the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...

freedom, but rather obedience. 468 As one historian puts it, Clichtove’s theology is a
“theology of order,” and, consequently, his defence of the Church against Luther amounts
to a defence of order as well. 469
But how to convince Christians that the sacrifices the Church required of them
were, counterintuitively, the truest expression of freedom? Here is where Dionysius
enters into Clichtove’s argument, in the section where he responds to Erasmus’ objection
that the ceremonies Dionysius describes were too elaborate for the first century, and that
it took several centuries for such complex rites to build up. Implicit in Erasmus’ objection
is the assumption that religious rituals are extraneous or additional, and thus could be
added to Christianity at a later date, whereas for Clichtove they are necessary and
essential—part of Christ’s original legacy to those he was sent to redeem. Far from
seeing the complexity of rite in Dionysius as proof that he was writing later, Clichtove
argues that this proves the Church has always been hierarchically organized and
ceremonially complex. 470 As he (re-)imagines the history of the Church, it was
established by an “abundant infusion” (“exuberanti infusione”) of grace from the Holy
mendacii afflatus Lutherus: quaecunque in ecclesiasticis constitutionibus gravia videntur ac dura, quaéque
secundum carnem ambulantes abhorrent.” Ibid, 4v.
468 “Plurimum ad iustitiam prodesse iis qui pie et religiose ea perficiunt, quoniam eo ipso acceptissimam
Deo praestant obedientiam.” Clichtove, 46 r-v.
469 “En réponse à Luther, Clichtove n’a pas élaboré une théologie, biblique ou scholastique, de la liberté
chrétienne, [...] ni une théologie de la justification, ni même vraiment une théologie de la loi. [Le premier
livre du Anti-Lutherus est] essentiellement une démonstration historico-canonique du pouvoir législatif et
pénal de la hiérarchie ecclésiastique, condition de l’ordre et de la morale, donc du salut. S’il s’applique à
réfuter constamment le principe dela sola scriptura, c’est qu’il y voit la source de l’anarchie et le prétexte
de la licence. ... Il défend l’autorité disciplinaire de l’Eglise plus que le magistère doctrinal. Cette théologie
de l’ordre et de l’obéissance envisage avant tout l’Eglise comme un pouvoir.” Massaut, "Thèmes
ecclésiologiques,” 330.
470 Clichtove’s arguments are often circular, chiefly because they refuse to allow the kind of philological
reasoning that Erasmus and Valla use, even though Clichtove must have been familiar with that kind of
argumentation from his involvement with humanist circles earlier in his life. For instance, he disputes the
suggestion that Dionysius could only have been writing in the fourth or fifth century because Jerome and
Origen did not cite him by noting that, in fact, plenty of people had cited Dionysius, starting with John of
Damascus—who was not born until approximately 645. Whether intentionally or out of ignorance is hard
to say, Clichtove writes in these chapters as if he has completely missed the point of Erasmus’ objection.
173