go further than that. The Christian apologist Tertullian writing in the 2nd century called it a cosmic or a world event, evidently visible in Rome, Athens and other Mediterranean cities and challenged his non-Christian adversaries to explain it. He wrote, "At the moment of Christ's death, the light departed from the sun and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day." The Greek writer Phlegon writing in 137 AD reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, that's around 32, 33 AD, there was the greatest eclipse of the sun so it became night in the sixth hour of the day so that the stars even appeared in the heavens. 2nd century chronicler Phlegon records that during the reign of Tiberius Caesar there was a complete solar eclipse at full moon from the sixth hour to the ninth hour. Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian in his chronicle quotes him, Phlegon, saying, "A great eclipse of the sun occurred at the six hour that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in the heaven and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea." He added a testimony of an earthquake. It's amazing. How did God do this? We'll never know. Similar to the star that led the Magi to Bethlehem, it's a celestial event that we can't really explain. We know in the days of Joshua, He actually elongated the sunlight so that Joshua could finish his military work that day. God controls the cosmos. He can do this anytime he wants. The physical darkness is also a symbol of the spiritual darkness that Jesus came to destroy. It seems reasonable that Almighty God, the ruler of the heavens and the earth, was communicating to the human race about this darkness. But what was He saying? In the Bible, light consistently represents goodness. It represents God. In 1 John 1:5, "God is light, and in Him there's no darkness at all.” God created the light and He called the light good, He didn't call the darkness good." Jesus Christ said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life." Darkness then represents sin and death, whereas light represents truth and life. As Isaiah 9:2 says, "The people walking in darkness have seen a great light, on those living in the land of the shadow of death, a light has dawned.” Satan's kingdom is called the kingdom of darkness. "He has delivered us," Colossians 1:13, "from the dominion of darkness." And also Ephesians 6:12 says, "Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this present darkness and against the spiritual force of evil in the heavenly realms." When Jesus entered the world at His birth, an angel appeared and the glory of the Lord shown around him. That glory that was visible light represented the glory of God. But now that Jesus is dying, it seems the physical light was taken out of the world. The misinterpretations of the cross shows that people that day were walking in spiritual darkness. They could not understand what was really going on. The future of darkness, if we look at where we're heading in history and also in our own personal lives and the lives of the world, the day of the Lord is coming. The day of the Lord is Judgment Day and it's presented in Amos 5:20 as a day of darkness, not of light. "Will not the day of the Lord be darkness, not light, pitch dark without a ray of brightness." So to some degree, it was the day of the Lord for Jesus when He was dying, it was Judgment Day on Him. So also the future day of the Lord in Isaiah 13 will be a day of darkness. It says, "behold," this is Isaiah 13:9-11, "Behold, the day of the Lord is coming, a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. I will punish the world for its evil and the wicked for their sins." But even worse is the darkness of hell itself. Hell, Jesus taught is a place of outer darkness. Matthew 25:30, "bind them, the condemned, hand and foot and throw them outside into the darkness where there'll be weeping and gnashing of teeth." If light represents everything good from God and the display of the glory of God and all that, there is none of that in hell. I believe that Jesus as He was drinking the cup of God's wrath, was experiencing the darkness of hell for us. The physical darkness that surrounded, the eerie supernatural darkness was a picture of the uniqueness of that moment. Conversely, for us who believe in Christ, the new heaven, new earth and the new Jerusalem will be constantly awash, radiantly illuminated with the glory of God. II. The Cry Secondly, the cry. Look at verse 34, "And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,' which means my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This cry of Jesus of total abandonment by God is infinitely mysterious. The doxology in Romans 11 says, "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God, how unsearchable his judgments." What does that mean? You can't get to the bottom of it. It's bottomless. You don't have enough to plumb the depths of what God has done, and that's especially true when it comes to the cross. When it comes to this cry, we'll never fully understand it. "This cry of Jesus of total abandonment by God is infinitely mysterious. The doxology in Romans 11 says, 'Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God, how unsearchable his judgments.'" This cry is so deep and so significant that the Holy Spirit wanted the very sounds of it, the syllables of it, what it sounded like to be permanently rendered in the gospel accounts so that every translator of the Bible into every language all over the world would have to find some way with their phonology to communicate these syllables, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani." I went and got my Japanese Bible, and sure enough, there it is in the Katakana syllables their attempt to get Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani into the Japanese language. Why? It's just incredibly significant moment. It's like a time capsule ,and an aroma comes out. It’s like you're there. Then immediately we’re told what it means. It's not enough just hear the sounds because we don't speak Aramaic. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Here is the infinite mystery of God's activity on the cross. Here we're looking down into the abyss. Number of years ago I went with my daughter, Daphne, to the Grand Canyon and they have something called the Rim Walk. You can walk along the actual rim of the Grand Canyon and there's no fence, and they have occasional signs there warning you. Effectively, your blood's on your own head. But people just keep getting too close to the edge and looking down. And every year people fall down to their death. The height of the rim above the Colorado River is about 5,000 feet. Here we're supposed to get as close as we can and look down into that abyss and try to understand what Jesus was experiencing at that moment. Here we have the infinite mysteries of theology, of the Trinity and of the Incarnation. So first, the Trinity. We believe as Christians that the Bible reveals that there is one God and only one God, but that this one God has eternally existed in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. And that the Father is the one God and the Son is the one God, and the Spirit is the one God. But the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. We believe that's eternal. We believe the entire universe depends on that reality. So Jesus on the cross did not cease to be God. It's impossible. The relationship between the Father and the Son within the Trinity was not altered in any sense because the entire universe, physical and spiritual depends on that relationship forever. The universe, both physical and spiritual, is constantly upheld by the power and the will of the Trinity. The Father's will, the Son, the word of God, the Spirit, the power. By this, the universe continues to exist. That didn't stop when Jesus was dying on the cross. But then you've got the mystery of the incarnation, which is that Jesus is fully human and fully God. So by Jesus' cry from the cross, we peer into the invisible spiritual world to see what God the Father is doing to Him as the son of man, as a human. Jesus cries out as if from the pit of hell, total abandonment by God and total wrath poured out on Him by God. This is, I believe, the most dreadful part of hell. Absolute final, total abandonment, forsakenness by God. God is in no sense there to bless, only to curse. It's terrifying. In hell the damned can experience no pleasure, no joy, no friendship, no gifts, no happiness of any kind, a cold, empty terror of sheer loneliness and isolation. Now, this was unique, this cry. Unlike anybody else that will ever experience the wrath of God in hell and the condemnation, Jesus uniquely can say these words, "My God, my God, why do this to me?” Everyone else in hell will know that they're there because of the justice of God. They deserve what they're getting, like the thief on the cross said, “I deserve it.” I don't know if they'll come to that true recognition. It may well be they'll forever think they're there as a miscarriage of justice. I don't know. But it's not like they have no idea. "Unlike anybody else that will ever experience the wrath of God in hell and the condemnation, Jesus uniquely can say these words, "My God, my God, why do this to me?” Everyone else in hell will know that they're there because of the justice of God." But Jesus was sinless. Not only was He sinless, He had a perfect, constant and intimate relationship with God. "The Father has not left me alone. He's always with me," He says. He said before raising Lazarus from the dead, "I thank you, Father that you heard me. I know that you always hear me.” Many others have gone through terrible things and felt intimately close to God as they walk through, as in Psalm 23. “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.” Why? Because you are with me." Jesus didn't feel that. Why? Because Jesus is unique. He's completely unique. He was sinless and yet completely sinful. How? By substitutionary atonement, by the mysterious transfer of guilt, by 2 Corinthians 5:21, "God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." Isaiah 53:5-6 are the clearest verses in the entire Bible on the transfer of guilt and substitutionary atonement, clearer than anything even in the New Testament, Isaiah 53. "He was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him and by His wounds, we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” You could read through that in the spirit of Galatians 2:20 and make it singular. "Christ loved me and gave himself for me." You can just say that's true of me. He was pierced for my transgressions. He was crushed for my iniquities. The punishment I deserved was upon Him. I should be crying. "Why have you forsaken me? It should have been me." If we don't understand this, we don't understand the cross. Abelard's moral example is foolishness. It's insanity. If there is no transfer of guilt, if there's no required death penalty paid, if there's nothing actually achieved, just a moral example, it's a picture of insanity rather than love. Instead, the substitutionary atonement was essential to the salvation of sinners like you and me from all over the world. Without it, we go to hell. This is God the Father's activity at the cross. Now a side note, and I think it's significant. In a very practical sense, as Jesus is crying this out, He's urging all people all over the world throughout all time to read Psalm 22 because He's quoting directly Psalm 22 in verse 1, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is a clear prophecy of crucifixion written 1000 years before Jesus was born. In that prophecy, David lays out clearly how the Messiah would die for the sins of the world and that would be by crucifixion. In Psalm 22:16-18, "Dogs have surrounded me. A band of evil men has encircled me. They have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones. People staring gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." Those details phrase by phrase, line by line, were fulfilled as Jesus was dying. But by Him crying out the direct quote of Psalm 22 in verse 1, He's urging us to read it. The crowd, as was predicted in the Psalm and also in Isaiah, misinterpreted this, as I said. They didn't hear it properly, “Eloi, Eloi.” They heard like “Elijah's Elijah,” like “my God is Yahweh”. That's what “Elijah” means, so they thought He's calling for Elijah, and they wanted to see if Elijah could get Him. They want to go get Him a drink. In verse 36, "One man filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick and offered it to Jesus to drink. 'Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes and takes him down.’" The apostle John in his account tells us this drink being offered to Jesus was a direct fulfillment of a specific prophecy. John writes in John 19:28-29, "Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, 'I am thirsty.' A jar of wine vinegar was there.” Stop for a moment, how in the world did that get there? Who put it there? We'll never know. Some woman, some man, some boy or girl— I don't know— thought, "Hey, I think I'll fill a jar of wine vinegar and put it here at Golgotha." But it was essential to this prophecy being fulfilled. What prophecy? Psalm 69:21, "They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst." And at that moment, having received the drink, all the prophecies were now fulfilled. Mark tells us in verse 37, "with a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last." Typical of Mark, he doesn't tell us what He said with the loud cry. He keeps it very simple. Luke and John, however do. Luke 23:46, "Jesus called out in a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.'" And then John said, "Jesus said, 'It is finished.' And with that, He gave up His spirit.” Jesus is in absolute control of His death in the exact same way that He'd been in absolute control of His birth. He chose to enter the world in the fullness of time at the right time by the Virgin Mary. Then He chose to die in a way that no human could ever say, "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have the authority to lay it down and I have the authority to take it back up again. This command I receive from my Father." He's the only one that can say that. When everything was fulfilled at just the right time, He died. That death was essential for our salvation. Why? Because the wages of sin is death, and we deserve to die, and an actual death had to be paid for us. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness. Ephesians 1:7, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins in accordance with the riches of God's grace.” III. The Curtain Next we have the curtain. Look at verse 38, "The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." As I was reviewing the Gospel of Mark, memorizing it over a year and a half, a couple of years ago, something hit me, something I'd never noticed before, and that was that Mark just tells us about this event but doesn't explain its significance at all. I find that fascinating. Why do I find it fascinating? Because most scholars say that the Gospel of Mark was written for a Gentile, probably a Roman audience. Most of them reading this— imagine it's just floating around —all you have is the Gospel of Mark, you're reading this, you would've had no idea of the significance of that statement. But the Holy Spirit had a limited role for Mark. He had to stay in his lane. He had to just tell us what happened. He was going to give to the author of the book of Hebrews, the job of explaining it fully. It got me to think about the function of each of the 66 books of the Bible, what they're written for. I've never stopped thinking about this. It's very fascinating. Why does the Holy Spirit want us to know this? It's a very important question. So what is the significance of the tearing of the curtain? We're told in the Jewish temple there was a Holy Place where the priest went constantly to do their daily sacrifices, animal sacrifices. But then there was a Most Holy Place where only the high priest could go once a year with the blood of the Leviticus 16 sacrifice, the date of atonement sacrifice, and separating them was a curtain. The old covenant was all about barriers of access. It's all about this far you may come but no farther. That's what the old covenant's about. It's about walls and barriers, and you may not come. It's the first thing that the angel of the Lord said to Moses at the burning bush, "Do not come any closer." At Mount Sinai, there was a fence put around the base of the mountain, forbidding the people from going up, blocking them from going up into the presence of God, lest they be killed. The tabernacle and then later the temple was all about walls telling you you're not allowed to come. This curtain separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place was a substantial physical thing, very substantial. It was 60 feet long, 30 feet high. It was about four inches thick. It was composed of 72 squares sewn together. It was so heavy it required 300 priests to put in place. Right at the moment, at the tearing of the curtain, Jesus said, "It is finished.” Right at that moment, the curtain in the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom. This is the Father interpreting the cross for us right at that moment. It's a direct cause and effect because Jesus has finished the atoning work on the cross. The curtain was torn from top to bottom, and the text is direct cause and effect. How did Mark the Gospel writer know that the curtain in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom? One of two possible ways. Number one, God, the Holy Spirit told it to him directly and he wrote it. There are many verses, and that's the only way we would know is that the Spirit told him. That's fine. We also know that there was a process that Luke had of accumulating testimonies and doing some research and collating in writing. That's what Luke did. In Luke 1: 3-4 he says, “Since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Mark probably did similar things. The only way that you would know that the curtain was torn was by coming the next day and seeing that it was torn. But you would not have known that it was torn from top to bottom. You had to be there. You had to see it. You had to see it happening, and the only ones that could do that would be the priests. We're told in Acts 6 that later a large number of priests came to faith in Christ. I think that's what happened. It's significant that it was torn in two from top to bottom because we think of God as up. Jesus looked up when He broke the bread and the fish, and there's this sense that God is up and the spirit descended from above. Jesus ascended up into heaven, so God's up there. God is the one that did it. He's the one that tore it. And frankly, He's the only one that had the right to do it. It's very significant. If you saw somebody making a point and they picked up, let's say, a significant document like the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights, and they did this to it, what are they saying? It's obsolete, it's gone. That's exactly what God was saying to the old covenant at that moment. The old covenant is obsolete. It's finished, and He's the only one that had the right to do it. Not only that, but as I said, the old covenant was about barriers of access. We're not allowed to get close to God, but God wants us close. Let me say that again, God loves you. He wants you close. He wants you intimate. He looks at sin amazingly as a temporary problem, and for us who will end up in heaven, that's what it will have been in the end, a temporary block between us and a holy God that Jesus dealt with that day. The moment that that curtain was torn from top to bottom, God is saying, "Come in. Come close. You don't have to stay out there anymore." The author to Hebrews tells us, first of all, of the obsolescence of the old covenant [Hebrews 8:13], "by calling this covenant new, he's made the first one obsolete." What a strong word that is. What is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. Therefore, it's all about access to God. Hebrews 4:16, "Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need." Again, Ephesians 3:12, "In Christ and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence." Now that Jesus' blood has been shed, the curtain is torn and we are invited, I would say even commanded to come close. Hebrews 10:19-22, "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water." That's God the Father's interpretation of the cross. The entire purpose of Christ's incarnation and his atonement was to bring distant sinners like you and me close to God. It's also a picture of heaven itself in which the gates will stand open forever and nothing impure or unclean will ever enter that place, but only for those who have trusted in Christ. They'll come in there, and all the enemies will be gone. There'll be no danger. The new Jerusalem gates will stand open forever and we will have full and free access to God. It says in Revelation 22:3, "His servants will see His face and serve Him forever." That's the access that we have. Tragically, at some point, what do you think happened to those two pieces of the curtain? Someone picked it up and sewed it back together or they made a new one, and animal sacrifice continued at the temple for another generation. That's terrible. It says of marriage, what God has joined together let man not separate. Well, let me tell you something, what God has torn apart, let man not sew back together. As Jesus said in Matthew 23 of the Scribes and Pharisees, the chief priests and all the enemies, “You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves don't enter and you won't let those enter who are trying to.” It's tragic. But Jesus, it says of Him in Revelation 3:7, "What he opens, no one can shut. And what he shuts, no one can open." Amen. IV. The Confession Finally, the confession. Look at verse 39, “And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, ‘Surely this man was the Son of God!’” Amen. I consider this to be kind of the omega, the alpha and the omega of the Gospel of Mark, the purpose of the whole thing. Why did Mark write the Gospel? He says right at the start, Mark 1:1, "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the son of God." And now here at the end, what does this onlooking centurion say? "But truly, this man was this son of God.” I believe all four Gospels, as I've said this countless times, had the same purpose. John 20:31 tells us, "These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that by believing that you may have life in his name." I believe that this centurion's confession was a display of genuine saving faith on his part. He was speaking for his team, or at least some of his team at that moment. Why do I say that? Because Jesus prayed for them while He was dying on the cross. Remember? In Luke 23:34, He said, "Father, forgive them for they don't know what they're doing.” I have a very high view of Jesus' prayer life. I believe everything Jesus asked for, He gets. Amen. Did He get this? Did they get forgiveness? Forgiven for that, but not for anything else. That's worthless. What good is partial forgiveness by God? You still go to hell. He's praying for complete forgiveness for a group of people who crucified Him not knowing what they were doing. And who was that? The centurion and his team that was there to crucify Jesus. Why do I say team? It was just the centurion that said, "Truly this man was the son of God." But Jesus said, "Father, forgive them. They don't know what they are doing.” I believe no one can make this confession, "Truly, this man was the son of God," unless the spirit of God works it in him and the Father reveals the son to that sinner. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me, draws him. Just like the thief on the cross, so also this centurion, I expect to see him in heaven. Imagine being the one who killed Jesus, who actually literally drove the nails through Him up in heaven worshiping forever. But isn't that just like God? Isn't that just like the mercy and the love of God? V. Applications Spurgeon, when he was preaching on this passage, sums it up saying, "What manner of people ought we to be if these things are true? What kind of love should we show to Jesus if these things are true?" Just look at the four things, the darkness. God is interpreting the cross by saying that Jesus is truly the only answer to the darkness of sin and death in hell. Jesus is the light of the world. Follow him. The cry, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Understand that is a cry, which if you believe in Jesus, you'll never make from hell, never. You will never make. As a matter of fact, you'll be able to say what the author of Hebrew says concerning his relationship with you, "Never will I leave you. Never will I forsake you." Why? Because Jesus was forsaken in your place. So if you're feeling forsaken, you're feeling abandoned, just know if you're a Christian, that's impossible. God is with you. And then you can take Psalm 23 and says, "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will not fear for you are with me." What about the curtain? Hebrews tells you what to do. Draw near to God, draw near to him. Don't stay distant. If you feel guilty today because of some pattern of sin, read Hebrews 10:19-22. Let your faith in Christ cleanse you from a guilty conscience and let your body be washed with the pure water of the word. Repent of the sins that are making you feel guilty and draw near to God. Don't let the sin keep you far away, but draw near. Finally, by the confession of the centurion, understand what the purpose of all of this is. It's missions. It's evangelism. It's winning lost people so they can make this same confession. Close with me in prayer. Father, we thank you for the time we've had to study today. We thank you for the incredible truths of the cross of Christ. We'll never be able to plumb the depths. And I pray that you would take these truths and press them sweetly and powerfully into our hearts so that we may believe that we may draw near, that we may live holy lives, that we may see other people make this confession, "Truly, this man was the son of God." Pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.

We're celebrating all different kinds of love in the Smoke Circle for Valentine's Day! First up, Laurel travels through time recounting iconic stories of love and friendship suggested by listeners--from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas. Next, Kt travels through the life and family tree of Norman king William I--also known as William the Conqueror. *~*~*~* Mentioned In the Stories: ⁠Family Tree for William the Conqueror⁠ ⁠Adams/Jefferson Letters⁠ ⁠Alice B. Toklas's Special Recipe⁠ *~*~*~* The Socials! Instagram⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠@HightailingHistory⁠⁠⁠⁠  TikTok⁠- ⁠⁠⁠⁠@HightailingHistoryPod⁠⁠⁠⁠  Facebook⁠ -⁠⁠Hightailing Through History or ⁠⁠@HightailingHistory⁠⁠⁠⁠  YouTube- ⁠⁠Hightailing Through History⁠⁠ *~*~*~* Our Love Stories Were Suggested By... Heloise and Abelard from ⁠@rue.chemin.vert⁠ John Adams and Thomas Jefferson from Dr. Darren R. Reid ⁠@thathistorianinsta⁠ Marquis de Lafayette and Adrienne from Brendan Dowd at History Nerds United ⁠@histnerdsunited⁠ Napoleon Bonaparte and Josephine from TK at For The Love of History ⁠@fortheloveof_historypodcast⁠ Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas from Derek at History's Greatest Idiots ⁠@historysgreatestidiots ⁠ *~*~*~*~ Source Materials: Love Stories-- ⁠https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14268/pg14268-images.html  ⁠ ⁠https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35977/35977-h/35977-h.htm⁠ ⁠https://www.britannica.com/biography/Peter-Abelard⁠ ⁠https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/trend-tradition-magazine/trend-tradition-spring-2019/friends-divided⁠ ⁠https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/adams-interview-historians/⁠ ⁠https://www.history.com/news/jefferson-adams-founding-frenemies⁠ ⁠https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/lafayette-marie-adrienne-de-1760-1807⁠ ⁠https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/us-history-biographies/marquis-de-lafayette⁠ ⁠https://www.history.com/news/napoleon-josephine-bonaparte-love-story-marriage-divorce⁠ ⁠https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/napoleon-josephine-true-relationship-infidelity-influence?loggedin=true&rnd=1707024549853⁠ ⁠https://theconversation.com/napoleon-and-josephines-real-relationship-was-intense-but-they-loved-power-more-than-each-other-218160⁠ ⁠https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/josephine-1763-1814⁠ ⁠https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37499/37499-h/37499-h.htm⁠ (Napoleon's letters) ⁠https://www.biography.com/authors-writers/gertrude-stein-alice-b-toklas-love-story⁠ ⁠https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/stein-gertrude-and-alice-b-toklas-1874-1946-and-1877-1967⁠ ⁠https://www.getty.edu/news/good-food-conversation-with-gertrude-stein-and-alice-b-toklas/⁠ William the Conqueror-- ⁠https://www.royal.uk/william-the-conqueror⁠ ⁠https://www.bayeuxmuseum.com/en/the-bayeux-tapestry/discover-the-bayeux-tapestry/who-was-william-the-conqueror/⁠ ⁠https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-william-the-conqueror⁠ ⁠https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings⁠ ⁠https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/william-conqueror-parents-0010669⁠ ⁠https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rollo-duke-of-Normandy⁠ h⁠ttps://www.britannica.com/biography/Harald-I-king-of-Norway⁠ ⁠https://englishhistory.net/vikings/king-canute-the-great/⁠ *~*~*~*~ Intro/outro music: "Loopster" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/hightailing-history/message

We're celebrating all different kinds of love in the Smoke Circle for Valentine's Day! First up, Laurel travels through time recounting iconic stories of love and friendship suggested by listeners--from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas. Next, Kt travels through the life and family tree of Norman king William I--also known as William the Conqueror. *~*~*~* Mentioned In the Stories: ⁠Family Tree for William the Conqueror⁠ ⁠Adams/Jefferson Letters⁠ ⁠Alice B. Toklas's Special Recipe⁠ *~*~*~* The Socials! Instagram⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠@HightailingHistory⁠⁠⁠⁠  TikTok⁠- ⁠⁠⁠⁠@HightailingHistoryPod⁠⁠⁠⁠  Facebook⁠ -⁠⁠Hightailing Through History or ⁠⁠@HightailingHistory⁠⁠⁠⁠  YouTube- ⁠⁠Hightailing Through History⁠⁠ *~*~*~* Our Love Stories Were Suggested By... Heloise and Abelard from ⁠@rue.chemin.vert⁠ John Adams and Thomas Jefferson from Dr. Darren R. Reid ⁠@thathistorianinsta⁠ Marquis de Lafayette and Adrienne from Brendan Dowd at History Nerds United ⁠@histnerdsunited⁠ Napoleon Bonaparte and Josephine from TK at For The Love of History ⁠@fortheloveof_historypodcast⁠ Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas from Derek at History's Greatest Idiots ⁠@historysgreatestidiots ⁠ *~*~*~*~ Source Materials: Love Stories-- ⁠https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14268/pg14268-images.html  ⁠ ⁠https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35977/35977-h/35977-h.htm⁠ ⁠https://www.britannica.com/biography/Peter-Abelard⁠ ⁠https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/trend-tradition-magazine/trend-tradition-spring-2019/friends-divided⁠ ⁠https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/adams-interview-historians/⁠ ⁠https://www.history.com/news/jefferson-adams-founding-frenemies⁠ ⁠https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/lafayette-marie-adrienne-de-1760-1807⁠ ⁠https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/us-history-biographies/marquis-de-lafayette⁠ ⁠https://www.history.com/news/napoleon-josephine-bonaparte-love-story-marriage-divorce⁠ ⁠https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/napoleon-josephine-true-relationship-infidelity-influence?loggedin=true&rnd=1707024549853⁠ ⁠https://theconversation.com/napoleon-and-josephines-real-relationship-was-intense-but-they-loved-power-more-than-each-other-218160⁠ ⁠https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/josephine-1763-1814⁠ ⁠https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37499/37499-h/37499-h.htm⁠ (Napoleon's letters) ⁠https://www.biography.com/authors-writers/gertrude-stein-alice-b-toklas-love-story⁠ ⁠https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/stein-gertrude-and-alice-b-toklas-1874-1946-and-1877-1967⁠ ⁠https://www.getty.edu/news/good-food-conversation-with-gertrude-stein-and-alice-b-toklas/⁠ William the Conqueror-- ⁠https://www.royal.uk/william-the-conqueror⁠ ⁠https://www.bayeuxmuseum.com/en/the-bayeux-tapestry/discover-the-bayeux-tapestry/who-was-william-the-conqueror/⁠ ⁠https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-william-the-conqueror⁠ ⁠https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings⁠ ⁠https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/william-conqueror-parents-0010669⁠ ⁠https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rollo-duke-of-Normandy⁠ h⁠ttps://www.britannica.com/biography/Harald-I-king-of-Norway⁠ ⁠https://englishhistory.net/vikings/king-canute-the-great/⁠ *~*~*~*~ Intro/outro music: "Loopster" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/hightailing-history/message

Het is het jaar 1132. Heloise, een van de meest geleerde vrouwen van haar tijd, krijgt een belangrijke brief. Haar voormalige minnaar, de grote filosoof Peter Abelard, laat na lange tijd weer van zich horen. Wint hun verboden liefde het van de controverse rondom zijn ideeën?Vanaf 13 september iedere woensdag een nieuwe aflevering.Tekst en presentatie: Hendrik SpieringRedactie, regie en montage: Elze van DrielMuziek, montage en mixage: Rufus van BaardwijkEindredactie: Mirjam van Zuidam & Iddo HavingaBeeld: Jeen BertingVormgeving: Yannick MortierHeeft u vragen, suggesties of ideeën over onze journalistiek? Mail dan naar onze ombudsman via ombudsman@nrc.nl.Bij het maken van deze aflevering van Wilde Eeuwen is onder meer gebruikt gemaakt van deze literatuur: De historische bron voor de turbulente liefdesaffaire tussen Abelard en Heloïse is Abelards ‘Historia calamitatum' (de eerste brief aan de onbekende vriend) uit 1132 en de vervolgbrieven tussen Heloïse en Abelard (Epistolae 2–8) Babette Hellemans (2021) ‘The Immeasurability of the Monastic Mind, Writing about Peter Abelard (1079–1142)' in Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 82 pp. 683-701 David Luscombe (2018) Peter Abelard and Heloise Collected Studies, Routledge Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

AcknowledgementThank you to my colleague, Mr. Sean Maddigan, M.Ed., for his assistance in the research and formulation of many of the finer points of the atonement of Christ in this episode. Thanks, Sean!Perception of Serious Problems - Selling Indulgences?If you say the word “indulgences” to most people today, they would bring up Martin Luther. However, indulgences have been explicitly preached in Catholic theology since the 11th Century, and there have been reductions of penalties since at least the 9th Century. So, where and when does Martin Luther enter the scene?On October 31, 1517, Fr. Martin Luther an Augustinian monk and lecturer at the University in Wittenberg, Germany, issued his propositions for debate concerning the question of indulgences. The proposed debate was intended to be with Fr. Johann Tetzel, a German Dominican friar and preacher. Fr. Tetzel was an appointed papel commissioner for indulgences and was sent to his native Germany to make money to help build St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.From 1503 to 1510, Tetzel preached on indulgences and was effective in doing so. There are countless modern sources which say that Pope Julius II authorized the sale of indulgences, and that, likewise, Pope Leo X sold indulgences too and used the money to build the magnificent St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. However, the claim that indulgences, as such, were sold seems to be a myth. At one time, one of the spiritual acts that you could receive an indulgence for is contributing to a charitable cause, such as the building of a church. Charitable organizations offer incentives today to increase donations. In the 16th Century, the building fund of St. Peter's Basilica did increase as the result of Tetzel preaching indulgences. There were absolutely abuses in the practice of indulgences, to be sure! But it is important to understand what they actually are. One of the main contributing factors to knowledge of the controversy was Martin Luther's “95 Theses.” In Luther's time, and especially now, there is no end to the horribly wrong interpretations of the Catholic teaching on indulgences. I have also had a few friends ask if I'd be willing to do an episode on indulgences. So, here you go, gents!Catholic Understanding of AtonementAfter the Fall of Adam and Eve, it was fitting that the atonement or reconciliation of mankind be made by a man. However, what mere man could stand in place of all of humanity? When Jesus Christ died on the Cross, He did so as fully God and fully man. Thus, His death and resurrection were offered in our place, in His humanity, and offered perfectly, in His divinity. In the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii, we hear:“Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Galatians 4:4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2).”There are a lot of things to unpack here. God the Father sent His Son, who was foretold, to redeem the Jews and the Gentiles. This redemption brought with it adoption of each of us by God the Father, in Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. The reconciliation or atonement (literally meaning to become “at one” with), comes through the propitiation of sins merited by Jesus' death on the Cross. The just wrath of God earned by our sin was turned away by the self-offering (the sacrifice and oblation) of our Lord Jesus on the Cross. By His wounds, we are healed, quoting the Prophet Isaiah. The Nicene Creed we profess each Sunday at Mass reminds us of this reality:“who for us men and for our salvation, came down, took flesh, was made man; and suffered…”Jesus did not come for Himself, He came to give His life as a ransom for many. We say “many” because not everyone will accept this gift, sad to say. However, this does not diminish that the gift of Christ's atonement was won for all mankind, without exception. But what is this ransom? Who was holding the souls of the fallen men? It is the Enemy, Satan.In his commentary on Psalm 95, St. Augustine puts it this way:“Men were held captive under the devil and served the demons, but they were redeemed from captivity. For they could sell themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave the price; He poured forth his blood and bought the whole world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price. How much is it worth? What but the whole world? What but all nations? (Enarration on Psalm 95, no. 5).”He goes on to explain, in a figure of speech that the Cross was like a trap for the Enemy:"The Redeemer came and the deceiver was overcome. What did our Redeemer do to our Captor? In payment for us He set the trap, His Cross, with His blood for bait. He [Satan] could indeed shed that blood; but he deserved not to drink it. By shedding the blood of One who was not his debtor, he was forced to release his debtors (Serm. cxxx, part 2).”The debt owed to Divine Justice was paid in full by Jesus Christ. Divine Justice was satisfied. But not everyone agreed with St. Augustine's reasoning. St. Anselm and Peter Abelard, for example, rejected the notion that Satan had some sort of right over man. St. Anselm held that an equal satisfaction for sin was necessary to pay the debt to Divine Justice. Abelard, though, did not hold to this strict notion of satisfaction and he argued that God could have pardoned us without requiring satisfaction. So, the Incarnation and the death of Chirst was the pure love of God. And Abelard was condemned by St. Bernard for this view because he argued the effect of the atonement was only moral influence and not any objective payment of a debt.St. Thomas Aquinas, later, agreed with Abelard in rejecting the notion that full satisfaction was necessary. He agrees with Abelard in so far as the atonement was the greatest demonstration of love, but still holds that under God's economy of salvation, the sacrifice of Christ objectively paid the debt of justice (which Abelard denied). Restoring mankind to grace was a work of God's mercy and goodness. It was fitting that Christ should die on the Cross to show the depths of God's love for us, but not absolutely necessary. Along the ages, Blessed Duns Scotus and St. Bernard of Clairvaux had differing opinions than Abelard and Aquinas.Though there is disagreement among theologians throughout the ages, what is shared among them is this. The Atonement is essentially a sacrifice and an act of love. The outward Sacrifice is the sacrament of the invisible sacrifice which comes from the heart of God. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it so well:“It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, ‘making peace through the blood of His Cross.'”Imperfect in the Old, Perfect in the NewIn the Old Covenants, the Jewish people would offer “sin-offerings” in which a cereal offering or animal was immolated, offered to God in worship, and then consumed by the priest. Likewise, we get the word scapegoat from the ancient practice of placing, so to speak, all of the sins of the town onto a goat and then releasing the goat to wander into the wilderness, presumably to die. This ancient notion of atonement was no clearer than on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement is centered upon repentance, fasting, asceticism, and the confession of sins. However, the annual nature of this event shows that it is an incomplete and imperfect atonement. Atonement is made perfect in Jesus Christ, who died once for the sins of man and then rose from the dead, to die no more. In the Holy Mass, Christ does not die again. Instead, the Cross of Christ, a propitiatory Sacrifice is renewed daily in a bloodless manner on the altar. What Is An Indulgence?What does any of this have to do with indulgences? Well, everything, really. An indulgence is classically the remission of a debt. In Roman law, it meant to be release from imprisonment or punishment. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines an indulgence as “a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven.”So, an indulgence is not permission to sin, it is not stockpiling forgiveness for a future action, nor does it forgive sin or the guilt of sin. An indulgence presumes that God has already forgiven the person receiving it! What is being remitted is the temporal punishment due to sin.Our sins affect us, our relationship with God, and our relationship with others. Particularly egregious sins, like rape and murder, have lasting effects which cannot be put right this side of Heaven. And putting things right is in the nature of justice. God will always set things right, one way or another, though we might not see it until the end of things. Nonetheless, once someone experiences contrition, there is a deep desire, rooted in justice, to make restitution. Imagine that you are a kid playing baseball in the street. Of course, this is a bad idea. Mistakes will happen. You know this, and, yet, you wrongly believe that you are special. So, nothing bad will happen. You will hit the ball perfectly and everything will be just fine. Then… you hit the ball and it goes sailing through Mrs. Johnson's bay window. Immediately, you feel terrible about it. You did not mean for anything to be broken. You experience contrition for the wrong you have done. You knew, of course, that you should not be playing baseball in the street. What did you expect to happen?! Now, you have a choice: run away and hide or go and fess up to what you have done. You decide to go and ask for forgiveness. You ring the doorbell and Mrs. Johnson answers. You immediately apologize for breaking the window and tell her that you are truly sorry. And she forgives you! … That's it, right? That's the end of the story?... No way! You still have to make restitution. You have to pay for the window. In this example, we can see analogously, how we can be forgiven for something, but justice still demands restitution, satisfaction, and even punishment. This distinction between forgiveness and the temporal punishment due to sin seems to have gone by the wayside in Protestant theology over the last five hundred years. Really, if we look at it with fresh eyes, hopefully we can see that it is basic common sense that a wrong done demands restitution. So, why can Protestants not go there? The answer really has to do with Martin Luther. In Luther's view, we can do nothing to merit our salvation and Catholics agree we cannot merit the gift of initial justification; it is completely a gratuitous gift from God whereby we are covered by Jesus Christ. Nothing in the Lutheran view demands cooperation with grace or even the internal change brought about by Baptism, which Catholicism has always held. How, Theologically, Does an Indulgence Work?But with Baptism there is a true change, right down to the core of our being. And grace is given, but our free cooperation is necessary. God's love does not force itself upon us. This means that our good actions, united with Christ, are meritorious. Our sinful actions require restitution. The Atonement won by Jesus Christ on the Cross is superabundantly meritorious, to use the language of the Church. When we unite our actions with the Cross, they do not add to the merits of Jesus Christ, but they come into communion with them. Likewise, the forgiveness of sins is a communion with the Cross of Jesus Christ! But, in justice, our bad actions still require temporal punishment and restitution. As the 14th Session of the Council of Trent puts it:“Add to these things, that, whilst we thus, by making satisfaction, suffer for our sins, we are made conformable to Jesus Christ, who satisfied for our sins, from whom all our sufficiency is; having also thereby a most sure pledge, that if we suffer with him, we shall also be glorified with him. But neither is this satisfaction, which we discharge for our sins, so our own, as not to be through Jesus Christ. For we who can do nothing of ourselves, as of ourselves, can do all things, He cooperating, who strengthens us. Thus, man has not wherein to glory, but all our glorying is in Christ: in whom we live; in whom we merit; in whom we satisfy; bringing forth fruits worthy of penance, which from him have their efficacy; by him are offered to the Father; and through him are accepted by the Father (The Council of Trent: On the necessity and on the fruit of Satisfaction).”Some Protestants hold to the erroneous view of “penal substitution” which is a theory of the atonement that holds that God punished Jesus on the Cross. But there is one glaringly huge problem: an innocent person cannot be justly punished. Jesus took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins, but He did not take on the just punishment for our sins.Understanding How Christ Took on Our Punishment (And What That Means)Jesus Christ took our punishment upon Himself. As St. Thomas teaches:“Now by Christ's Passion we have been delivered not only from the common sin of the whole human race, both as to its guilt and as to the debt of punishment, for which He paid the penalty on our behalf (ST III, q. 49, a. 5, co.).”When discussing the fittingness of the death of Christ, St. Thomas also mentions:“... in this way Christ by His death brought us back to life, when by His death He destroyed our death; just as he who bears another's punishment takes such punishment away (ST III, q. 50, a. 1, ad. 3).”Satisfaction means taking up a penalty voluntarily in order to restore justice. St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of taking up this voluntary penalty as someone experiencing something against the will out of charity. In the case of sin and justice, in charity this action makes up for sin because sin is voluntarily doing one's own will at the expense of charity. In other words, satisfaction derives its power from the strength of the charity of the one offering it. There is no need for Jesus to suffer the pains of Hell to save us because even one drop of His Precious Blood could have satisfied the wrath of God. The payment of Jesus, who is sinless and perfect in charity, merits not only release from punishment. By the Cross, He merits for us eternal life!When a debt is to be paid, the punishment is measured. In merit, the root of charity is measured. When one merits for another, he merits more for himself. Yet, when one satisfies for another, he does not also satisfy for himself, because the measure of punishment still covers both him and the one on whose behalf he is satisfying. In the case of Jesus, who is without sin, He has no debt to pay. He is satisfying for sinful men out of perfect charity. The punishment He bore made satisfaction for the sins of all mankind and merited more than any man is capable of: eternal life!Back to IndulgencesTemporal punishment acknowledges that the eternal punishment for sin has been taken away on the Cross, but the temporal consequences of sin still remain. These temporal effects of sin require restitution, to the ability that we are able. We ought to make amends for wrongs done. Expiation, satisfaction, amends, and reparation all mean the same thing when referring to the temporal consequences and punishment due to sin.Going back to this notion of the superabundant merits of Christ on the Cross, we can also add all of the meritorious actions of the Baptized faithful through the ages, most notably the saints. The Treasury of Merit, as it is called, is the collection of the perfect, infinite, and superabundant merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, the expansive merits of our Blessed Mother and St. Joseph, and the merits of all the just. Our Lord gave to St. Peter, and to the Apostles and their successors, the authority to apply the fruits of these merits at their discretion when He said: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:18-19).”Likewise, in St. John's Gospel, Jesus says to the Apostles, and their successors by extension:“And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld (Jn. 20:22-24).”When a confessor gives absolution to a penitent in the Sacrament of Penance, he is applying this forgiveness of sins which comes from God alone, through the instrument of the priest and the Church. Our guilt for sin and eternal punishment for sin are absolved, but the temporal punishment for sin remains. An indulgence is outside of the sacraments and it does not forgive sins. Instead, it applies the satisfaction of the Treasury of Merit to an individual thereby remitting their temporal punishment due to sin. In other words, by the merits of Christ and the saints, the debt of temporal restitution has been paid in full. The superabundant merits belong to God's mercy and justice, not to the Church absolutely. So, these concessions or diminishments of punishment are administered by the Church but they come from God as a free gift. There is value in what Christ has done for us. But there is also value in what Christ does through us. Either way, the primary action is God. But with our cooperation, we unite ourselves with the Sacred Action of Jesus. As St. Paul said:"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church (Col. 1:24).”What could possibly be lacking in the sufferings of Christ, except for our cooperation with His grace and our own meritorious actions? Not only do our good actions possess the value or merit, they also certainly possess the value of satisfaction.Luther Had a Couple Good Points, But a Lot of ErrorsIt must be said that Martin Luther had some great points in his 95 Theses. In fact, only 41 propositions of Luther's from the 95 Theses and his other writings up to that point, were rejected as heretical, scandalous, erroneous, seductive of simple minds, in opposition to Catholic truth, or offensive to pious ears by Pope Leo X in 1520. Let us look at the first three of the 95 Theses:* “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent'' (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.* This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.* Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.”All three of these are true. Interior repentance is a reorienting of one's entire life, not just a momentary “I'll try a bit harder.” This call of our Lord to repentance does not refer to the Sacrament of Penance because it is a call which is first addressed to those who do not yet know Christ and the Gospel. And finally, interior conversion should find expression in visible signs, gestures, and penitential actions. It does seem, though, that Luther is presupposing that indulgences were being sold, with official authorization. This myth is prevalent today and it appears it was in Luther's day as well. Indulgences are drawn from the Treasury of Merit and applied freely when those seeking them fulfill the requirements with proper disposition. Luther's 95 Theses presents many theological errors in this regard. These errors are still being repeated today. For example, this 2009 article from “The New York Times” which gets it wrong from the title (the content of the article only goes from wrong to worse, by the way): “For Catholics, a Door to Absolution is Reopened.”By the way, to show just how seriously the Church took these abuses, Pope St. Pius V, in 1567, issued a decree which canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.Seeking an IndulgenceMany Catholics think that indulgences, per se, were an abuse. They are not. And though it was a focal point in the Protestant Reformation, indulgences did not go anywhere. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church stated in the 1990s:"An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins… to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).Everything that I have presented about indulgences belongs to the infallible teachings of the Church. We are not at liberty to dismiss them, diminish them, or disbelieve in them. The Council of Trent's anathema makes this clear:The Council of Trent "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them."The Church does not remit temporal punishment due to sin with magic or the wave of a pen. The person who suffers those temporal punishments must be disposed to repentance and faith. As Pope St. Paul VI said:"Indulgences cannot be gained without a sincere conversion of outlook and unity with God (Indulgentarium Doctrina, 11).”Before the Second Vatican Council, indulgences were said to remove a certain number of “days” from punishment. Instead, this was to show that indulgences have two types: plenary and partial. Plenary, meaning full, means that all temporal punishment due to sin that a person owed is being remitted. Whereas, a partial indulgence remits part of the temporal punishment due to sin. In order to make this clearer, Pope St. Paul VI revised the handbook of indulgences (called the Enchiridion).As we have covered, satisfaction and temporal punishment for sin are ordered towards justice on the one hand and purification on the other hand. So, the actions for which one might receive an indulgence should likewise be ordered to justice, charity, and purification. Because the justice of God has been satisfied through the merits of Christ and the saints, applied to our lives, then the “time,” so to speak, needed for purification in charity after death has been lessened. Just as a checkpoint or reminder: indulgences remit the temporal punishment due to sin, not eternal punishment. Eternal punishment is remitted fully by the Cross of Jesus Christ, the merits of which we receive in the Sacrament of Baptism. Knowing rightly what an indulgence is, how can we receive this great gift? Please forgive the following lengthy quotation, but Jimmy Akin put it concisely and excellently in his Primer on Indulgences for EWTN:“To gain any indulgence you must be a Catholic in a state of grace. You must be a Catholic in order to be under the Church's jurisdiction, and you must be in a state of grace because apart from God's grace none of your actions are fundamentally pleasing to God (meritorious). You also must have at least the habitual intention of gaining an indulgence by the act performed.To gain a partial indulgence, you must perform with a contrite heart the act to which the indulgence is attached.To gain a plenary indulgence you must perform the act with a contrite heart plus you must go to confession (one confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences), receive Holy Communion, and pray for the pope's intentions. (An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the pope's intentions are sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choosing.) The final condition is that you must be free from all attachment to sin, including venial sin.Because of the extreme difficulty in meeting the final condition, plenary indulgences are rarely obtained. If you attempt to receive a plenary indulgence, but are unable to meet the last condition, a partial indulgence is received instead.”The Church offers us special indulgences, both plenary and partial, for all sorts of things. But there are a couple of partial indulgences worth mentioning here. Partial indulgences are given by the Church for: * Devoutly spending time in mental prayer, * Reading Sacred Scripture with veneration as a form of spiritual reading (this one is plenary if done for at least 30 minutes), * Devoutly signing oneself with the Sign of the Cross and saying the customary formula: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”ConclusionIndulgences are not magic. They are a part of the infallible teaching of the Church. And they are for our spiritual well-being. We should not be wary of officially promulgated indulgences. We should be grateful to God for His superabundant mercy and His justice. Recognizing that we are sinners in need of His grace, we approach the Sacrament of Penance. Then, we do penance to seek temporal satisfaction and restitution for the consequences of our sins. All the while, we ought to seek out indulgences, because they are nothing more than being union and communion with Almighty God and striving to be more in love with Him who loved us first.Will Wright Catholic Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Will Wright Catholic Podcast at www.willwrightcatholic.com/subscribe

Historia Calamitatum

We have all been there—bad decisions. Making bad decisions triggers negative consequences, such as financial loss, relationship damage, or missed opportunities. As we go through life and accumulate lousy decision after lousy decision, the baggage we carry around gets heavy—embarrassment, regret, anxiety, loss of self-confidence, and even fear that can paralyze us from stepping out of our comfort zone emerge. We really only have two choices. Make bad mistakes, curl up in a ball, and give up. Or, we can challenge ourselves to leave the past in the past and have the discipline and determination to tap into our minds and learn to make better decisions. I choose the latter, and I hope you do too. This episode explores a three-step process to avoid bad decisions and hopefully make high-quality decisions. We will get through analyzing a medieval intellectual and theologian that lived a life of high drama, bitter confrontations, and more than his share of bad decisions. From these very difficult life experiences, he grew exponentially and became one of the most respected and influential figures of the medieval era. His name is Peter Abelard, and his view on sin, thinking, individualism, and personal responsibility was centuries ahead of the traditional mindset of the time. As we always do, we will attempt to connect the dots from a set of wisdom literature and philosophy to the postmodern world we live in today. I hope you will listen in and study as we explore Peter Abelard and how to make more effective decisions in life. JOIN THE INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM COMMUNITY!  It's free and gives you access to much, much more content and material to further your journey.  https://intellectualfreedom.substack.com/Follow Dr. Hopkins on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DavidDHopkins

This is a preview of a bonus episode. Listen to the whole episode for as little as $5 at: www.patreon.com/10kpostspodcast -------- In this new series, we take a look at historical figures that we consider to have the immutable soul of a Poster. Joining us this week is Medieval historian and twice-published author Dr Eleanor Janega, and she's brought the sordid tale of 12th century french philosopher Peter Abelard. You can listen to Eleanor's podcast, 'We're not so different', here You can support her patreon here, and you can find her new book, 'The Once and Future Sex' here. -------- Ten Thousand Posts is a show about how everything is posting. It's hosted by Hussein (@HKesvani), Phoebe (@PRHRoy) and produced by Devon (@Devon_onEarth).

Happy Valentine's Day to our listeners! For this episode let us join the Cupid of history, Professor James Daybell and the Casanova of historical crime, Dr Sam Willis as they, with arrows notched and ready to fly, bring you from the back catalogue: the unexpected history of LOVE.Our two star crossed history hunters take the lead along love's fickle twisting and turning path, from the modern phenomenon of attaching inscribed padlocks to public bridges in Paris to the votive offerings made through centuries past, from the tempestuous affair between Peter Abelard and Heloise d'Argenteuil in the 12th century and one of the earliest examples of a love letter to Verona in the 1930s and the beginnings of the ‘Juliette Secretary's', from the in-twinned savagery of politics and courtly love of the Tudor period and the poems of Sir Thomas Wyatt to Stalin and the Soviet state and the poignant last letters of those condemned to death, and from the letters of Sir Edward Dering to his ‘dearest and best friend' his beloved wife Unton in the mid fifteenth century to the earliest recorded English valentine letter from the Paston papers, written in 1477, love is most definitely all around.Knowing no bounds and conquering all, Sam and James discover that this unexpected history is actually all about; affection and romance, family and companionship, cultural expression and interpretation, attraction and biology, chemistry and psychology, endurance and expectations, security and commitment, permanence and loss, betrayal and sacrifice, intimacy and passion.“Farewell love and all thy laws forever;Thy baited hooks shall tangle me no more” (Sir Thomas Wyatt, 1557) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Peter Abelard and Heloise are one of the most celebrated couples of all time, known for their love affair and for the tragedy that separated them. In this episode, we discuss their love letters! 

In twelfth-century France, Peter Abelard renounced his inheritance and knighthood and chose to become a philosopher. Héloïse, though raised in a convent, challenged cultural norms, became a scholar, and held a secret marriage with Abelard.Church officials sent Abelard to the monastery and Héloïse back to the convent. During their years of separation, they wrote voluminous love letters, which are celebrated to this day. Their story was dramatized in the 1988 film Stealing Heaven.   

“The key to wisdom is this – constant and frequent questioning, for by doubting we are led to question, by questioning we arrive at the truth.” – Peter Abelard. Mentioned in today's episode: http://www.powerofthecurve.com/ Join the author conversation in Ink Authors: https://www.facebook.com/groups/inkauthors/ Learn more about YDWH and catch up on old episodes: www.yourdailywritinghabit.com Learn more about me, “Christine Ink,” and how I support authors: https://christine-ink.com/ 5 Things To Know Before Hiring a Book Coach: https://christine-ink.com/book-coaching-2/

Philosophers often talk as if it does not make much difference who wrote a piece of philosophy, when, and where, but only whether the arguments it contains are sound. Historians of philosophy should always treat that attitude with suspicion. Philosophical texts about which questions of pseudonymity arise (are they really by the person who claims to have written them?) help to show why, because how they are to be understood is bound up essentially with the question about their authorship and, if they are in fact pseudonymous, what is the purpose behind the apparent deception? The case of the texts attributed to Zera Yacob is a striking example of where the date and identity of the author matter centrally, whether the texts we have are in fact original, heavily adapted or forged. My talk will try to provide some context. I shall begin by looking at philosophical texts that have been, deliberately or otherwise, attributed to authors who did not write them, such as pseudo-Aristotelian texts, the pseudo-Dionysian corpus, Augustinus Hibernicus, Aethicus Ister, the Epistola Trajani (in John of Salisbury's Policraticus), the Liber XXIV Philosophorum, and Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. I shall then focus on one particular comparative example: the famous correspondence of the twelfth-century philosopher, Peter Abelard, and his wife-turned-nun, Heloise (and another set of letters that, more recently, has been claimed as an earlier exchange between the two when they were lovers). Like the Ḥatatā, there has been and remains much debate about the authenticity of these texts, and the parallels and divergences between the two discussions throw light on both.

Delphine Conzelmann joins AJ Langley to talk all about 12th century theologian William of St-Thierry (1085-1148). We discuss his "friendship" with Bernhard of Clairvaux, his conflict with Peter Abelard, the chest of Jesus, how we need to be better academic friends and reinstate academic infirmeries to deal with burnout and bound over our ideas. Follow us on Twitter @myfavmystic, and if you are enjoying the podcast, rate and review us on your podcast app of choice!

Al looks at the collapse – and possible rebirth – of Catholic Catechesis in the US and we take a pilgrimage through Catholic history with Kevin Schmiesing. Liz Lev examines how St. Joseph has been depicted in art throughout history and Jon Sweeney shares a little-known story of the showdown between Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Abelard.

Welcome to the eleventh episode of Speaking to the Dead. Where Doug Rooney and Will Stafford read historic texts and put them in conversation with the modern-day. The only rule: the author must be dead! In this episode, we hear all the calamities that befall poor Peter Abelard, his eventful and long-lasting relationship with Heloise, and ask if everyone you meet is awful might that say something about you?

On today's ID the Future, Human Nature author David Berlinski continues his conversation with host Wesley J. Smith. Here Berlinski reflects on the Jewish Holocaust, the destructive nihilism of the Nazis and the SS, and the shortcomings of Neo-Darwinism as an explanation for the diversity of life. Berlinski and Smith also discuss the increasingly widespread attacks on human exceptionalism, the growth of emotivism and why it's a problem, and the bizarre nature rights movement. This is the second and concluding part of a conversation borrowed, with permission, from Wesley J. Smith's Humanize podcast. Source

Continuing with the history of Christian thought, we begin to examine the medieval period and its contribution to the story of Christian theology.  Join us as we cover St. Anselm and Peter Abelard and their take on issues such as the sacrifice of Christ.  Thank you and may God bless your week.   Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=QG8G828ARFGML)

Why did Jesus die? Why couldn't God just forgive all our sins? How did Jesus' death pay for sin? How can someone else die for my sins? Questions like these are what atonement theories strive to answer. Throughout the history of Christianity a half dozen prominent theories have vied for adherents. In what follows I begin by surveying what the bible says about atonement before moving to briefly cover seven atonement theories. I originally released this presentation as two separate talks a while back (Theology 17 and Theology 18), but due to continued interest and inquires about this subject, I thought it would be a good idea to rebroadcast this talk. For those who would like to go more in depth, you can access the full-length paper here. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAox3ELuVwY —— Links —— access the full-length paper here More posts on atonement here If you'd like to support Restitutio, you can donate here or designate Restitutio as your charity of choice for Amazon purchases Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow us on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here.

One night, in Paris, thugs broke into the room of Peter Abelard, renowned theologian and philosopher, and beloved teacher, and castrated him.  Because Fulbert, the uncle of Heloise, was REALLY annoyed that Abelard and Heloise were keeping their marriage secret.  Which they had entered into so that Fulbert wouldn't be so upset about the affair that they had been having.  Also their son, Astrolabe, or, as Anne likes to think of him, Global Positioning System. Fulbert just had no moderation. Abelard went off to be a monk for while and then wander around, Heloise went off to run a nunnery, they both wrote lots of letters, and Astrolabe (after being raised by Abelard's sister Denise) grew up to work in at least two churches. And then later Abelard and Heloise became very famous as tragic lovers. And you can go and leave letters on their supposed grave in Paris, asking them for help with your love affairs, though really that doesn't seem like a great idea, given all that bad luck they had, and also they probably aren't there. The end.

The brilliant prodigy Heloise had a red hot love affair with her teacher, Medieval France's most influential philosopher, Peter Abelard. But when rumors of their fling circulated, a violent attack ripped them apart, forcing them both to take the cloth. Their surviving letters tell an amazing story of a passionate, forbidden love. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

In this episode, Dinesh shows why it's impossible to believe Biden merely blundered in Afghanistan--he knew all along the debacle he was creating.  Danielle D'Souza Gill joins Dinesh to discuss the two separate pathways to getting beyond Roe v. Wade. Dinesh examines Mitch McConnell's latest heresy to examine whether there is a method to his madness. Dinesh introduces the philosophy of Peter Abelard through the story of his tempestuous romance with a nun named Heloise.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 113, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: 24 1: Its atomic number is 79 and the purest types are said to be 24-karat. gold. 2: On October 30, 1954 this sport introduced the use of the 24-second clock. basketball. 3: In an old nursery rhyme four and twenty of these birds are baked into a pie served to a king. blackbirds. 4: This political party split during Buchanan's presidency and wasn't elected to the presidency for 24 years. Democrats. 5: You're within this "circle" if you experience 24 continuous hours of sunlight on June 21. Arctic Circle. Round 2. Category: I Was A Teenage... 1: In 1979 at the age of 18, this "Great One" began playing in the NHL. Wayne Gretzky. 2: As a teenager and president-yet-to-be this man met JFK in 1963. Bill Clinton. 3: In his late teens, this "Top Gun" star played a loony military cadet in "Taps". Tom Cruise. 4: This unfortunate "Lady" was only 15 years old when she began her 9-day reign over England in 1553. Lady Jane Grey. 5: As a teenager, this current British PM shone as an actor and an athlete at Fettes College in Scotland. Tony Blair. Round 3. Category: History Of Passion 1: Paris just had to have this beautiful daughter of Zeus, and the rest is history. Helen of Troy. 2: In 1946, this Indian leader revealed he'd taken many women to bed with him over the years to test his celibacy. Mahatma Gandhi. 3: This 12th century French theologian lost more than his head over the niece of a vengeful cleric. Peter Abelard. 4: This British Secretary of War resigned in 1963 due to a sex scandal. John Profumo. 5: Depicted here, they're the victims being abducted by the Romans. Sabine women. Round 4. Category: Name The Olympic Sport 1: Shorts,10 or 12-ounce gloves,protective headgear. boxing. 2: Landing area,crossbar,long flexible staff. pole vault. 3: A sled weighing no more than 50 pounds,a steep hill,nerves of steel. luge. 4: 2 teams of 6,an over 7-foot-high net. volleyball. 5: Floor area,bodysuit,a ball, a hoop or a ribbon. rhythmic gymnastics. Round 5. Category: Buy A Vowel 1: This "A" word means to relinquish power or give up the throne. abdicate. 2: We're looking for an "I"; it's an animal without any backbone. invertebrate. 3: This "O" is the medical branch that deals with the anatomy and treatment of the eye. opthamology (optometry accepted). 4: It's what the Greeks call the letter "E". epsilon. 5: "U" may not be aware that this Florentine palace was originally built for Cosimo I de Medici. the Uffizi Palace. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!

Dr. Richard Rubenstein is a Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason University. He is the author of the excellent book "When Jesus Became God" about the Arian Controversy. In this conversation we cover both the details and higher level themes of the Arian controversy. We talk about Arius of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, the Emperors Constantine, Diocletian, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Constantius, Constans, Valens, and Theodosius, the Cappadocian Fathers Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. Augustine of Hippo, Eusebius of Caesarea, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Abelard, and others. We also talk about how the Arian Controversy relates to our time. We also briefly hint at his next project which is a novel based on Paul the Apostle's time on Malta. When Jesus Became God: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/253881.When_Jesus_Became_God

Continuing the series on atonement theories with an exploration of the Moral Influence/Example model. References: St. Luke's Salisbury Peter Abelard Phillippians 2:5:11 The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis, edited by John Pokinghorne (chapters 8 & 9) The Cross and the Lynching Tree, by James Cone The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ, by Fleming Rutledge With the Grain of the Universe: The Church's Witness and Natural Theology, by Stanley Hauerwas Revelations of Divine Love, by Julian of Norwich

A talk given by Roxane Noël (Wolfson College, Cambridge) at the Moral Sciences Club on 10th November 2020.

In this episode of "Journeys from the Past," Andy Davis covers the two major topics of the crusades and scholasticism. Andy covers Charlemagne, the Battle of Tours, Islam, the Vikings, Raymond Lull, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas. The post Journeys from the Past, Ep.5: Crusades & Scholasticism appeared first on Two Journeys.

In this episode of "Journeys from the Past," Andy Davis covers the two major topics of the crusades and scholasticism. Andy covers Charlemagne, the Battle of Tours, Islam, the Vikings, Raymond Lull, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas. Andy Davis referenced the following source in the production of this podcast: Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language: Fourth Edition.

In this episode of "Journeys from the Past," Andy Davis covers the two major topics of the crusades and scholasticism. Andy covers Charlemagne, the Battle of Tours, Islam, the Vikings, Raymond Lull, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas. The post Journeys from the Past, Ep.5: Crusades & Scholasticism appeared first on Two Journeys.

In this episode of "Journeys from the Past," Andy Davis covers the two major topics of the crusades and scholasticism. Andy covers Charlemagne, the Battle of Tours, Islam, the Vikings, Raymond Lull, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas. The post Journeys from the Past, Ep.5: Crusades & Scholasticism appeared first on Two Journeys.

In this episode of "Journeys from the Past," Andy Davis covers the two major topics of the crusades and scholasticism. Andy covers Charlemagne, the Battle of Tours, Islam, the Vikings, Raymond Lull, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas.

In this episode of "Journeys from the Past," Andy Davis covers the two major topics of the crusades and scholasticism. Andy covers Charlemagne, the Battle of Tours, Islam, the Vikings, Raymond Lull, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas. The post Journeys from the Past, Ep.5: Crusades & Scholasticism appeared first on Two Journeys.

0:15 Americana & The Fourth11:12 Apostolicae Curae & Anglicans15:22 St. Peter the Aleut17:22 Peter Abelard & Genius Problems23:30 Glorious Revolution preserved Britain?25:40 Ireland's Problem32:40 Best Pope of 18th Century33:30 Rock n Roll & Preternatural Activity42:13 Deliverance Prayers47:45 Our New RealitySupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/tumblarhouse)

More great books at LoyalBooks.com

A webinar delivered by Professor Willemien Otten (University of Chicago) on May 7, 2020. Part of a spring webinar series on "Reason and Wisdom in Medieval Christian Thought" Peter Abelard (d. 1142) and Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153) were contemporaries who both emerged from the new twelfth-century schools. But their dispositions, personalities, and eventual conflict have come to represent a conflict between the rising scholastic and the traditional monastic cultures of learning. Professor Willemien Otten will introduce these iconic twelfth-century personalities, the direction of their work, and the theological controversy that put them on opposing sides.

On this day, we remember Anselm Of Canterbury (d. 1109) and Peter Abelard (d. 1142). The reading is "Ephesus pt. 1" by Mary Klassen. — Questions? Comments? Show Ideas? Send them to us at CHA@1517.org. And, of course, share us with a friend or two! Please subscribe, rate, and review us on the following Podcast portals and apps: Apple Podcasts Spotify Stitcher Overcast Google Play You can also like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. This show was produced by Christopher Gillespie, a Lutheran pastor (stjohnrandomlake.org), coffee roaster (gillespie.coffee), and media producer (gillespie.media). We’re a part of 1517 Podcasts, a network of shows dedicated to delivering Christ-centered content. Our podcasts cover a multitude of content, from Christian doctrine, apologetics, cultural engagement, and powerful preaching. Support the work of 1517 today.

In the 11th and 12th centuries CE, pushback increased against the dominant Ransom narrative of Christ's atoning work.  Step into the soap opera that is Abelard's life, and admire Anselm's life as a participant in history, all while we examine their unique contributions to our understanding of our salvation. Show Notes: 1.  Gwenfair Walters, “The Atonement in Medieval Theology.”  The Glory of the Atonement:  Biblical, Historical, & Practical Perspectives.  Edited by Charles Hill and Frank James.  Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, 2004.  Pgs. 239-62. 2. Mark Baker and Joel Green.  Recovering the Scandal of the Cross:  Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts.  2011. 3. Denis Kaiser.  “Peter Abelard’s Theology of Atonement:  A Multifaceted Approach and Reevaluation.”  Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, vol. 26(1).  2015.  pgs. 3-28. 4. Cristina Nehring.  “Heloise & Abelard:  Love Hurts.”  New York Times online edition, Feb. 13 2005.  https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/books/review/heloise-abelard-love-hurts.html 5. Peter Abelard.  Historia Calamitatum (Story of my Misfortunes).  Trans. Henry Adams Bellows, 1922.  Available at https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/abelard-histcal.aspx Cover artwork:  Jean Vignaud (1775-1826).  Abelard and Heloise Surprised by the Abbot Fulbert.  1819, oil on canvas.

On Sunday, February 9, 2020, Mr. John West taught the sixth lesson in his series on Church History. Week 6: AD 1100-1400 The Schism Crusades and Monasteries | Early Crusades | Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) | Peter Abelard (1079-1142) | Peter Lombard (1096-1160) | Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) Straying from the Gospel | The capture of Jerusalem by Saladin Monks and Dissidents | Francis of Assisi | Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) | John Wycliffe (1330-1384) | Jan Hus (1371-1402)

Dr. Doug Sweeney moves forward in church history, covering the timeline from Peter Abelard to Karl Barth with the inclusion of debates between Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant believers. The post Scripture, Tradition, and Church: From Abelard to Barth appeared first on DTS Voice.

Dr. Doug Sweeney moves forward in church history, covering the timeline from Peter Abelard to Karl Barth with the inclusion of debates between Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant believers. The post Scripture, Tradition, and Church: From Abelard to Barth appeared first on DTS Voice.

Poor Anselm, the favorite medieval-scholastic whipping boy of apparently enlightened moderns. Outraged at the attack on Anselm's honor, Dad and I endeavor to make satisfaction for his slandered reputation, give the best and most charitable account of his atonement theory, make some slight tweaks to it in a Lutheran-ish direction while taking serious issue with Gustaf Aulén's attempt to do the same, and overall make the case that the Anselmian concern for justice and recompense is not nearly as foreign to our sensibilities nowadays as his cultured despisers like to claim. Notes: 1. Anselm of Canterbury’s Cur Deus Homo can be found in A Scholastic Miscellany 2. Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor 3. Karl Barth, Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum 4. The Nominalists, from the Latin nomen (“name”), were a school of late medieval philosophers who held that concepts do not exist in reality (opposing the position of the “realists”) but are only names that human beings create to categorize or classify really existing things or persons. As Dad explains to students: “To me, the tree stump along the Appalachian Trail is a chair, but to a termite, it’s a meal.” While we’re at it, Dad—who once described himself as anti-Kantian par excellence, has co-authored a book arguing that Kant is just Plato continued by other means, and has written another book on the confrontation between biblical and philosophical monotheism in the Arian controversy (Divine Complexity)—discusses the various atonement “theories” in chapter 3 of Luther and the Beloved Community. 5. The divine dei in Greek means “it is necessary” 6. Anselm’s definition of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” is found in his work the Proslogion 7. Brandt Jean’s victim-impact statement 8. Friedrich Nietzsche talks about the “evil genius” of God dying for His debtors in Beyond Good and Evil 9. A major source for Luther’s christology is his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper 10. The Tome of Leo is a patristic document supporting the two natures of Christ but at the cost of assigning very different duties to each nature in a hermetically sealed kind of way 11. admirabile commercium = joyful exchange (in Latin) 12. Peter Abelard gave his version of “atonement” theology in his commentary on Romans, an excerpt of which is also in A Scholastic Miscellany 13. Gerhard O. Forde, “The Work of Christ: Atonement as Actual Event,” in Christian Dogmatics vol. 2 14. Hans Urs von Balthasar writes about Luther’s doctrine of atonement in Theo-Drama vol. 4 15. Gustaf Aulén’s later book is The Faith of the Christian Church More about us at sarahhinlickywilson.com and paulhinlicky.com!

Acclaimed writer and broadcaster Melvyn Bragg presents a moving and poignant tale of one of history’s greatest love stories. Paris, 1117: Heloise, a young and celebrated scholar, is stunned when the radical philosopher, Peter Abelard, agrees to be her tutor. They embark on a passionate, dangerous love affair with horrific consequences, sending shockwaves through 12th-century Paris. Nine centuries later, Arthur, an English academic, in Paris to recreate their story in a novel, finds his connection to the tragic lovers is more emotional than he cares to admit. This event took place on Sunday 3rd March as part of Jewish Book Week 2019.

Renowned author and broadcaster Melvyn Bragg discusses the 12th-century French thinkers Peter Abelard and Heloise, and the enduring love story at the centre of his new novel See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Romans 3:26, John 15:13 How might we think of Jesus’ death as an act of love? Peter Abelard’s understanding of atonement Implications of God’s love

In this episode, Courtney tells us the story of Peter Abelard and Heloise and their ill-fated love affair. Is it really a love story, though? Listen and decide for yourself!   This episode contains mature subject matter & strong language, so as always, listen at your own discretion EPISODE SOURCES EPISODE IMAGES   Logo Design: By Madison Rumschik IG: @madisontriestoart              Twitter: @m_rumschik Sound Effects & Intro Music:  https://www.zapsplat.com FOLLOW US ON: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DomesticPodcast Twitter: https://twitter.com/DomesticPodcast Instagram: @thecultofdomesticity Email us at domesticpodcast@gmail.com Merch: https://www.threadless.com/@domesticpodcast/shopdesigns Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/domesticpodcast

Session 5:  Crusades and the Changing times. The Scolastic Universities. Anselm, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas. The high point of papal power, Innocent III. Excommunication and the interdict. The Mendicant Friars. Failures of the golden age. Heresies and the Inquisition. The Rise of Nationalism and wealth of the middle class.

John Marenbon returns to the podcast to discuss Abelard's views on necessity and freedom..

Peter Abelard sets out an innovative ethical theory that identifies intentions as the core of moral life.

Peter Abelard and Heloise prove themselves to be fascinating thinkers as well as star-crossed lovers.

In this episode: an interesting historical episode relating to the "Athanasian Creed." It makes a grown man cry. This creed really "starts up" Christian philosophers; surely, a distinction here, a distinction there, and the appearance of contradiction can be chased away. But, our efforts are not always appreciated, as Abelard learns in the year 1121. This episode incorporates part of Abelard's famous History of My Calamities. Thanks to my colleague B. for voicing  Abelard. You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here. You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.) Links for this episode: Richard Cartwright, and his "On the Logical Problem of the Trinity" The quote from Wissowatius Abelard's entire History of My Calamities "Peter Abelard" at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Clanchy's Abelard: A Medieval Life Brower and Guilfoy (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Abelard and Brower's exposition of Abelard on the Trinity Mews's Abelard and Heloise

Part 3 of 3 - Track 4 of 4: EpilogueThis is the third and final group of the three part podcast introduction to Etre Perdu and his debut, Dismal Clockwork LP. This third batch of episodes includes the final 4 tracks on the album:7. The Disappointment of Peter Abelard8. Moriquendi9. Rising Tide10. EpilogueThough this is the end of the Dismal Clockwork LP, other tracks will be posted soon!Visit Etre Perdu @ www.myspace.com/etreperduVisit Counterfeit Records @ www.myspace.com/counterfeitrec or www.counterfeitrecords.com

Part 3 of 3 - Track 2 of 4: MoriquendiThis is the third and final group of the three part podcast introduction to Etre Perdu and his debut, Dismal Clockwork LP. This third batch of episodes includes the final 4 tracks on the album:7. The Disappointment of Peter Abelard8. Moriquendi9. Rising Tide10. EpilogueThough this is the end of the Dismal Clockwork LP, other tracks will be posted soon!Visit Etre Perdu @ www.myspace.com/etreperduVisit Counterfeit Records @ www.myspace.com/counterfeitrec or www.counterfeitrecords.com

Part 3 of 3 - Track 1 of 4: The Disappointment of Peter AbelardThis is the third and final group of the three part podcast introduction to Etre Perdu and his debut, Dismal Clockwork LP. This third batch of episodes includes the final 4 tracks on the album:7. The Disappointment of Peter Abelard8. Moriquendi9. Rising Tide10. EpilogueThough this is the end of the Dismal Clockwork LP, other tracks will be posted soon!Visit Etre Perdu @ www.myspace.com/etreperduVisit Counterfeit Records @ www.myspace.com/counterfeitrec or www.counterfeitrecords.com

Part 3 of 3 - Track 3 of 4: Rising TideThis is the third and final group of the three part podcast introduction to Etre Perdu and his debut, Dismal Clockwork LP. This third batch of episodes includes the final 4 tracks on the album:7. The Disappointment of Peter Abelard8. Moriquendi9. Rising Tide10. EpilogueThough this is the end of the Dismal Clockwork LP, other tracks will be posted soon!Visit Etre Perdu @ www.myspace.com/etreperduVisit Counterfeit Records @ www.myspace.com/counterfeitrec or www.counterfeitrecords.com

The title of this episode is ScholasticismOne of the most important questions faced by philosophers and theologians throughout the centuries has been the interplay between Faith and Reason. Are they enemies or allies? Is the Christian faith reasonable, or a blind leap into an irrational darkness? A major advance in answering this came with the emergence of a group of medieval theologians known as the Scholastics. Chief among them were Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th C and Thomas Aquinas in the 13th.In his novel Pillars of the Earth, author Ken Follett spins an intriguing tale of the construction of a cathedral in England. While the cathedral and town are fictional, Follett does a masterful job of capturing the mindset and vision of medieval architecture.I've had the privilege of visiting the cathedral in Cologne, Germany a few times and am fascinated by what is found there. While some modern American evangelicals who decry tradition may be put off by all the elaborate decoration and religious symbolism of Europe's Gothic cathedrals, most find them fascinating studies in art, architecture and with a little research, interesting expressions of theological thought. You see, the Gothic cathedral wasn't just a building; it was an attempt to embody the period's thoughts about God and man.  As Bruce Shelly says, “The medieval masters of Gothic style tried to portray in stone and glass man's central religious quest. They wanted to depict a tension. On one hand was man aspiring to reach the heights of heaven; on the other hand was God condescending to address the least of men.”The pillars, arches, and steeples point up like fingers to heaven. But down comes the light through stained glass windows illuminating the Earth, and more specifically, those who've gathered inside to seek God. It is the architect's version of human reason and divine revelation.The schools these cathedrals housed gave rise to the universities of the late Middle Ages. Their task was to understand and explain Creation in light of God's revealed Word and Ways. As the Crusades were an attempt to extend the authority of God over the Middle East, the universities hoped to extend an understanding of God and His creation over the realm of the mind.But how did the world of ideas bow to the rule of God? How was reason to be made a servant of faith? This era in Christian thought is called “Scholasticism” because distinctive methods of scholarship arose and a unique theology emerged. The aim of the Scholastics was twofold: to reconcile Christian doctrine with human reason and to arrange the teachings of the Church in an orderly system.But, it's important we mark at the outset that a free search for truth wasn't on the horizon for the Scholastics. The doctrines of the Christian faith were already fixed. The purpose of the Scholastics was to show the reasonableness of those doctrines and explain them.The early universities were intimately linked to the Church. They were usually housed in the Cathedrals. A medieval scholar was most often a priest or monk. This began centuries before when Benedict of Nursia insisted monks study as a means of their spiritual development. In the 8th C, Charlemagne, while dreaming of a Christian empire, widened the opportunities for study through a decree that every monastery have a school to teach those able to learn. The Emperor himself set an example with a palace school for his children and court.While the cathedral schools were set up primarily to train clergy, it wasn't long before laymen were invited to attend as well.The curriculum was limited to grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy—the 7 liberal arts, so-called because in ancient Rome their study had been reserved for liberi = freemen.  The few texts available were writings of a handful of scholars of the early Middle Ages. Students learned from Cassiodorus, Boethius, Augustine, Pope Gregory the Great, and a handful of Church Fathers the medieval student dared not question.We can track the birth of the great medieval universities to the influence of several outstanding teachers. It was their skill in teaching and enthusiasm for learning that attracted students.Among the first of this new breed of scholar was Gerbert, master of the cathedral school at Rheims [reems] in the latter half of the 10th C. Though he came from peasant stock, Gerbert became Pope Sylvester II. His genius was recognized early on so he was sent to study mathematics in Spain. While there, he was exposed to what at the time was the tolerant culture of the ruling Muslims. This was the first of a several significant contributions Muslims made to the Christian intellectual awakening of the Middle Ages.Gerbert returned to Rheims greatly impressed by the inquisitive, questing spirit of Muslim scholars. When he began to teach, he announced that quotations of the so-called authorities were no longer going to be accepted as the final say. From then on, he required his students to study the classics in their original language. He began collecting manuscripts wherever he could and built a substantial library. This was no mean feat when we remember a manuscript could take a year to copy, and cost a fortune.The most notable figure from this early period of Scholasticism was Peter Abelard. The senior son of a minor noble of NW France, Peter turned over his inheritance rights to his younger brothers so he could roam France and learn from the great masters. But he did more than listen. He challenged those he caught in factual or philosophical error.  It wasn't long before he settled in as a lecturer in Paris, where he attracted a host of students.He also began to write. In a tract titled Yes and No, he posed over a hundred questions from Christian teaching, then answered them using conflicting quotations from Scripture, the Church Fathers, and even pagan classics. His point was that there were still many fronts for discussion and inquiry that needed to be resolved.  Abelard said, “The first key to wisdom is assiduous and frequent questioning.… For by doubting we come to inquiry, and by inquiry we arrive at the truth.” This idea of using doubt to fuel the quest for knowledge was commonplace to the ancient Greeks but dangerous ground to medieval Europeans. Abelard had a few fans but many more detractors who were alarmed by his bold questioning of what were considered unimpeachable authorities. Having stirred one too many pots and poked one too many bee-hives, he decided to lay low for a while in a monastery.A year later he left to live in an open area SE of Paris. Supporters built him a shelter, tilled his land, and begged him to teach once more. So, resuming his pursuit of reason, Abelard again fell out with the religious conservatives. It was at this point that Abelard ran afoul of Bernard of Clairvaux, the famous preacher of the 2nd Crusade and the most influential churchman in Christendom. Of Abelard, Bernard remarked, “The faith of the righteous believes, it does not dispute.” Bernard managed to have Abelard branded a heretic and excommunicated. Abelard retired to the abbey of Cluny, where its abbot, Peter the Venerable, persuaded Bernard to reconcile with Abelard. The excommunication was lifted. Abelard spent his last 2 years at the monastery at Cluny where he was regarded as a great scholar and wise counselor.I'll leave out of this Abelard's marriage to Heloise, one of the most remarkable love-stories of history.No one could stop the growth of the seeds Abelard planted. Schools popped up all over Europe. Less than 100 years after his death universities flourished at Paris, Orleans, and Montpellier in France; across the English Channel at Oxford and Cambridge; and at Bologna and Padua in Italy, all of them aflame with the ideas Abelard ignited.Students and their teachers formed guilds. Just as craftsmen had done since the Roman Empire, scholars banded together for protection and promotion of their interests. They called themselves universitas, the medieval name for any corporate group.Most students in Italy were grown men who pursued advanced study in law and medicine. Their guilds exercised tremendous power. Students paid teachers, determined the courses to be given, and fined any lecturer who skipped a chapter in expounding his subject. Certainly a turn around from today's schools.In English and French universities where students were younger, scholars' guilds had the upper hand. They forbade swearing and gambling, fined students for breaking curfews, and set table manners.Medieval universities, were not the ivied walls and grassy lawns we think of today. At first, lectures were given in shanties and sheds alongside roads at Oxford and Cambridge. They met in side rooms of the cathedral in Paris, open piazzas in Italy.  Once the prestige and income of a teacher rose, he might rent a room for his students where they'd sit on straw-covered floors. Because they lacked any fixed property, they were able to move when they ran afoul of local authorities.Along with lectures, teachers used what were called disputations. Two or more masters debated a text using Abelard's question-and-answer approach. This was how Scholasticism developed. It arose from the pain-staking process of arriving at logical conclusions through questioning, examining, and arranging details into a system of logic. Scholastic disputations often caused heated clashes and bitter feelings. Wars of logic ran for years between different scholars, with supporters of each cheering their hero with loud whistling and stomping of feet. The point was, students were learning to think. The unquestioned acceptance of traditional authorities was no longer assured. Now, conclusions had to square with Christian doctrine.Scholasticism was less a philosophy or theology as it was a method of learning. The emphasis was on harmonizing faith and reason. The Scholastics used the ancient Greek practice of relentless questioning of traditional authority.  Truth would no longer be accepted just because those in authority said so. Truth was to be rigorously analyzed and brought over into the realm of reason. After all, didn't the Bible say we are to love God with all our mind?The Scholastics were known for their careful drawing of distinctions. In classrooms and books, topics were vigorously debated, with one of the sides of the debate not even really being believed but still proposed as a way to check the value of the side being affirmed.Scholastics wanted to harmonize Christian theology with the philosophy of the classical era, especially that of Aristotle and the Neo-platonists.Some scholastics of note are Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and Bonaventure. Two of the greatest were Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas.  Aquinas's masterwork, the Summa Theologica, is considered to be the greatest work of the Scholastics.Anselm was born into one of the many noble houses of Europe in the early 11th C. Because there was little prospect for him to achieve prominence in the political realm, he became a Benedictine monk. His studies quickly marked him as a man of keen intelligence and deep philosophical reflection. He was made Archbishop of Canterbury for the last 17 years of his life.Anselm is often called the founder of Scholasticism, and was a major influence in European theology. He's most famous as the originator of the ontological argument for the existence of God and the Satisfaction theory for the Atonement; that Jesus' death satisfied the righteous requirements of God's justice.Anselm spent most of his time devising reasonable arguments for theological propositions he already accepted as true by faith. His goal wasn't to justify faith by reason. He wanted to better understand what he believed. He saw reason as the servant of faith, rather than the other way around.  Faith came first and guided reason. He wrote, “I believe in order to understand.” He thought that spiritual things had to be a matter of experience before they could be comprehended by the intellect. He said, “He who does not believe has not felt, and he who has not felt, does not understand.” He contended that Christ must come to the intellect through the avenue of faith and not to faith through the intellect. He declared himself against blind belief, and called it a sin of neglect when the one who has faith doesn't strive for knowledge.[1]Anselm gave reasonable proofs for God's existence and compelling reasons for God as a self-existent, immaterial, all-powerful, compassionate, just, and merciful deity. In his book Why the God-Man? Anselm demonstrated the relationship between the incarnation and the atonement. His argument that Christ's atonement satisfied God had a powerful impact on both Luther and Calvin centuries later. He wrote on the nature of the Trinity, original sin, free will, the harmony of foreknowledge and foreordination, and why Satan fell.[2]Anselm's two sources of knowledge were the Bible and the teaching of the Church which, he maintained, were in total agreement with each other and with all true philosophy. He had the deepest admiration for Augustine, and his agreement with him earned Anselm the titles “The 2nd Augustine” and, “Tongue of Augustine.”[3]  Besides being a man of genuine piety and devotion to God, Church Historian Philip Schaff says Anselm was probably the most original thinker since Augustine.I want to share the interesting story of Anselm's conflicts with two of England's kings. The best way to do so is to tell the story as Schaff does in Vol 5 of his Church History series.William II, called William Rufus, or the Red for the color of his hair, 3rd son of William the Conqueror, ruled from 1087 to 1100. Probably the only good he did during his entire reign was to appoint Anselm as Archbishop of Canterbury. William inherited all the vices and none of the virtues of his father. He despised the clergy. It was said that, “he feared God but little, and man not at all.” He wasn't a skeptic so much as he was profane and blasphemous. He believed in God à and hated Him. He wasn't married but indulged in gross immorality. People said he rose a worse man every morning, and lay down a worse man every evening.He plundered the Church and oppressed the clergy. He robbed the churches and monasteries of their income by leaving them vacant or selling them to the highest bidder. Within four years he changed thirty cemeteries into royal parks to satisfy his passion for hunting, which in the end cost him his life.When the Archbishop of Canterbury died, William kept the seat vacant for four years. Under the influence of a severe sickness, he finally yielded to the pressure to elect Anselm who was then in England, and well-known as a profound theologian of pious character. A greater contrast of men can scarcely be imagined. Anselm did not want to be archbishop. He wanted to return to the life of a quiet monk in his abbey back in northern Italy. But he sensed the call of God, even though if he accepted he'd face a never-ending battle with the English king.He was appointed to his seat to great celebration on the 2nd Sunday of Advent, 1093 and immediately set out to revive the discipline that had fallen away during the previous years.This was the time of the Great Papal Schism and King William supported the French Pope Clement III while Anselm owed allegiance to Urban II. The king insisted on Anselm's receiving the archbishop's pallium, his vestment, from Clement, then demanded that HE be the one to confer Anselm's authority on him. Of course Anselm refused and took the pallium from Urban's agent who'd brought the vestment to England in a special case.When the archbishop refused to meet William's ever increasing financial requirements, the king took him to court. Anselm refused to appear; a civil court had no jurisdiction in church affairs. It was the old question of whether a church official, in his capacity as a clergyman owed allegiance to the pope or crown.Anselm managed to secure the king's permission in 1097 to go to Rome. But William sent troops after him and overtook him at Dover. They searched Anselm's baggage and seized the offerings he was taking to Rome. Anselm's trip ended up as an exile.Anselm was warmly received by the pope, who threatened William with excommunication and pronounced a curse on any layman who thought, as William had, that he could invest a bishop with spiritual authority. The papal curse went further, to anyone who accepted such a false investiture.In early Aug of 1100, while hunting in the New Forest, the Red King was killed by an arrow.  No one knows whether it was shot by a hunter or assassin. There was little mourning for a king nearly everyone had been hoping would drop dead. They would not have been surprised if a bolt of lightning had slain him.[4]But this isn't the end of Anselm's monarch problems. When William II died, his younger brother, Henry I took the throne. Henry was generally a good king who did much to root out the worst of the corruption of court. He reconciled the clergy by recalling Anselm from exile, but renewed the investiture controversy. He appointed bishops and abbots, and demanded Anselm consecrate them. Anselm refused, time and again. So, he was sent into a 2nd exile. The queen had an extraordinary devotion to Anselm and tried to mediate between him and her husband. She urged Anselm to return even if it meant he compromise a bit and grant Henry a measure of power to have a hand in appointing clergy. She reminded Anselm that the Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy as a compromise measure.Following Urban's lead, Pope Pascal II excommunicated the bishops who accepted Henry's appointments. But Henry wanted to reconcile with Anselm. They met in Normandy and agreed to make a joint appeal to the pope. Pascal confirmed the king's previous investitures on the condition of his surrendering the right to future appointments. This decision was ratified in August, 1106. The king promised to restore to Anselm Canterbury's income during his absence, to leave off from claiming the income of vacant bishoprics and abbeys, and to refund all fines of the clergy. And while he followed through on his promise not to appoint new clergy, he did send along to vacant seats the names of candidates he'd like to see fill them.Anselm returned to England in triumph, and was received by the queen at the head of the monks and the clergy. At a council held at Westminster in 1107, the king formally relinquished the privilege of investiture. During the last years of his life, Anselm enjoyed the friendship and respect of the king, and during Henry's absence on the Continent in 1108, he was entrusted with the regency and the care of the royal family.He died in 1109. His impact on the Archbishopric was so great, the seat wasn't filled for five years.Next time, we'll take a look at the real heavy-weight among the Scholastics – Thomas Aquinas. [1] Schaff, P., and Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.[2] ibid[3] ibid[4] ibid

in this episode, Luke and Eleanor continue their series on Medieval heresies against the Church by moving into the late 12th and early 13th centuries. We talk about Peter Abelard, Henricians, Cathars, whatever a Cagot is, and a bunch of political endeavors for land, money, or power dressed up as "crusades" against heretical Christians. enjoy!by way of reminder, no new episode next week because of the holidays.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Oops! I messed up the first upload. Try this instead. Today we talk about Peter Abelard, the middle age's premier philosopher and theologian. Go to allthepeoplepod.com for more great show related stuff, and go to 2410ave.com to buy a house (I'll send you a gift if you do!) Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/all-the-people-you-should-know/donations Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy