The Ecumenical Councils of Trent and Vatican I and the Creed of Pius IV all require us to:
…accept the Holy Scripture according to that sense which holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, and to whom it belongeth to judge the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures [and] never take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
If is often said that the Church has, in fact, only very rarely defined the precise meaning of a biblical passage. Whether or not that is true one clear instance of such a definition is the Bull Unam Sanctam which has very precise teaching concerning Luke 22:35-38 and John 18:11. In ordering the disciples to buy a sword if they had not one already, and in telling them that two swords are enough, and in ordering Peter to sheath his sword Our Lord laid out the precise nature of the jurisdiction of the sacramental hierarchy and the Supreme Pontiff over the temporal power.
Both the temporal and the spiritual power are intrinsic to the Church. The spiritual sword is to be exercised for the specific ends for which the Church was instituted and by the members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In contrast, the temporal sword must be exercised by members of the Church but cannot be wielded by the members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (although they may confiscate it if it is misused and assign it to another) because it is not a means by which the specific ends of the Church may be advanced.
What rarely seems to attract much notice is the reason Our Lord gave for this arrangement:
And he said to them: When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, did you want anything? But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword. For I say to you, that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me: And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end. But they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.
The apostles are told to obtain a sword because Christ will be treated as a criminal. As Our Lord also said at the Last Supper “the servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.” The opposition between the Church and the world is such that the Apostles (and their successors) need to have the protection of force in order to function. Yet, a short time later when Peter uses his sword to try to defend the Lord he is rebuked. “Put up thy sword into thy scabbard”. The Apostles have two swords but they are permitted to wield only one. The word of God is in the power of the clergy the state is to be in the power of the laity.
How does this fit with the prohibition on coercive conversion? The temporal sword of Christendom is essentially defensive. It is not ‘for’ the Church as Boniface VIII insists, it is wielded ‘by’ the Church (the lay faithful). The essential purposes of the Church cannot be advanced by violence but the non-ordained members of the Church can use the temporal sword to defend the Church from external persecution. Once the state is no longer in the hands of the Church this is not possible. So long as the state is non-Christian the Church’s business lies in buying the sword (bringing the temporal order by consent into the possession of the Church). Once it is purchased the sword may be drawn – but only by the laity – to stave off temporal impediments to the operation of the spiritual sword. We do not live by the sword. The life of Christendom is established and maintained by the peaceful spreading of the Gospel. However, once that life has reached the highest temporal level of social organisation the temporal sword can and should be drawn in its defence.
As St Cyril of Alexandria teaches:
He says sell his cloak, and buy a sword: for henceforth the question with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve their lives. For war shall befall them with such unendurable impetuosity, that nothing shall be able to stand against it.
At the beginning of the Song of Roland Charlemagne (in deference to his council) seeks to negotiate a temporal peace with Islam. He seeks to keep his cloak instead of buying a sword. He forgets the truth that he remembers later in the midst of battle with the Emir of Babylon: “Never to Paynims may I show love or peace.” The Lord tells us “the things concerning me have an end” there is no new revelation to dispense us from the unremitting opposition of the world. As Leo XIII teaches “Christians are born for combat”. The faithful must sell their cloaks and buy a sword because the state cannot simply be left in the hands of the pagans if the Church is to survive. This is why the Song ends with a weary Emperor roused from his bed by St Gabriel to carry on the war. He sought not first the Kingdom of God and His justice and so earthly peace is taken from him until he learns his lesson.
Laodicea 
January 19, 2017 at 3:19 pm
‘For the things about me have an end.’ That can also be understood as: they have an allegorical meaning.
January 19, 2017 at 3:20 pm
(‘end’ here is telos, i.e. it can be translated as purpose.)
January 23, 2017 at 4:03 am
I would if I may challenge your interpretation of the Song of Roland. First let us look at the history of the campaign of Emperor Carolus. In A.D. 778, the then King of the Franks received an embassy of homage from the Walis of Zaragoza, Girona, Barcelona, and Huesca at Paderborn. In the same year he journeyed into Spain to receive the homage at Zaragoza, and while three of the Muslim rulers remained faithful, Wali Husayn of Zaragoza betrayed the alliance. With aid from the Muslim army of Sulayman al-Arabi, Carolus besieges the city, but with no success, and as he withdraws across the Pyrenees to wage war against the Saxon “heida”, his rearguard is ambushed by the Basques reinforced by the forces of Husyan. The Emperor later entered into an alliance with the very Caliph of Islam, Haroun the Just, by which he gained Lordship of the Holy Land.
Now for the poem. The Song begins with “Blancandrins .. .a pagan very wise,
In vassalage he was a gallant knight,
First in prowess, he stood his lord beside.
And thus he spoke: “Do not yourself affright!
Yield to Carlun, that is so big with pride,
Faithful service, his friend and his all”
Husayn, who has become King Marsilies in the Old French of the poem, accepts this proposal with gladness, going so far as to vow to take the Christian faith. However in council, “The Count Rollanz, he never will agree,
Quick to reply, he springs upon his feet;
And to the King, “Believe not Marsilie.”
To which the Emperor responds;
“Sinners were they that would to war return;
With hostages his faith he would secure;
Let this great war no longer now endure.”
This is entirely in keeping with the role of the Emperor as the Imperator Pacificus, and Roland we are told excepts the just rebuke. It is only the treachery of Ganelon (again based on the historical Husayn but in the poem a Catholic) and his jealously which brings the Saracens back into conflict with the Emperor. Even so, “Let us prevent this fight:” the pagans say.
Then Sarrazins implored him so, the chiefs,
On the faldstoel Marsillies took his seat.
“Greatly you harm our cause,” says the alcaliph:
“When on this Frank your vengeance you would wreak”
In the conflict, Roland greatest of the Knights of Christendom, falls of his own pride, : “Comrade, it was your deed:
Vassalage comes by sense, and not folly;
Prudence more worth is than stupidity.
Here are Franks dead, all for your trickery;
No more service to Carlun may we yield.
And here is the key part, when Charlemagne in battle and in his pride makes the deliberately anti-Christological statement “No peace nor love may I to pagan lend” (whereas our Lord commands us, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you*) “In the amir is much great virtue found;
He strikes Carlun on his steel helm so brown,
Has broken it and rent, above his brow,
Through his thick hair the sword goes glancing round,
A great palm’s breadth and more of flesh cuts out,
So that all bare the bone is, in that wound.
Charles tottereth, falls nearly to the ground”
But “God wills not he be slain or overpow’red” and so delivers his fallen servant. When justice is served and the Emperor is victorious, yet still the vision comes to him to go onward against the Saxons, “For that war is never ended which defends the sanity of the world against all the stark anarchies and rending negations which rage against it for ever.”** Not for any failing of his own is he thus bidden, but by the duty of his office, and yet that same office requires him to seek peace with those whom have peace in their hearts, which the author of this post I think does not clearly see.
*I am not a Pacifist, and I believe as the Church rightly teaches that loving my enemy sometimes means bearing the sword against him. However, it can be plainly seen that when even the Emperor forgets the command of Christ, this is when he comes closest to his fall.
**G.K. Chesterton, “The Song of Roland”
January 23, 2017 at 7:54 pm
You make some interesting points. I’m not convinced although I would be interested to hear if you can solve my objections:
1. The historical events are not terribly important to the interpretation of the poem as the poem is only very loosely connected to the real details of the death of Roland.
2. At the end of the poem (unfortunately) Charlemagne coercively baptises the entire population of Zaragoza with no sign is disapproval from the poet. So there is little indication the poet disapproves of the sentiment “Never to Paynims may I show love or peace”.
3. Marsillies made a nearly identical offer before and not only reneged on it but killed the Frankish ambassadors it seems foolish therefore to trust his offer now, especially as he is only promising to follow on to Aix after a mysterious interval.
4. The moral I was taking from the tale was no that coercive conversion is legitimate or that there should be a perpetual state of war with Muslim majority countries but that the inherent opposition between the Church and the world together with Matthew 28:18–20 means that the Church cannot rest while any pagan state exists. This is not because her mission is political (and does not imply that coercive conversion is legitimate) but because she is commanded not to rest from the task of converting all nations until the end of time and man is political animal she must be forever striving to bring the civil order of all nations into the Church. “Articles of peace” such as John Courtney Murray extols are therefore offensive to God and necessarily result great harm to the Church.
January 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
Your objections are interesting, however, I do not think that they quite hold up (number 4 is a separate case that will be examined separately).
1. To say this would be to take the “fictionality” of the poem too much for granted. The historical events are of paramount importance in understanding an art that is based on a kernel of historical truth, or even a distortion of said truth. Thus the more knowledge one has of the actual Emperor Carolus (Karol ther Groz), the better one can understand the Charlemagne of the Chanson, were the poet succeeds, and also were he fails to present that truth.
2. Forced baptism is a popular interpretation, but not one I think that is held up by more than a shallow examination of the verse. I may be wrong (as I am not as knowledgeable in the intricacies of Old French as I am in Old High German, and Old Saxon), but the verse only states that those who “cuntredie” Charlemagne, that is rebelled in force against him, were put to death. And further before they are even wholly defeated, “Then Apollin in’s grotto they surround,
And threaten him, and ugly words pronounce:
“Such shame on us, vile god!, why bringest thou?
This is our king; wherefore dost him confound?
Who served thee oft, ill recompense hath found.”
Then they take off his sceptre and his crown,
With their hands hang him from a column down,
Among their feet trample him on the ground,
With great cudgels they batter him and trounce.
From Tervagant his carbuncle they impound,
And Mahumet into a ditch fling out,
Where swine and dogs defile him and devour.”
This suggests that they then receive Baptism willingly, having already forsaken their false gods. Also, Charlemagne himself seeks to convert the Pagan queen Bramimonde by showing her love, “By love the King will her conversion seek,” and thus contradicting his earlier prideful statement.
3. Nevertheless there is no indication that the peace offer was by any means insincere, as it in this case comes from “Blancandrins a pagan very wise” and the Archbishop Turpin lends credence to the sincerity, saying “In peace now leave your Franks…
I will seek out the Spanish Sarazand
For I believe his thoughts I understand”
It is only when Ganelon betrays his mission and tells Marsilies “you will die in misery and shame,” only then does the poet show us Saracen king even begin to think of any kind of treachery, and only then in fear of the (alleged) treachery of the Franks, and in fear of his life.
4. I agree it is of the utmost in importance that the Church ever and always follow the Great Commission. It is because of this that peace should be sought whenever morally possible, as this makes the ability to convert and send missionaries much more possible. In one of the few instances that the Rolandslied is superior to the Chanson, the Bishops of the Church discuss how the peace will make it possible to go among the Saracens and convert them, whereas in war many thousands die that could have otherwise been converted. That Catholics should strive to bring their countries (your usage of “nations” here I would argue is a bit confused) into the Catholic civil order is of course correct, but your “moral” that you derive from your interpretation suggests (superficially, and not according to your intention) that force of war is the only means to that end. Further you slander the Emperor’s memory by saying that “he sought not first the Kingdom of God and His justice” whereas the exact opposite is true as the Church has continually recognized.
January 24, 2017 at 7:28 pm
1. The poet is not attempting a historical narrative and certainly had no means of constructing one.
2. The line “by love the King will her conversion seek” is said precisely in contrast to the forced conversion of the other five thousand “If any Charles with contradiction meet Then hanged or burned or slaughtered shall he be. Five score thousand and more are thus redeemed”. I assume you mean by “his earlier prideful statement” the principle “Never to Paynims may I show love or peace” but the point of this is precisely that Charlemagne will not show love and peace to pagans qua pagans. It does not exclude a love for them as human beings and potential Christians quite the contrary. Thus there is no contradiction between this principle and his desire to convert Bramimonde by persuasion (which he should have extended to the people of Zaragoza.
3. the fact that he made the same offer earlier and then killed the ambassadors is enough to indicate that the poet expects us to agree with Roland (while seeing that his habitual impetuosity alienates the council).
4. I am not slandering the memory of Charlemagne as this Song is fictional. My interpretation does not imply a state of perpetual war against Muslim states. As the Two Swords passage indicates the faithful must always seek to convert the state because any pagan state will always count the faithful among the transgressors therefore to seek to establish articles of peace with the City of the World is to betray the Gospel. As Bl. John Henry Newman observes the Church is always “a natural enemy to governments external to itself.” As Our Lord says “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.”
January 30, 2017 at 10:59 am
However, thᥱy are actually 9. When perform I have the gatᥱs down?