Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2010, 304 pgs.
In On the Doctrine of Signs we come to the bulk of the theological conclusions that were rejected in the Reformation by Protestants and to a great degree maintained by the post-Tridentine Roman Church.
Currently, the Roman Church teaches that Jesus’ human body upon the cross “participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all” (CCC-1085). Christ’s atemporal body is obviously an ad hoc, extra-biblical, and mildly bizarre means of explaining a problem that Peter attempted to explain this way:
As for the body, he gave [the disciples at the first Lord’s Supper] such a one as he then had, that is, a mortal one, capable of suffering. But now we receive his immortal and impassible body; yet it does not have greater efficacy (4.11. 6.1, pg. 60).
Rather than an atemporal body summed into time, Peter’s solution was three sacrifices. Jesus sacrificed his temporal body at the first Lord’s Supper, his temporal body was sacrificed on the cross, and now his “immortal and impassable” is the current sacrifice of the mass.
Both the contemporary Roman solution and Peter’s are in formal contradiction to the Bible, reason, and the Chalcedonian Creed which declares that Jesus has “a reasonable soul and body” that is “consubstantial with us.”
Peter goes on to unintentionally illustrate the outcome of merit theology combined with continuing sanctification after death with a thought experiment: two men of equal but imperfect religious merit die and go to purgatory in 4.45.4.1-2, pg. 247. The only difference between the two is that one is wealthy and the other poor: For “the rich one, special and common prayers are offered” and for the poor one only common prayers. There’s a bit of theological poking about and then this conclusion, “those several aids conferred on the rich man a quicker absolution.” Simply put—rich people get out of purgatory more quickly than poor people. Such conclusions are antithetical and irreconcilable with the Bible and the religion of Moses, Jesus, Paul, and James.
The historical process by which the roar of the Holy Spirit and James “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you,” (James 5:1) is muted to such drivel can be traced in the citations. Augustine writes in about 410 AD: “It is not inconceivable that, after this life, some of the faithful shall be saved through a kind of purgatorial fire, and some more quickly, others more slowly. . .” Augustine’s suggestion is Peter’s dogma, and this was linked to the system of penance and merit with a pagan element of a continuing interrelationship between the living and the dead.
The system of penance was so intrinsic to Peter and his contemporaries that he writes, “But the sacrament of penance, like that of marriage, existed before the time of grace, indeed from the beginning of humankind. For each of these was instituted with our first parents” (4.22.2.3, pg. 135). The modern translator provides a biblical citation for “penance in Gen. 2, 17.” “For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,” can only be read as a penitential sacrament by reading back the developed tradition of the church into the text.
It must also be noted that Peter is not a modern or Tridentine Catholic. He writes, “It is plainly shown here that God does not follow the Church’s judgment, for sometimes the latter judges through deception and ignorance; but God always judges according to the truth (4.18.6.3, pg. 111). The pride and hubris of Trent and Vatican I remain in the future.
And though I am horrified by much of what Peter teaches, he does write this, “What is to be held? Surely, that sins are blotted out by contrition and humility of heart, even without confession by the mouth and payment of outward punishments. For from the moment when one proposes, with compunction of mind, that one will confess, God remits; because there is present confession of the heart, although not of the mouth, but which the soul is cleansed inwardly from the spot and contagion of the sin committed, and the debt of eternal death is released” (4.17.1.11, pg. 96). Here we have a rejection of penance and auricular confession as necessary for salvation.
Peter’s project was an attempt to synthesize current church practice, past church teachings, the Bible, and reason into a coherent case book of decisions and doctrine for Roman Catholic clergy. But this multitude of witnesses are not merely “various and almost contradictory” (4.27.1.2, pg. 94), they are openly contradictory on a variety of grounds.
Peter is aware of the contradictions, because he simply fakes a large number of citations from Augustine, especially on the Lord’s Supper, and purposely does not handle Augustine’s most clear rejection of the physical presence of Christ in the elements in On Christian Doctrine—a work Peter cites in Book I. It should also be noted that the mistaken citations of Augustine appear less dense, in fact rare or or historically more reasonable (Fulgentius rather than Radbertus), in Book I, The Mystery of Trinity, but are much more common in books 3-4. The wider current church practice disagreed with Augustine the bolder Peter was in misattribution.
Further, by quoting current defenders of contemporary practice as Augustine, he leaves a trail of bread crumbs for the discerning reading. The trail is left by the Master of the Sentences for a particular kind of reader—“I leave the judgment to the judicious reader” (4.22.1.11, pg. 134) and “I leave the judgment of these to the examination of the diligent reader” (2.27.8.7, pg. 138). No astute and well-read theologian is going to accept Lanfranc quotes in Berengar as Augustine. And so Peter points the discerning reader to what was likely Peter’s true theological convictions or his private beliefs.
Benefits/Detriments: The Master of the Sentences provides a helpful introduction to medieval theology. Perhaps more importantly, he exposes the necessity of the Reformation project of grounding theology in a sufficient Scripture rather than in the traditions of man—even godly and brilliant men like Peter, Augustine, and the like.