Bernard of Clairvaux
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 08. 2024
- Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Twitter: / ryanmreeves Instagram: / ryreeves4
Website: www.gordonconwell.edu/academic...
All material is copyrighted.
Merci Saint Bernard de m'avoir expliqué les dangers de l'orgeuil et
l'importance de l'humilité, merci pour tes livres, tes efforts malgré ta
mauvaise santé, merci pour tous que tu a fait ici sur la terre ainsi
qu'en ciel, ou, aujourd'hui certes, vous fetez ton jour speciale. Saint
Bernard de Dijon, de Clairvaux, priez pour moi, je t'aime. Amen
Very well done!
Thanks for the lecture. Who was St. Malachy of Armagh?
Concerning Bernard and marriage, he had a hand in that one of his brothers dissolved his marriage and joined a monastary, something that I am highly critical of.
#2 "brought"?
I've always wondered why Protestants struggle so much with the idea of Mary playing an instrumental role in the redemption of mankind--I mean, she did give birth to the Lord and raise him...I'd say that's playing a huge role. Also, with the perpetual virginity of Mary. Didn't almost all the major reformers affirm this doctrine?
Also 23:50...strange drawing. I'm sure it wasn't strange back then, but I personally wouldn't want to draw a picture of the Mother of God shooting holy breast milk in someone's eye...just seems a bit strange and irreverent.
Oh, you clearly have not been in the breast-milk mommy-crazy trenches. Apparently it is the best cure for pink-eye. I'm not kidding.
It's true that some protestants go overboard, but you have to remember that there is a difference between affirming Mary as 'Theotokos' (which says more about Christ's humanity than it does about Mary) and the statues and abuses that went on in the Medieval times (or even today).
It's pretty ridiculous to conflate the virgin birth and humanity of our Saviour and the idea that some chapel in France has a vial of Mary's breast milk which will cure your diseases.
On the perpetual virginity of Mary, it is irrelevant what the Reformers personally believed (in one sense anyway). What matters is whether the doctrine is taught in Scripture. It is not clearly taught one way or the other. I don't mind if someone affirms it, but the problem comes when you make it binding on all Christians.
Sure, if a whole bunch of respectable teachers throughout the ages affirm something, it's probably worth thinking about, but that's not the same thing as it being written in the word of God.
Bernard of Clairvaux (Latin: Bernardus Claraevallensis), O.Cist (1090 - 20 August 1153) was a French abbot and the primary reformer of the Cistercian order.
After the death of his mother, Bernard sought admission into the Cistercian order.
"Three years later, he was sent to found a new abbey at an isolated clearing in a glen known as the Val d'Absinthe, about 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) southeast of Bar-sur-Aube.
According to tradition, Bernard founded the monastery on 25 June 1115, naming it Claire Vallée, which evolved into Clairvaux.
There Bernard would preach an immediate faith, in which the intercessor was the Virgin Mary."
In the year 1128, Bernard attended the Council of Troyes, at which he traced the outlines of the Rule of the Knights Templar, which soon became the ideal of Christian nobility.
On the death of Pope Honorius II on 13 February 1130, a schism broke out in the Church.
King Louis VI of France convened a national council of the French bishops at Étampes in 1130, and Bernard was chosen to judge between the rivals for pope.
After the council of Étampes, Bernard spoke with King Henry I of England, also known as Henry Beauclerc, about Henry I's reservations regarding Pope Innocent II.
Henry I was sceptical because most of the bishops of England supported Antipope Anacletus II; Bernard persuaded him to support Innocent.
Germany had decided to support Innocent through Norbert of Xanten, who was a friend of Bernard's.
However, Innocent insisted on Bernard's company when he met with Lothair II, Holy Roman Emperor.
Lothair became Innocent's strongest ally among the nobility.
Although the councils of Étampes, Wurzburg, Clermont, and Rheims all supported Innocent, large portions of the Christian world still supported Anacletus.
At the end of 1131, the kingdoms of France, England, Germany, Portugal, Castile, and Aragon supported Innocent; however, most of Italy, southern France, and Sicily, with the patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem, supported Anacletus.
Bernard set out to convince these other regions to rally behind Innocent.
The first person he went to was Gerard of Angoulême.
He proceeded to write a letter, known as Letter 126, which questioned Gerard's reasons for supporting Anacletus.
Bernard would later comment that Gerard was his most formidable opponent during the whole schism.
After persuading Gerard, Bernard traveled to visit William X, Duke of Aquitaine.
He was the hardest for Bernard to convince.
He did not pledge allegiance to Innocent until 1135.
After that, Bernard spent most of his time in Italy persuading the Italians to pledge allegiance to Innocent.
He traveled to Sicily in 1137 to convince the king of Sicily to follow Innocent.
The whole conflict ended when Anacletus died on 25 January 1138.
In 1139, Bernard assisted at the Second Council of the Lateran.
Bernard denounced the teachings of Peter Abelard to the pope, who called a council at Sens in 1141 to settle the matter.
Bernard soon saw one of his disciples elected Pope Eugene III.
Having previously helped end the schism within the church, Bernard was now called upon to combat heresy.
In June 1145, Bernard traveled in southern France and his preaching there helped strengthen support against heresy.
After the Christian defeat at the Siege of Edessa, the pope commissioned Bernard to preach the Second Crusade.
The last years of Bernard's life were saddened by the failure of the crusaders, the entire responsibility for which was thrown upon him.
Bernard died at the age of 63, after 40 years as a monk.
He was the first Cistercian placed on the calendar of saints, and was canonized by Pope Alexander III on 18 January 1174.
In 1830 Pope Pius VIII bestowed upon Bernard the title "Doctor of the Church".
Awesome, well done. thank you for sharing.
Typo at 3:50 in. It says "brough" instead of "brought."
Really enjoying this series of lectures.
I disagree with Mr. Reeves about Bernard of Clairvaux. As Thomas
Cahill observes in his “Mysteries of the Middle Ages”:
Bernard was the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of twelfth-century Europe, a sham saint capable of complete chastity as well as of undying jealousy and
hatred. How he loathed [Peter] Abelard for his former freedom of body and his continuing freedom of mind. How he wished him only further ruin-all of
course under the deceptive umbrella of Bernard’s scrupulous monitoring of
theological orthodoxy. "Faith believes," proclaimed Bernard with a sneer. "It
does not dispute." (pg. 203)
I certainly understand people not agreeing. My only response would be that Cahill's quote is opinion not based on personal research, per se. At some point history has to be interpreted so I am comfortable with different views of X person being saint and villain in different minds. Thanks for offering your opinion without yelling at me! :)))
Actually, I apologize for my criticizing you about Bernard. I just re-listened to it and you did indeed mildly criticize Bernard about his handling of Peter Abelard. (The last time I listened to this lecture was about a year ago.) So my apologies. However, I believe the Crusades were totally justified and that we should engage in such Crusades today in light of the current Islamic invasion of Europe.
I wonder, Hans Fritz, what you expect from any renewed Crusades in terms of effects and consequences. Personally I believe that European Christian culture is strong, resilient and self-conscious enough to engage in contact with other cultures and belief systems and not be any worse off for it. I also believe that if I happen to be wrong in this, no Crusades, or any other capricious acts for that matter, can save this culture.
I also believe that the same goes for Islam. If violent jihadism ever does become the mainstream, rather than simply the loudest and most acutely dangerous minority as it is now, that will be, in a manner of speaking, cultural suicide for Islam. In such a scenario Christian (and Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist, for that matter) self-defence would be in order, but no Crusade would be necessary. The Crusade might even strengthen Islam in that scenario, providing them with a common enemy and a reason to stop infighting/inquisitions/purges.
‟Pledging allegiance" to a pope is anathema to Christianity