Experience Seamless Full Ebook Downloads for Every Genre at textbookfull.

com

The reception of Vatican II 1st Edition Lamb

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-reception-of-vatican-
ii-1st-edition-lamb/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD NOW

Explore and download more ebook at https://textbookfull.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Catholicism Engaging Other Faiths: Vatican II and its

Impact Vladimir Latinovic

https://textbookfull.com/product/catholicism-engaging-other-faiths-
vatican-ii-and-its-impact-vladimir-latinovic/

textboxfull.com

1636 The Vatican Sanction 1st Edition Eric Flint

https://textbookfull.com/product/1636-the-vatican-sanction-1st-
edition-eric-flint/

textboxfull.com

The reception of the Homeric Hymns 1st Edition Faulkner

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-reception-of-the-homeric-
hymns-1st-edition-faulkner/

textboxfull.com

Bonhoeffer’s reception of Luther 1st Edition Dejonge

https://textbookfull.com/product/bonhoeffers-reception-of-luther-1st-
edition-dejonge/

textboxfull.com
MKTG4 Charles W. Lamb

https://textbookfull.com/product/mktg4-charles-w-lamb/

textboxfull.com

Jewish Conscience of the Church: Jules Isaac and the

Second Vatican Council 1st Edition Norman C. Tobias
(Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/jewish-conscience-of-the-church-
jules-isaac-and-the-second-vatican-council-1st-edition-norman-c-
tobias-auth/
textboxfull.com

MKTG 10 Principles of Marketing 10th Edition Charles W.

Lamb

https://textbookfull.com/product/mktg-10-principles-of-marketing-10th-
edition-charles-w-lamb/

textboxfull.com

MKTG 4: Principles of Marketing (Canadian Edition) Charles

W. Lamb

https://textbookfull.com/product/mktg-4-principles-of-marketing-
canadian-edition-charles-w-lamb/

textboxfull.com

Pater the Classicist : classical scholarship, reception,

and aestheticism 1st Edition Evangelista

https://textbookfull.com/product/pater-the-classicist-classical-
scholarship-reception-and-aestheticism-1st-edition-evangelista/

textboxfull.com
i

The Reception of Vatican II

ii
iii

The Reception
of Vatican II
Edited by
Matthew L. Lamb and
Matthew Levering

1
iv

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Lamb, Matthew L., editor. | Levering, Matthew, 1971– author, editor.
Title: The reception of Vatican II / edited by Matthew L. Lamb and Matthew Levering.
Other titles: Vatican 2
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2017. | Includes index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016021256 | ISBN 9780190625801 (pbk. : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9780190625795 (cloth : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Vatican Council (2nd : 1962-1965 : Basilica di San Pietro
in Vaticano) | Catholic Church—Doctrines.
Classification: LCC BX830 1962 .R383 2017 | DDC 262/.52—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016021256

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Paperback printed by WebCom, Inc., Canada
Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America
v

Contents

Acknowledgments vii
List of Abbreviations ix
Contributors xi

Introduction 1
Matthew L. Lamb and Matthew Levering

PART ONE: THE CONSTITUTIONS

1. Sacrosanctum Concilium 23
Jeremy Driscoll, OSB

2. Lumen Gentium 48
Guy Mansini, OSB

3. Dei Verbum 81
William M. Wright IV

4. Gaudium et Spes 113

Thomas Joseph White, OP

PART TWO: THE DECREES

5. Christus Dominus 147

Matthew Levering
vi

vi Contents

6. Presbyterorum Ordinis 170

David Vincent Meconi, SJ

7. Optatam Totius 191

Robert Barron

8. Perfectae Caritatis 208

Sara Butler, MSBT

9. Apostolicam Actuositatem 234

Michele M. Schumacher

10. Ad Gentes 266

Ralph Martin

11. Unitatis Redintegratio 292

Matthew J. Ramage

12. Orientalium Ecclesiarum 324

Adam A. J. DeVille

13. Inter Mirifica 347

Daniella Zsupan-​Jerome

PART THREE: THE DECLARATIONS

14. Dignitatis Humanae 367

Nicholas J. Healy, Jr.

15. Gravissimum Educationis 393

Paige E. Hochschild

16. Nostra Aetate 425

Gavin D’Costa

Index 459
vii

Acknowledgments

Our gratitude goes first to the contributors to this volume. We

were blessed to find such superb contributors. David Augustine,
now a doctoral student at Catholic University of America, care-
fully standardized the footnotes and checked for typos prior to our
final submission of the manuscript. He also prepared the index.
Many thanks to him for his meticulous work. Matthew Kuhner,
a doctoral student at Ave Maria University, graciously assisted us
in the copy-editing. Without the support of Theo Calderara, there
could have been no book, and it is always a delight to work with
him and his assistant Glenn Ramirez. The editorial staff of Oxford
University Press merits our warm thanks for bringing this book to
publication. Matthew Levering’s wife, Joy, deserves thanks for her
warmth of spirit and hard work in fostering projects such as this
one. Finally, we dedicate this book to all the men and women who
are presently enrolled in doctoral programs of Catholic theology. It
will be their task to assist the Church in the ongoing interpretation
of the Second Vatican Council, and we pray that this book points
them anew to the good news of salvation from sin and death and
participation in the very life of the triune God in Christ Jesus and
his Spirit.
viii
ix

Abbreviations

AA Apostolicam Actuositatem, Decree on the Apostolate of the

Laity, 1965
AG Ad Gentes, Decree on the Mission Activity of the
Church, 1965
CD Christus Dominus, Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of
Bishops in the Church, 1965
DH Dignitatis Humanae, Declaration on Religious
Freedom, 1965
DV Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
Revelation, 1965
GE Gravissimum Educationis, Declaration on Christian
Education, 1965
GS Gaudium et Spes, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World, 1965
IM Inter Mirifica, Decree on the Means of Social
Communication, 1963
LG Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 1964
NA Nostra Aetate, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to
Non-​Christian Religions, 1965
OE Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Decree on the Catholic Churches
of the Eastern Rite, 1964
OT Optatam Totius, Decree on Priestly Training, 1965
PC Perfectae Caritatis, Decree on Renewal of Religious Life, 1965
PO Presbyterorum Ordinis, Decree on the Ministry and Life of
Priests, 1965
SC Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred
Liturgy, 1963
UR Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism, 1964
x
xi

Contributors

Robert Barron is Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles and the founder

of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries. He is the author of numerous
books, including Vibrant Paradoxes: The Both/​And of Catholicism,
The Priority of Christ, and The Strangest Way.
Sara Butler, MSBT, taught for many years at Mundelein Seminary
of the Archdiocese of Chicago. A distinguished ecumenist, she has
served as president of the Academy of Catholic Theology and as
a member of the International Theological Commission, among
numerous other positions. She is the author of The Catholic
Priesthood and Women: A Guide to the Teaching of the Church.
Gavin D’Costa is a Professor of Catholic Theology at the University
of Bristol. An advisor for the Pontifical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue, he is the author or editor of numerous books, including
Vatican II: Catholic Doctrines on Jews and Muslims and Christianity
and World Religions: Disputed Questions in the Theology of Religions.
Adam A. J. DeVille is an Associate Professor of Theology and
Departmental Chair at the University of Saint Francis. He is the
author of Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unim Sint and the
Prospects of East-​West Unity. He serves as editor of Logos: A Journal
of Eastern Christian Studies.
Jeremy Driscoll, OSB, is the abbot of Mount Angel Abbey in Oregon.
He previously taught for many years at the Pontifical Atheneum of
St. Anselm in Rome. He is the author of numerous books, including
What Happens at Mass, Revised Edition, Theology at the Eucharistic
Table, and Steps to Spiritual Perfection: Studies on Spiritual Progress
in Evagrius Ponticus.
xii

xii Contributors

Nicholas J. Healy, Jr., is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Culture at the

Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family at the Catholic
University of America. He is the author of The Eschatology of Hans Urs von
Balthasar: Being as Communion. With David L. Schindler, he co-​authored
Freedom, Truth, and Human Dignity: The Second Vatican Council’s Declaration
on Religious Freedom. Since 2002 he has served as an editor of Communio:
International Catholic Review.
Paige E. Hochschild is Assistant Professor of Theology at Mount St. Mary’s
University. She previously taught philosophy at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary for
five years, and she teaches and writes in both systematics and patristics. She is
the author of Memory in Augustine’s Theological Anthropology.
Matthew L. Lamb is the Cardinal Maida Professor of Theology at Ave Maria
University. He is the author or editor of numerous books, including most
recently Catholicism and America, Theology Needs Philosophy, and Eternity, Time,
and the Life of Wisdom. In addition to his earned doctorate from Muenster, he
holds an honorary doctorate from the Franciscan University of Steubenville.
Matthew Levering holds the James N. and Mary D. Perry Jr. Chair of Theology
at Mundelein Seminary. He is the author or editor of over thirty books, includ-
ing most recently Proofs of God: Classical Arguments from Tertullian to Barth
and Engaging the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
Guy Mansini, OSB, is a monk of Saint Meinrad Archabbey and Professor of
Systematic Theology at Saint Meinrad School of Theology. He is the author of
The Word Has Dwelt among Us: Explorations in Theology and Promising and the
Good. With James G. Hart, he edited Ethics and Theological Disclosures: The
Thought of Robert Sokolowski.
Ralph Martin is President of Renewal Ministries and is the Director of
Graduate Theology Programs in the New Evangelization at Sacred Heart Major
Seminary. He is the author of numerous books, including Will Many be Saved?
What Vatican II Actually Teaches and its Implications for the New Evangelization
and The Fulfillment of All Desire.
David Vincent Meconi, SJ, is Associate Professor of Historical Theology and
Director of the Edmund Campion Centre for Catholic Studies at Saint Louis
University. He is the author or editor of numerous books, including The One
Christ: St. Augustine’s Theology of Deification, The Cambridge Companion to
Augustine, On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Cultivating a Contemporary Theology of
Creation, and Called to Be Children of God: The Catholic Theology of Deification.
Matthew J. Ramage is Associate Professor of Theology at Benedictine College.
He is the author of Reading the Gospels with Bart Ehrman and Benedict XVI: The
Debate behind the Debate and Dark Passages of the Bible: Engaging Scripture with
Benedict XVI and Thomas Aquinas.
xiii

Contributors xiii

Michele M. Schumacher is a private docent in the theology faculty of the

University of Fribourg. In addition to numerous journal articles, she is
the author of A Trinitarian Anthropology: Adrienne von Speyr and Hans Urs
von Balthasar in Dialogue with Thomas Aquinas and the editor of Women in
Christ: Toward a New Feminism.
Thomas Joseph White, OP, is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at the
Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC. He is the author of numer-
ous books, including The Incarnate Lord: A Thomistic Study in Christology,
Wisdom in the Face of Modernity: A Study in Thomistic Natural Theology, and
Exodus.
William M. Wright IV is Associate Professor of Theology at Duquesne
University. With Francis Martin, he recently co-​authored The Gospel of John.
He is the author of Rhetoric and Theology: Figural Reading of John 9, as well as
numerous journal articles.
Daniella Zsupan-​Jerome is Assistant Professor of Theology at Notre Dame
Seminary. A consultant for the USCCB’s Committee on Communication,
she is the author of Connected Toward Communion: The Church and Social
Communication in the Digital Age.
xiv
xv

The Reception of Vatican II

xvi
1

Introduction
Matthew L. Lamb and Matthew Levering

In a recent commemoration of the Second Vatican Council, John

O’Malley appreciatively observes that “Vatican II continues to be a
reality very much alive in the church today.”1 The present volume
bears witness to this ongoing life of Vatican II by reflecting upon
the reception—​ past, present, and future—​ of the sixteen docu-
ments (four Constitutions, nine Decrees, and three Declarations)
that the Council produced. In preparing this sequel to our Vatican
II: Renewal within Tradition,2 we have assembled contributors
from a variety of contemporary schools of thought and perspec-
tives. They are united by a shared commitment to Vatican II as a
“renewal within Tradition” rather than as a rupture with previously
defined doctrine. Far from representing a monolithic view of what
the Council was and how to carry it forward, however, our contribu-
tors exhibit quite an array of interests and at times divergent view-
points with respect to the constructive task of how best to receive
the Council today.3
In our previous volume, we gathered eminent Catholic scholars
to write about each of the sixteen documents of the Council from
the perspective of “renewal within Tradition.” We were guided by
Pope Benedict XVI’s distinction between a “hermeneutic of discon-
tinuity” and a “hermeneutic of reform.”4 The former hermeneutic
envisions Church history and the Second Vatican Council in terms
of doctrinal ruptures and re-​inventions, so that what the Church
today formally defines as included in divine revelation may tomor-
row be cast out as erroneous. By contrast, the latter hermeneutic
involves the task (in St. Pope John XXIII’s words) of transmitting
the “substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith” in a
manner that is “pure and integral, without any attenuation or dis-
tortion” but also “in a way that corresponds to the needs of our
time.”5
2

2 Introduction

In the present volume, our contributors are committed to the latter her-
meneutic. Rather than calling upon the same authors for this new volume—​
which would have been impossible, not least because some have been called
to the Lord—​we have generally chosen members of the next generation of
Catholic scholars, that is to say, students of those who were young scholars in
Rome during the Council. Thus the contributors to the present volume largely
belong to the third generation after the Council—​the students of the students
of the great periti who helped to prepare the conciliar documents.
In offering some background to our volume’s perspective and goals, this
Introduction will proceed in four steps. First, we will discuss the relationship
of Tradition and reform in interpreting the Council. In this regard, we will
point especially to the writings of Joseph Ratzinger and Yves Congar both
before and during the Council. Second, we will examine areas of concern with
regard to post-​conciliar theological understandings of the Church’s Tradition.
Here we note that for a significant body of Catholic theologians, the Church no
longer is able to proclaim and interpret the Gospel authoritatively for believers,
and indeed the Gospel itself is stripped of its authoritative doctrinal and moral
(cognitive) content, since Jesus appears simply as an exemplar of liberative
praxis. Third, we reflect upon how best to interpret what happened at Vatican
II and how the reception of the Council should proceed today. We engage
here with the 1985 Extraordinary Synod, whose focus was Vatican II, and with
some contemporary interpreters who move in directions different from our
own. Finally, as a fourth step, we reflect upon our interest in Magisterial and
theological “reception” of Vatican II, and we interact briefly with theologians
who contributed to similar reception-​focused books especially during the
mid-​1980s.

I. Vatican II, Tradition, and Reform

The well-​known historian of Vatican II, Giuseppe Alberigo, entitled one of the
final sections of his five-​volume compendium on the history of the Council
“Vatican II and Tradition.” In this section, Alberigo notes that in accord with
the stated wishes of Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, the Council under-
stood itself in a traditional manner. Thus, as Alberigo observes, “In dealing
with the various subjects it faced,” the Council aimed not to produce doctrinal
change, let alone a rupture with definitive Church teaching, but rather “devoted
itself to developing formulations that were ever more faithful to revelation and
more suited to the understanding of educated contemporaries.”6 This does not
mean, of course, that these new formulations involved no change.
In 1963, looking back upon the just-​completed first session of the Council,
Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI), who served at the Council as
an influential peritus and a representative of the nouvelle théologie,7 described
what he perceived to be the stakes in the controversy at the outset of the
Council over the original schema for what became the Dogmatic Constitution
on Divine Revelation. Ratzinger remarks, “What was the central issue? Among
3

Introduction 3

the theological questions open to serious discussion were the relationship of

scripture to tradition and the way in which faith is related to history. Also
under discussion was a proper understanding of inspiration and of the histo-
ricity of events narrated in scripture.”8 In addition to these historical issues,
which had been suppressed by the papal response to the Modernist crisis of
the early twentieth century, Ratzinger states that beyond any particular “quar-
rel about theological differences,” there was a deeper issue: “The real question
behind the discussion could be put this way: Was the intellectual position of
‘anti-​Modernism’—​the old policy of exclusiveness, condemnation and defense
leading to an almost neurotic denial of all that was new—​to be continued?”9
Ratzinger’s generation and many members of the generation prior to his
(Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Otto Semmelroth, Yves Congar, Hans Urs von
Balthasar, Jean Daniélou, Louis Bouyer, Bernard Lonergan, John Courtney
Murray, Gérard Philips, et al.)10 were tired of what Ratzinger calls “cramped
thinking, once so necessary as a line of defense” and “the old pattern of ‘anti-​
ism.’ ”11 They were eager to begin “abandoning the defensive and really under-
taking a Christian ‘offensive.’ ”12 This Christian “offensive” or new positive
proclamation of the Gospel did not mean, for Ratzinger or his friends, giving
in to the Modernist historicizing and relativizing of the Church’s dogmatic
mediation of divine revelation. On the contrary, Ratzinger affirms in 1963 that
the Church must take “all the necessary precautions to protect the faith” even
as the Church also comes to “turn over a new leaf and move on into a new
and positive encounter with its own origins, with its brothers and with the
world of today.”13 Against any possible misunderstanding, Ratzinger insists
that “ ‘pastoral’ should not mean nebulous, without substance, merely ‘edify-
ing’ ” and that “ ‘ecumenical’ must not mean concealing truth so as not to
displease others.”14
In this move from defense to offense during the first half of the twentieth
century, not only the above-​named theologians but also a number of other
important Catholic philosophers and intellectuals were engaged in promoting
a dialogue with modernity. For example, Jacques Maritain, Étienne Gilson,
Maurice Blondel, Gabriel Marcel, George Lemaïtre, Erich Przywara, Romano
Guardini, Jean Ladrière, and Josef Pieper—​just to name a few—​worked to
disentangle the great schoolmen of the Middle Ages from the often rather
superficial treatments found in the manuals used to teach philosophy and
theology in Catholic schools and seminaries.15 These manuals promoted the
“anti-​isms” through their lists of “adversaries,” whose positions were reduced
to a few sentences and then condemned.16 In contrast to such manuals, the
writings of the scholars mentioned above displayed how modern questions
in the natural and human sciences, including history, politics, and the arts,
could be enlightened by reference to the resources of the patristic, scholastic,
renaissance, and later periods.
What Ratzinger and his friends wished to affirm by means of their con-
tributions to the documents of the Second Vatican Council was that “to be a
Catholic is not to become entangled in separatism, but to be open to the full-
ness of Christianity.”17 Like their philosopher colleagues, these theologians
4

4 Introduction

had shifted from the manualist style dominant in many schools and seminar-
ies to a dialogic mode of expression that sought appreciatively to engage the
questions of modern times. As Ratzinger wrote in 1966, this dialogic mode
should not be interpreted “as a sudden switchover, a sudden shift from ‘con-
servatism’ to ‘progressivism’ in the Church.”18 Since Catholic theology can-
not be rightly interpreted in terms of modern materialist and mechanistic
understandings of “progress,” true theological progess according to Ratzinger
occurs precisely by means of a return to (or a retrieval of) the past, the privi-
leged sources that bear divine revelation to us today and that faithfully com-
municate, therefore, the living and reigning Jesus Christ. Ratzinger explains
that “the measure of the renewal is Christ, as scripture witnesses him. And
if the renewal seeks to think through and to speak the Gospel of Christ in
a way understandable to contemporary man—​i.e., in a contemporary fash-
ion (aggiornamento means bringing up to date), the objective is precisely that
Christ may become understood.”19
Already in 1950, in his then-​controversial but now quite tame True and
False Reform in the Church, Yves Congar had noted among the pressing needs of
the day “the synthesis of Christianity and liberalism (inescapable and already
begun), an updated conception of the role of humanity in the universe and in
evolution, and (on a more practical level) the search for a meaningful religious
life.”20 Congar made clear that what he was talking about was not a dogmatic
error in the Church’s mediation of divine revelation, let alone a denial that
divine revelation has identifiable, binding, and permanent cognitive content.
He observes, “Some things in the church are unchangeable because they are
of divine institution and they represent the very foundations upon which the
church is built. Among these, for example, are dogma, the sacraments, and
the essential structure of the church.”21 In addition to these unchangeable
realities, Congar adds further elements that should not be changed: “Other
realities … are so deeply linked to the essence of the church that they cannot
be fundamentally changed; they demand our docility and our respect. (Here,
for example, are found formulas of doctrine, even those that are not dogmatic
formulas properly so called.)”22
The defensiveness or “old pattern of ‘anti-​ism’ ” that Ratzinger bemoaned
shows up in Congar’s journal entry of November 30, 1962, where he describes
a meeting with Cardinal Ottaviani at the Holy Office. According to Congar,
“The Cardinal said: as you are being watched and are under suspicion to such
an extent, you ought to be so much more careful and align yourself with the
authentic Magisterium.”23 In response, Congar pointed out that he was doing
nothing that was not requested of him by bishops participating in the Council.
In his journal entry, however, he adds a more combative observation, indica-
tive, no doubt, of the self-​understanding of many of the great theologians of
the nouvelle théologie whose impact on the Council’s documents can be found
everywhere: “My work displeases them because they realise very well that its
whole aim is to bring back into circulation certain ideas, certain things that
they have been endeavouring to shut out for four hundred years, and above all
for the past hundred years.”24
5

Introduction 5

Is this Congar’s confession that in his view the Church had not faithfully
mediated divine revelation during the four hundred years prior to Vatican II?
On the contrary, Congar states that his effort to “bring back into circulation
certain ideas” is “my vocation and my service in the name of the Gospel and of
the Tradition.”25 It is not “the Gospel and … the Tradition,” but rather certain
aspects of the Tradition’s formulation and of the Church’s pastoral stance over
the past few centuries that Congar seeks to change. Thus, in La tradition et la
vie de l’Église, published during the Council as a summary of his two masterful
volumes on Tradition and traditions, Congar remarks that for the Fathers of
the Church (and in his own view as well), “tradition presents first the content
of the Scriptures, which contain in one way or another all that is necessary to
live as God wishes us to (the details of which will be given later), and it inter-
prets the meaning of the Scriptures.”26
In La tradition et la vie de l’Église, Congar joyfully proclaims that the
Catholic Church has now been “cured of the siege mentality she has known
at times” and that the Church “has regained the initiative with increasing
determination”—​an initiative that is not progress beyond an archaic past but
rather a deeper penetration into divine revelation.27 With the Church’s teach-
ing authority in view, Congar insists that “the material book called ‘The Holy
Bible’, which can be bought as such at any bookseller’s, is only the true Bread
of Life for God’s People when it is interpreted correctly, according to the mean-
ing implanted in it by God, and … this is possible only in the Church, in and
by her tradition.”28 When Congar wrote these words, he was a bold reformer
but certainly not an advocate of rupture in defined doctrine: he affirms that
the Holy Spirit “is enough to ensure a certain continuity running through
tradition and the Scriptures; we have seen that the Fathers, Schoolmen and
Council of Trent have in fact proved the value of tradition in God’s economy for
revealing himself and his plan by the action of the Holy Spirit.”29
In his section on “Vatican II and Tradition,” Alberigo sheds light on the
way in which the Council, inspired not least by Congar (whose prominence
among the periti is well known), sought to renew and reform the Church so
as to make the Gospel more present to the modern world, without producing
doctrinal relativism or a rupture in defined doctrine. Alberigo states, “A com-
parison of the texts of the preparatory schemas with the documents finally
accepted helps us measure the substantial continuity with Christian tradition
as understood in Catholicism, but also the discontinuity with the Catholicism
of the medieval Christian centuries and the post-​Tridentine period.”30 This
“discontinuity” is not a denial of the fidelity of the post-​Tridentine Church’s
mediation of the Gospel. As Alberigo explains, “No substantial novelties
emerged, but an effort was made (even if not always satisfactory) to restate the
ancient faith in language intelligible to contemporary humanity and freed of
the more or less parasitical encrustations that had hardened in place over the
centuries.”31 Alberigo here echoes, without needing to cite, Ratzinger’s and
Congar’s views of the achievement of the Council. With respect to the proper
understanding of aggiornamento (in the context of Sacrosanctum Concilium,
but in a manner applicable to the whole Council), Alberigo adds that “[t]‌he
6

6 Introduction

notion people sometimes have that Vatican II set out in a radically new direc-
tion springs from hasty and superficial reading that mistakes the return to
ancient liturgical practices for subversive innovation.”32
Making his point even clearer, Alberigo emphasizes the centrality of
Tradition for Dei Verbum and indeed the centrality of Dei Verbum for the unfold-
ing of the whole Council.33 He appreciates that far from repudiating the Catholic
Tradition, “the Council composed a constitution [Dei Verbum] that was devoted
to tradition in the deepest meaning of the word: tradition is the transmission of
Christian revelation itself. It is significant that Dei Verbum was one of its major
and most telling documents, and the only one the composition of which lasted
through the entire duration of the assembly, from 1962 to 1965.”34 Admittedly,
Alberigo turns in his next paragraph to an assessment of the Council that sug-
gests that the Council’s main focus is the human condition rather than Jesus
Christ. He speaks of the task of “refocusing Christian thought on the constitu-
tive elements of the human condition as seen in the light of gospel revelation”—​
certainly a crucial task of theology, but not the “focus” of “Christian thought”
in the view of the conciliar Constitutions or the great majority of the theological
contributors to Vatican II.35

II. The Post-​Conciliar Situation and Tradition

As is well known, events moved quickly after the Council, more quickly than
any of the theologians or bishops who participated in the Council could have
anticipated. Congar’s response to the post-​conciliar situation was one of sur-
prise and even a certain amount of defensiveness. He observes in a hasty after-
word to the 1968 edition of True and False Reform in the Church, “The council
was not responsible for either the current problems or the new attitudes. It is
unjust and even stupid to attribute to the council the difficulties that we are
having today, or even the disquiet and pain about matters of faith.”36
What “difficulties” did Congar have in mind? Although he notes specific
issues—​and indeed remarks that “[e]‌verything is being called into question at
the same time”—​he makes clear that his fundamental concern is a new atti-
tude of protest, “a revolutionary climate” (including the Paris student uprising
of May–​June 1968) in which “things that yesterday appeared certain and solid
suddenly seemed outdated or at least uninteresting.”37 For theology and for
Western culture, he warns, “The danger of horizontalism is not a fantasy!”38 By
“horizontalism” he means anthropocentrism, the focus on “the contemporary
world and … humanity’s role in the world,” a focus that conflicts with the
Second Vatican Council’s insistence upon the primacy of Jesus Christ and the
mysteries of divine life that the Gospel contains.39
Rather than turning his back on the protesters, however, Congar sought
to extend a dialogic hand to them, in order to work with them to develop solu-
tions to their concerns. In this dialogue, Congar insists upon certain givens of
faith: protest, insofar as it wishes to remain in the Church, “can never call into
question the hierarchical structure of the church’s pastoral life, given to us by
7

Introduction 7

the Lord’s own institution” and “can never deny or question in a hasty, superfi-
cial, or irresponsible way the articles of doctrine, for which one rather ought to
be willing to give one’s life.”40 In fact, Congar was already worried about some
kind of schism in the Church resulting from doctrinal dissent. As he says,
“The possibility that the church will be split in two is not mere fantasy: either
because, within the framework of an externally preserved institutional unity,
the church might really become a community of the Right and of the Left …
or because the division might go even further and end in formal schism.”41
Congar calls for “peace making,” for moderation in all things, for weighing all
sides of difficult questions, and for “the full participation of everyone in those
affairs and activities that concern everyone”—​something that will require the
clergy to be deeply “conscious of the lives, the ideas, the concerns, and the
desires of the faithful” and that will require the Church “to create or multiply
structures for participation.”42
Fifty years after Vatican II, the aspects that Congar says cannot be given
up—​“the hierarchical structure of the church’s pastoral life, given to us by
the Lord’s own institution” and “the articles of doctrine, for which one rather
ought to be willing to give one’s life”—​are no longer easily insisted upon in
the Catholic academic circles that Congar knew so well. Describing the post-​
conciliar vision of Edward Schillebeeckx, with which a significant proportion
of professional Catholic theologians agree today, a recent author proposes that
“theological dissent and critical communities not only need each other, but
they are a necessary part of a living church.”43 On this view, “since the Spirit’s
authority calls the church to imitate the ‘vulnerable rule of God’ made flesh in
Jesus, there is no room for ‘master-​slave’ relationships within the church”; and
it follows that “a democratic form is a better, even if imperfect, model for creat-
ing a church in which the Spirit’s impulse can be expressed by all Christians.”44
The hierarchical structure is here not “given to us by the Lord’s own institu-
tion” (as Congar says it is). From this perspective, then, “theologians in their
role as critical mediators can dissent from the received language and praxis of
the present by arguing that current church doctrine and praxis do not actually
take into full account the subversive memory of Jesus. Alternatively, theolo-
gians can also criticize any absolutization of language or praxis in the church
in the name of the eschatological proviso.”45
Given this new view of the Church as simply an “anticipatory sign of
the redeemed and just human community,” there inevitably are numerous
defined doctrines and hierarchical forms that no longer truthfully mediate
the Gospel of Jesus Christ (newly conceived not as cognitive content but
as egalitarian praxis), and Catholic theologians are now encouraged and
expected “to express and defend formulations of [Christian] experience that
go beyond (or against) the received expressions for possible experience in
the church contained in doctrine and magisterial teaching.”46 In fact, for a
significant number of academic Catholic theologians today, rupture with
what Congar presented as the unchangeable givens is the fundamental pur-
pose of theology, namely instantiating an egalitarian ecclesiastical form
joined to an understanding of the Gospel as Jesus’s exemplary liberative
8

8 Introduction

praxis. In many culture-​shaping Catholic colleges and universities, under-

graduates have been learning to conceive their faith along these lines since
the late 1960s.
Terrence Tilley, who presently holds the Avery Cardinal Dulles
Chair at Fordham University, sums up the new perspective on Catholic
Tradition: “Crucial for identity through change is not remembering what the
past said or did… . Our fidelity is constituted not by a ‘what’ but by ‘how.’ Our
faithful memories are not preserved in practices frozen in the past but in liv-
ing performances that warm our hearts and enlighten our minds.”47 For Tilley,
we must ever keep in mind that the Catholic Church’s “practices and the doc-
trines that are the grammar of its practices will change in response to internal
and external changes.”48 One recalls here Avery Dulles’s own observation, in
his foreword to the English edition of Congar’s La tradition et la vie de l’Église,
that “the Modernists devised an evolutionary theory of doctrine in which tra-
dition functioned as a principle of transformation,” so that “Christ became a
mere point of departure for a revelatory process that went far beyond him and
the apostles.”49 Tilley seems to think that a Catholic Christianity conceived in
this way is not only true but also salutary.
Tilley’s viewpoint is reflected in some recent historiography of the
Council’s origins. In an essay arguing that Henri de Lubac’s unconscious
nostalgia for a mythic French past led ultimately to “the council fathers …
unwittingly set[ting] in motion an engine of nostalgia” through their promo-
tion of patristic renewal, the patristics scholar Robin Darling Young issues a
caution against our previous volume, Vatican II: Renewal within Tradition.50
Referring both to Pope Benedict XVI’s December 2005 address to the Curia
and to Avery Dulles’s chapter in our volume, Young argues that “the histo-
rian can observe that more than one of ressourcement’s own architects came
to regret the effects of the very council their work helped to stimulate, as in
the development of recent Catholic theology and culture, patristic ‘inspiration’
was left far behind,” with the result that “some of ressourcement’s defenders
were forced to take rearguard action and emphasize the ‘hermeneutic of con-
tinuity.’ ”51 It seems to us, however, that the documents of the Second Vatican
Council themselves emphasize that the Church has faithfully, without rupture
in defined doctrine, mediated divine revelation so that each generation has
been able to encounter the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in Scripture as interpreted
in the Church’s Tradition. Young’s portrait indicates the situation in some
portions of the Catholic academy, where an insistence upon the fidelity and
truth of the Church’s dogmatic transmission of the Gospel over the centuries
is often presented as a nostalgic and conservative political stance rooted in
something other than a radical and life-​changing faith in Jesus Christ and the
action of the Holy Spirit.
More nuanced, but still troubling, is Joseph Komonchak’s critique of
Benedict XVI’s December 2005 address to the Curia. Komonchak states, “The
Church, he [Benedict] claims, is a single historical subject, and its journey is
one of continuous progress toward deeper understanding of the faith; it is not
marked by fractures or breaks, or by leaps either.”52 Komonchak challenges
9

Introduction 9

this claim on two grounds. First, he casts doubt on the view that the Church
can be understood to be “a single historical subject” moving through time,
since, after all, there are multiple “actual communities of believers who have
constituted the Church in the past and constitute it today.”53 The question then
is where the single Church could possibly exist, given that what we see on the
ground are multiple particular churches. Surely, however, the answer is that
due to the action of the Holy Spirit, the multiple churches found across time
and space are the one “body of Christ”: “For just as the body is one and has
many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body,
so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—​Jews
or Greeks, slaves or free—​and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor
12:12–​13, 27). This spiritual unity in a hierarchically organized, sacramental
Body of Christ is elaborated upon frequently in the documents of Vatican II,
and indeed one wonders how the Church could even have an authoritative
Council (let alone, over the centuries, many authoritative Councils) if such
spiritual and institutional unity did not in fact exist across the generations,
just as Benedict XVI—​in accord with Lumen Gentium and other documents of
the Council—​says it does.
Secondly, Komonchak challenges Benedict XVI’s claim on the grounds
that Benedict disallows any “fractures or breaks” or “leaps.” In fact, how-
ever, what Benedict disallows is the notion that the Church has definitively
taught error and thereby corrupted the divine revelation that the Church,
guided by the Holy Spirit, hands on and proclaims for the salvation of the
world in each generation. In Newman’s sense of development of doctrine (as
opposed to doctrinal corruption), there surely will be “breaks” and “leaps,”
because certain truths will be neglected for a time and certain truths will be
newly ascertained; but there will not be definitive erroneous teaching about
faith and morals.54 Komonchak holds that Benedict XVI is guilty of present-
ing an “abstract description of a Church that never leaps forward and never
has to break with its past,”55 but this is due to Komonchak’s faulty reading of
Benedict, whose vision of the Church is not “abstract” but Pauline, and who
rules out not breaks and leaps per se but solemn false teaching that corrupts
the apostolic deposit of divine revelation.

III. What Happened at Vatican II and Its Reception Today

We can easily agree, then, in answering John O’Malley’s question “Did

Anything Happen at Vatican II?” with a resounding yes, and we note that not
only did something happen, but great things happened.56 In this volume, we
hope to show that many significant advances were put forward in the docu-
ments of Vatican II, and that many of these advances still need to be better
received today, just as would be expected of an important Church Council after
the passage of only fifty years. In our view, however, the reception of Vatican
II must not be separated from receiving its full teaching on divine revelation
and the Church, since the cost of such a mis-​reception would be to turn the
10

10 Introduction

Catholic Church into a human construct that cannot mediate the salvation
won by Jesus Christ.
It is not possible to appeal to the authority of the Second Vatican Council
while proclaiming freedom from the authority of the doctrinal and moral
teaching of the Church as contained in the Church’s Magisterial Tradition.
One finds a recent example of this problem in Massimo Faggioli’s invocation
of Pope Francis’s authority (and the Council’s) to rule out “the use of the triad
abortion-​contraception-​homosexuality as a test for entering, staying in, or
leaving the Church.”57 Surely, however, Gaudium et Spes condemns abortion as
illicit killing of an innocent human being, as do later (and earlier) Magisterial
texts, and as Pope Francis has also done. Why, then, suppose that proper
belonging to the Church can be decisively separated from what one believes
about the licitness of abortion? Such a separation would surely count as an
“ideologization of the Catholic tradition” (in Faggioli’s words).58 For Faggioli,
the fundamental post-​conciliar problem with the Church has been St. John
Paul II and Benedict XVI themselves. He states, “The bishops of Vatican II
have been ‘outvoiced,’ especially in the last thirty years, by a theologically activ-
ist papacy.”59 It is as though a squabble over papal power were the real issue,
when in fact Catholic communities since the Council (as Congar already in
1968 saw would be the case) have been divided by the question of whether the
Church really has a divinely revealed and salvific faith handed down from the
apostles, a doctrinal and moral teaching that unites the people of God in wor-
ship. Fortunately, as the present volume will emphasize, the Council has been
wonderfully received in all sorts of ways, and it has been received as authorita-
tive teaching on the part of the Church as the Body of Christ.
In the ongoing reception of the Council, as John O’Malley observes, the
study of each separate document should “pave the way for the further, abso-
lutely essential step of considering the documents as constituting a single cor-
pus and thus of showing how each document is in some measure an expression
of larger orientations and part of an integral and coherent whole.”60 O’Malley
recognizes that the documents “implicitly but deliberately cross-​reference and
play off one another—​in the vocabulary they employ, in the great themes to
which they recur, in the core values they inculcate, and in certain basic issues
that cut across them.”61 One sees this implicit cross-​reference and coherence
even by simply reading the opening paragraphs of the Constitutions. The com-
mon themes in these opening passages are many, but it is not surprising that
the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops of 1985 focuses on the shared theme of
communion in Christ. As the Synod’s “Message to the People of God” affirms,
a central thread that ties the four Constitutions together is believers’ being “in
communion with Christ present in the Church (Lumen gentium), in listening
to the Word of God (Dei Verbum), in the holy liturgy (Sacrosanctum concilium),
in the service of mankind, especially the poor (Gaudium et spes).”62 In this
light, the Synod describes the Church’s aim as a “civilization of love” whose
primary agent is the Holy Spirit, who unites the Church and enables it to give
thanks “to God the Father, through his Son.”63
11

Introduction 11

The topics that the 1985 Synod’s “Final Report” lists as particularly signifi-
cant in the documents of Vatican II include the distinction beteen the secular
and the sacred; the mystery of God through Jesus in the Holy Spirit; the mys-
tery of the Church; the universal vocation to holiness; Scripture, Tradition,
Magisterium; evangelization; the relationship between the Magisterium and
theologians; renewal of the liturgy; the meaning of communion; unity and
pluriformity in the Church; the Oriental Churches; collegiality; the episcopal
conferences; participation and co-​responsibility in the Church; ecumenical
communion; the theology of the Cross; aggiornamento; inculturation; dialogue
with non-​Christian religions and non-​believers; and the preferential option
for the poor and human promotion. With regard to all these areas, the Synod
aptly finds that “[t]‌he ecclesiology of communion is the central and funda-
mental idea of the Council’s documents,” specified as “communion with God
through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit” through “the Word of God and …
the sacraments.”64
O’Malley’s consideration of the documents as a whole emphasizes not par-
ticular shared themes but a shared style. He notes that the documents “are
striking in that they express themselves in a style different from the legisla-
tive, judicial, and often punitive style employed by previous councils”; and he
attributes this style to the nouvelle théologie’s shift from a neo-​scholastic mode
of discourse to a discourse modeled on that of Scripture and the Fathers.65
Certainly, the documents have an inviting and dialogic style that differs from
the terser and more combative style found in other councils. For O’Malley,
Vatican II’s style “conveyed a values shift that was also a system shift or a para-
digm shift.”66 As Ratzinger put it in the passage we quoted above, the bishops
and the theologians who wrote the documents were tired of “anti-​ism,” and
the shift to a positive tone was quite deliberate. But we hesitate nonetheless to
invoke the phrases “system shift” or “paradigm shift,” because these phrases
might seem to imply that a new paradigm has replaced the old Christian
paradigm—​which surely was likewise centered upon the Gospel, upon com-
munion in Christ rooted in obedient response to the word of God as mediated
by the Church under the guidance of the Spirit. Furthermore, caustic denun-
ciations remain part of the Church’s repertoire when needed, as can be seen,
for example, in Pope Francis’s homiletic words of correction.
O’Malley consistently emphasizes that “to press continuity to the exclu-
sion of any discontinuity is in effect to say that nothing happened. As applied
to Vatican II, it reduces the council to a non-​event.”67 We agree that there is at
points some demonstrable discontinuity between Vatican II’s teachings and
those of other time periods, but not discontinuity in the sense of a rupture
in definitive doctrine, which is the kind of discontinuity that many scholars
have insisted happened.68 In the sense of Congar’s True and False Reform in the
Church, which is the sense adopted by Benedict XVI, there is no doubt that the
Second Vatican Council should be interpreted, as O’Malley says, through “the
lens of reform,” and we fully agree that the Council “was animated by a spirit of
reform.”69 But “reform” here does not mean fundamental revision of definitive
12

12 Introduction

doctrine so as to introduce a rupture in the Church’s faithful handing on of

the truth of divine revelation, as the phrase “spirit of reform” has sometimes
come to mean.
Insofar as the Council’s true “spirit of reform” involves a greater effort to
dialogue with outsiders, as Ormond Rush argues,70 it seems quite clear that
this is indeed the case. The essays in our volume demonstrate the positive and
fruitful ecumenical and interreligious advances promoted by the Council’s
documents, even while, at the same time, this did not mean for the Council
a Christological or doctrinal relativism or a watering down of the contents
of faith and holiness for Catholic believers. On the contrary, if anything, the
Council emphasized more than ever the universal call to holiness and the
demands of the life of faith and charity.

IV. An Evaluation of Reception and an Exercise in Reception

The present volume focuses on the reception of Vatican II in Magisterial teach-

ing and in theological work, and in this way it constitutes both an evaluation of
the reception of Vatican II and an exercise in theological reception. Although
we deliberately have not imposed uniformity upon the perspectives or formats
of the essays, theological works available in English are given preference both
because of the vast array of literature (which would have overwhelmed the
limited space available to the essays in the volume) and because of our authors’
situatedness in the American and Western European contexts. In the future,
we hope to undertake work devoted to the reception of the Council around the
world.71 The focus of the present volume is on the ways in which the docu-
ments of Vatican II, as interpreted by the Magisterium and also by theolo-
gians, have contributed to the handing on of the Gospel. As Karl Barth puts it
in his Ad Limina Apostolorum, both “Rome and the non-​Roman churches …
live to the extent that they are living communities of the living Jesus Christ.”72
The Catholic Church must be “living”; this means reform and change, which
Barth recognized and appreciated in the documents of Vatican II. The Catholic
Church must also be proclaiming the true Gospel “of the living Jesus Christ,”
and thus proclaiming the truth of history precisely within history. This can
only be done if “history” is not a historicist solvent that dissolves all truth
claims. A judgment about the Holy Spirit’s work is needed for hearing the
Gospel as interpreted at Vatican II as the word of God for all generations.
We can conclude this introduction, then, by hearkening back to some ear-
lier efforts in the reception of the Second Vatican Council, and reflecting once
more upon the central issue at stake. In an essay in Vatican II: The Unfinished
Agenda, a book published in 1987 to evaluate the reception of the Council, Leo
O’Donovan urges that Vatican II be received via the work of the eminent Jesuit
peritus Karl Rahner, who in O’Donovan’s view “sought a radically temporal
and historical conception of God and the people of God.”73 For O’Donovan, the
results that Rahner achieved remain firmly rooted in “[t]‌he paschal mystery
of Christ”: “To a rising tide of relativism he [Rahner] offered the Gospel of a
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 dedens Abbeville, le roy de Behagne premierement,
le conte d’Alençon son frère, le conte de Blois son
neveu, le conte de Flandres, le duch de Loeraingne,
25 le conte d’Auçoirre, le conte de Sanssoire, le conte
de Harcourt, monsigneur Jehan de Haynau, et fuison
d’autres. Et fu ce soir en grant recreation et en grant
parlement d’armes. Et pria apriès souper à tous les
signeurs que il fuissent li uns à l’autre amit et courtois,
30 sans envie, sans hayne et sans orgueil; et cescuns
li eut en couvent. Encores attendoit li dis rois
[168] le conte de Savoie et monsigneur Loeis de Savoie
son frère, qui devoient venir à bien mil lances de
Savoiiens et de le Dauffinet, car ensi estoient il mandet
et retenu et paiiet de leurs gages, à Troies en
5 Campagne, pour trois mois. Or retourrons nous au
roy d’Engleterre, et vous compterons une partie de
son convenant.

§ 274. Ce venredi, si com je vous ay dit, se loga

li dis rois d’Engleterre à plains camps o toute son
10 host. Et se aisièrent de ce qu’il eurent: il avoient
bien de quoi, car il trouvèrent le pays gras et plentiveus
de tous vivres, de vins et de viandes. Et ossi
pour les fautes qui pooient venir, grans pourveances
à charoi les sievoient. Si donna li dis rois à souper
15 les contes et les barons de son host, et leur fist moult
grant cière; et puis leur donna congiet d’aler reposer,
si com il fisent.
Ceste meisme nuit, si com je l’ay depuis oy recorder,
quant toutes ses gens se furent partis de lui,
20 et qu’il fu demorés dalés les chevaliers de son corps
et de sa cambre, il entra en son oratore. Et fu là en
geroulz et en orisons devant son autel, en priant
devotement à Dieu que il le laiast à l’endemain, se
il se combatoit, issir de le besongne à son honneur.
25 Apriès ces orisons, environ mienuit, il ala coucier;
 et se leva l’endemain assés matin par raison, et oy
messe, et li princes de Galles ses filz; et se acumeniièrent,
et en tel manière la plus grant partie de ses
sens: si se confessèrent et misent en bon estat.
30 Apriès les messes, li rois commanda à toutes ses
gens armer, et issir hors de leurs logeis, et à traire
[169] sus les camps en le propre place que il avoient le
jour devant aviset. Et fist faire li dis rois un grant
parch [près[348]] d’un bois, derrière son host, et là mettre
et retraire tous chars et charettes; et fist entrer
5 dedens ce parch tous les chevaus, et demora cescuns
homs d’armes et arciers à piet; et n’i avoit en ce dit
parch que une seule entrée. En apriès, il fist faire et
ordonner par son connestable et ses mareschaus jusques
à trois batailles. Si fu mis et ordonnés en le première
10 ses jones filz li princes de Galles. Et dalés le
dit prince furent esleu pour demorer, [li contes de
Warvich,[349]] li contes de Kenfort, messires Godefrois
de Harcourt, messires Renaulz de Gobehen, messires
Thumas de Hollandes, messires Richars de Stanfort,
15 li sires de Manne, li sires de le Ware, messires
Jehans Chandos, messires Bietremieus de Broues,
messires Robers de Nuefville, messires Thumas Cliffors,
li sires de Boursier, li sires Latimiers, et pluiseur
aultre bon chevalier et escuier, les quelz je ne
20 puis mies tous nommer. Si pooient estre en le bataille
dou prince environ huit cens hommes d’armes
et deux mil arciers et mil brigans, parmi les Galois.
Si se traist moult ordonneement ceste bataille sus les
camps, cescuns sires desous se banière ou son pennon
25 et entre ses gens. En le seconde bataille furent li
contes de Norhantonne, li contes d’Arondiel, li sires
de Ros, li sires de Luzi, li sires de Willebi, li sires
de Basset, li sires [de[350]] Saint Aubin, messires Loeis
Tueton, li sires de Multonne, li sires Alassellé[e] et
[170] pluiseur aultre. Et estoient en ceste bataille environ
 cinq cens hommes d’armes et douze cens arciers. La
tierce bataille eut li rois pour son corps et grant
fuison, selonch l’aisement où il estoit, de bons chevaliers
5 et escuiers. Si pooient estre en se route et arroy
environ sept cens hommes d’armes et deux mil arciers.
Quant ces trois batailles furent ordonnées et que
cescuns sires, barons, contes et chevaliers, sceurent
10 quel cose il devoient faire et retraire, li dis rois
d’Engleterre monta sus un petit palefroi blanch, un blanc
baston en sa main, adestrés de ses deux mareschaus;
et puis ala tout le pas, de rench en rench, en amonnestant
et priant les contes, les barons et les chevaliers,
15 que il volsissent entendre et penser pour se
honneur garder, et à deffendre son droit. Et leur disoit
ces langages en riant, si doucement et de si lie
cière, que, qui fust tous desconfortés, se se peuist il
reconforter, en lui oant et regardant. Et quant il ot
20 ensi viseté toutes ses batailles et ses gens, et amonnestés
et priiés de bien faire le besongne, il fu heure
de haute tierce. Si se retraist en sa bataille, et ordonna
que toutes ses gens mengassent à leur aise et
buissent un cop. Ensi fu fait comme il l’ordonna. Et
25 mengièrent et burent tout à loisir, et puis retoursèrent
pos, barilz et pourveances sus leurs chars, et
revinrent en leurs batailles, ensi que ordonné estoient
par les mareschaus. Et se assisent tout à terre,
leurs bacinés et leurs ars devant yaus, en yaus reposant,
30 pour estre plus fresch et plus nouvel, quant leur
ennemi venroient. Car tèle estoit li intension dou
roy d’Engleterre que là il attenderoit son aversaire le
[171] roy de France, et se combateroit à lui et à sa
poissance.

§ 275. Ce samedi au matin se leva li rois de

France assés matin et oy messe en son hostel, dedens
5 Abbeville, en l’abbeye Saint Pière où il estoit logiés.
 Et ossi fisent tout li signeur: li rois de Behagne, li
contes d’Alençon, li contes de Blois, li contes de
Flandres, li dus de Loeraingne et tout li chief des
grans signeurs qui dedens Abbeville estoient arresté.
10 Et saciés que le dit venredi il ne logièrent mies tout
dedens Abbeville, car il ne peuissent, mès ens ès
villiaus d’environ. Et grant fuison en y eut à Saint
Rikier, qui est une bonne ville fremée. Apriès soleil
levant, ce samedi, se departi li rois de France d’Abbeville
15 et issi des portes; et y avoit si grant fuison
de gens que merveilles seroit à penser. Si chevauça
li dis rois tout souef pour sourattendre ses gens, le
roy de Behagne et monsigneur Jehan de Haynau en
se compagnie.
20 Quant li rois de France et se grosse route furent
eslongiet le ville de Abbeville, environ deux liewes,
en approçant les ennemis, se li fu dit: «Sire, ce seroit
bon que vous feissiés entendre à ordonner vos
batailles, et feissiés toutes manières de gens de piet
25 passer devant, par quoi il ne soient point foulé de
chiaus à cheval, et que vous envoiiés trois ou quatre
de vos chevaliers devant chevaucier, pour aviser vos
ennemis, ne en quel estat il sont.» Ces parolles plaisirent
bien au dit roy, et y envoia quatre moult vaillans
30 chevaliers, le Monne de Basèle, le signeur de
Noiiers, le signeur de Biaugeu et le signeur d’Aubegni.
[172] Cil quatre chevalier chevaucièrent si avant que
il approcièrent de moult priés les Englès, et que il
peurent bien aviser et imaginer une grant partie de
leur afaire. Et bien les veirent li Englès que il estoient
5 là venu pour yaus veoir; mais il n’en fisent
nul samblant, et les laissièrent tout en pais bellement
retraire.
Or retournèrent cil quatre chevalier arrière devers
le roy de France et les signeurs de son conseil, qui
10 chevauçoient le petit pas, en yaus sourattendant. Si
 se arrestèrent sus les camps, si tost que il les veirent
venir. Li dessus dit rompirent le presse, et vinrent
jusques au roy. Adonc leur demanda li rois tout en
hault: «Signeur, quèles de vos nouvelles?» Il regardèrent
15 tout l’un l’autre, sans mot sonner, car nulz
ne voloit parler devant son compagnon. Et disoient
li un à l’autre: «Sire, dittes, parlés au roy, je n’en
parlerai point devant vous.» Là furent il en estri
une espasse que nulz ne s’en voloit, par honneur,
20 point avancier de parler. Finablement de le bouce
dou roy issi li ordenance que il commanda au
Monne de Basèle, que on tenoit à ce jour pour l’un
des plus chevalereus et vaillans chevaliers dou monde,
et qui plus avoit travilliet de son corps, que il
25 en desist sen entente. Et estoit cilz chevaliers au
roy de Behagne monsigneur Charle, et s’en tenoit
pour bien parés, quant il l’avoit dalés lui.

§ 276. «Sire, ce dist li Monnes de Basèle, je

parlerai, puis que il vous plaist, par le correction de
30 mes compagnons. Nous avons chevaucié si avant que
nous avons veu et considéré le couvenant des ennemis.
[173] Saciés que il se sont mis et arresté en trois batailles
bien et faiticement; et ne font nul samblant
que il doient fuir, mès vous attenderont, à ce qu’il
moustrent. Si conseille de ma partie, salve tout dis
5 le milleur conseil, que vous faites toutes vos gens ci
arrester sus les camps et logier pour celle journée.
Car ançois que li darrainnier puissent venir jusques
à yaus, et que vos batailles soient ordonnées, il sera
tart. Si seront vos gens lassé et travillié et sans arroy.
10 Et vous trouverés vos ennemis frès et nouviaus,
et tous pourveus de savoir quel cose il doient faire.
Si porés de matin vos batailles ordonner plus meurement
et mieulz, et par plus grant loisir aviser vos
ennemis par quel lieu on les pora combatre, car
 15 soiiés tous seurs que il vous attenderont.»
Chilz consaulz et avis plaisi grandement bien au
roy de France, et commanda que ensi fust fait que
li dis Monnes avoit parlé. Si chevaucièrent si doy
mareschal, li uns devant et li aultres derrière, en disant
20 et commandant as banerès: «Arrestés, banières,
de par le roy, ou nom de Dieu et de monsigneur
saint Denis!» Cil qui estoient premier, à ceste ordenance
s’arrestèrent, et li darrainier point, mès chevauçoient
tout dis avant. Et disoient que il ne s’arresteroient
25 point jusques adonc que il seroient ossi
avant que li premier estoient. Et quant li premier
veoient que il les approçoient, il chevauçoient avant.
Ensi et par grant orgueil fu demenée ceste cose, car
cescuns voloit fourpasser son compagnon. Et ne peut
30 estre creue ne oye li parole dou vaillant chevalier,
dont il leur en meschei si grandement, com vous orés
recorder assés briefment. Ne ossi li rois ne si mareschal
[174] ne peurent adonc estre mestre de leurs gens;
car il y avoit si grant nombre de grans signeurs, que
cescuns par envie voloit là moustrer sa poissance. Si
chevaucièrent en cel estat, sans arroy et sans ordenance,
5 si avant que il approcièrent les ennemis, et
que il les veirent en leur presence.
Or fu moult grans blasmes pour les premiers, et
mieulz leur vaulsist estre arresté à l’ordenance dou
vaillant chevalier, que ce qu’il fisent. Car sitretos
10 qu’il veirent leurs ennemis, il reculèrent tout à un
fais si desordeneement que cil qui derrière estoient
s’en esbahirent, et cuidièrent que li premier se combatissent
et qu’il fuissent jà desconfi. Et eurent adonc
bien espace d’aler avant, se il veurent: de quoi aucun
15 y alèrent, et li pluiseur se tinrent tout quoy.
Là y avoit sus les camps si grant peuple de communauté
que sans nombre. Et estoient li chemin tout
couvert de gens, entre Abbeville et Creci. Et quant
 il deurent approcier les ennemis, à trois liewes près,
20 il sachièrent leurs espées et escriièrent: «A le mort!
A le mort!» et si ne veoient nullui.

§ 277. Il n’est nulz homs, tant fust presens à

celle journée ne euist bon loisir d’aviser et ymaginer
toute la besongne ensi que elle ala, qui en seuist ne
25 peuist imaginer le verité, especialment de le partie
des François, tant y eut povre arroy et ordenance en
leurs conrois. Et ce que j’en sçai, je le seuch le plus
par les Englès qui imaginèrent bien leur couvenant,
et ossi par les gens monsigneur Jehan de Haynau qui
30 fu toutdis dalés le roy de France. Li Englès, qui ordonné
estoient en trois batailles, et qui seoient jus à
[175] terre tout bellement, si tos que il veirent les François
approcier, il se levèrent moult ordonneement, sans
nul effroy, et se rengièrent en leurs batailles, ceste
dou prince tout devant, mis leurs arciers à manière
5 d’une herce, et les gens d’armes ou fons de leur bataille.
Li contes de Norhantonne et li contes d’Arondiel
et leur bataille, qui faisoient le seconde, se
tenoient sus èle bien ordonneement, et avisé et pourveu
pour conforter le prince, se il besongnoit. Vous
10 devés savoir que cil seigneur, roy, duc, conte et baron
françois ne vinrent [mie jusques à là tous ensamble,
mais l’un devant et l’autre derrière, sans
arroy et ordonnance[351].

§ 278. Quant li rois Phelippes vint jusques sus

15 la place où li Englès estoient priès de là arresté et
ordonné, et il les vei, se li mua li sans, car trop les
haioit. Et ne se fust à ce donc nullement refrenés ne
astrains d’yaus combatre, et dist à ses mareschaus:
«Faites passer nos Geneuois devant et commencier
20 le bataille, ou nom de Dieu et de monsigneur
saint Denis!» Là avoit de ces dis Geneuois arbalestriers
 environ quinze mil, qui euissent ossi chier
nient que commencier adonc le bataille, car il estoient
durement lassé et travillié d’aler à piet plus de six
25 liewes tout armé, et de porter leurs arbalestres. Et
disent adonc à leurs connestables que il n’estoient mies
adonc ordonné pour nul grant esploit de bataille.
Ces parolles volèrent jusques au conte d’Alençon, qui
en fu durement courouciés, et dist: «On se doit
[176] bien cargier de tel ribaudaille qui fallent au plus
grant besoing!»
Entrues que ces parolles couroient, et que cil
Geneuois se recueilloient et se detrioient, descendi
5 une plueve dou ciel, si grosse et si espesse que merveilles,
et uns tonnoires et uns esclistres moult grans
et moult horribles. En devant cette plueve, par dessus
les batailles, otant d’un lés comme de l’autre, avoient
volé si grant fuison de corbaus que sans nombre, et
10 demené le plus grant tempès dou monde. Là disoient
li aucun sage chevalier que c’estoit uns signes de
grant bataille et de grant effusion de sanch. Apriès
toutes ces coses, li airs se commença à esclarcir, et
li solaus à luire biaus et clers: si l’avoient li François
15 droit en l’oel, et li Englès par derrière.
Quant li Geneuois furent tout recueilliet et mis
ensamble, et il deurent approcier leurs ennemis, il
commencièrent à juper si très hault que ce fu merveilles;
et le fisent pour esbahir les Englès, mès li
20 Englès se tinrent tout quoi et ne fisent nul samblant.
Secondement encores jupèrent ensi et puis alèrent un
petit avant, et li Englès [restoient] tout quoi sans yaus
mouvoir de leur pas. Tiercement encores juppèrent il
moult hault et moult cler, et passèrent avant, et tendirent
25 leurs arbalestres, et commencièrent à traire. Et cil
arcier d’Engleterre, quant il veirent ceste ordenance,
passèrent un pas avant, et puis fisent voler ces saiettes
de grant façon, qui entrèrent et descendirent si ouniement
 sus ces Geneuois que ce sambloit nège. Li
30 Geneuois, qui n’avoient point apris à trouver telz
arciers que cil d’Engleterre, quant il sentirent ces
saiettes qui leur perçoient bras, tiestes et baulèvres,
[177] furent tantos desconfi. Et copèrent li pluiseur d’yaus
les cordes de leurs ars, et li aucun les jettoient jus;
si se misent ensi au retour.
Entre yaus et les Englès avoit une grande haie de
5 gens d’armes, montés et parés moult richement, qui
regardoient le couvenant des Geneuois et comment
il assambloient: si ques, quant il cuidièrent retourner,
il ne peurent. Car, li rois de France, par grant
mautalent, quant il vei leur povre arroy, et que il
10 se desconfisoient, ensi commanda et dist: «Or tos,
or tos tués toute ceste ribaudaille: il nous ensonnient
et tiennent le voie sans raison.» Là veissiés
gens d’armes entoueilliés entre yaus ferir et fraper
sus yaus, et les pluiseurs trebuchier et cheir parmi
15 yaus, qui onques puis ne relevèrent. Et toutdis traioient
li Englès efforciement en le plus grant presse, qui
riens ne perdoient de leur tret, car il empalloient et
feroient parmi le corps ou parmi membres chevaus
et gens d’armes qui là cheoient et trebuchoient en
20 grant meschief; et ne pooient estre relevé, se ce n’estoit
à force et par grant ayde de gens. Ensi se commença
li bataille entre la Broie et Creci en Pontieu,
ce samedi, à heure de vespres.

§ 279. Li vaillans et gentilz rois de Behagne,

25 qui s’appelloit messires Charles de Lussembourch, car
il fu filz à l’empereour Henri de Lussembourch, entendi
par ses gens que la bataille estoit commencie; car
quoique il fust là armés et en grant arroy, il ne veoit,
goutes et estoit aveules: si demanda as chevaliers,
30 qui dalés lui estoient, comment li ordenance de leurs
gens se portoit. Chil l’en recordèrent le verité, et
[178] li disent: «Ensi et ensi est. Tout premiers li Geneuois
sont desconfi, et a commandé li rois de France à
yaus tous tuer. Et toutes fois entre nos gens et eulz
a si grant tueil que merveilles, car il cheent et
5 trebuchent l’un sus l’autre, et nos empeecent trop
grandement.»—«Ha! respondi li rois de Behagne,
c’est uns povres commencemens pour nous.» Lors
demanda il apriès le roy d’Alemagne son fil, et dist:
«Où est messires Charles mes filz?» Chil respondirent
10 qui l’entendirent: «Monsigneur, nous ne
savons. Nous creons bien qu’il soit d’autre part et
qu’il se combate.»
Adonc dist li vaillans rois à ses gens une grant
vaillandise: «Signeur, vous estes mi homme et mi
15 ami et mi compagnon. A le journée d’ui, je vous pri
et requier très especialment que vous me menés si
avant que je puisse ferir un cop d’espée.» Et cil qui
dalés lui estoient, et qui se honneur et leur avancement
amoient, li acordèrent. Là estoit li Monnes de Basèle
20 à son frain, qui envis l’euist laissiet; et ossi eussent
pluiseur bon chevalier de le conté de Lussembourc, qui
estoient tout dalés lui: si ques, pour yaus acquitter,
et que il ne le perdesissent en le presse, il s’alloièrent
par les frains de leurs chevaus tous ensamble; et
25 misent le roy leur signeur tout devant, pour mieulz
acomplir son desirier. Et ensi s’en alèrent il sus leurs
ennemis. Bien est verités que de si grant gent
d’armes et de si noble chevalerie et tel fuison que li
rois de France avoit là, il issirent trop peu de grans
30 fais d’armes, car li bataille commença tart, et si
estoient li François fort lassé et travillié, ensi qu’il
venoient. Toutes fois, li vaillant homme et li bon
[179] chevalier, pour leur honneur, chevauçoient toutdis
avant, et avoient plus chier à morir, que fuite villainne
leur fust reprocie. Là estoient li contes d’Alençon, li
contes de Blois, li contes de Flandres, li dus de Lorraigne,
 5 li contes de Harcourt, li contes de Saint Pol,
li contes de Namur, li contes d’Auçoirre, li contes
d’Aubmale, li contes de Sanssoire, li contes de Salebruce,
et tant de contes, de barons et de chevaliers
que sans nombre. Là estoit messires Charles de
10 Behagne, qui s’appeloit et escrisoit jà rois d’Alemagne
et en portoit les armes, qui vint moult ordonneement
jusques à le bataille. Mais quant il vei que la
cause aloit mal pour yaus, il s’en parti: je ne sçai
pas quel chemin il prist.
15 Ce ne fist mies li bons rois ses pères, car il ala si
avant sus ses ennemis que il feri un cop d’espée,
voire trois, voire quatre, et se combati moult vaillamment.
Et ossi fisent tout cil qui avoecques lui
acompagniet estoient; et si bien le servirent, et si
20 avant se boutèrent sus les Englès, que tout y demorèrent.
Ne onques nulz ne s’en parti, et furent trouvé
à l’endemain, sus le place, autour dou roy leur
signeur, et leurs chevaus tous alloiiés ensamble.

§ 280. Vous devez [sçavoir[352]] que li rois de France

25 avoit grant angousse au coer, quant il veoit ses gens
ensi desconfire et fondre l’un sus l’autre, d’une puignie
de gens que li Englès estoient. Si en demanda
conseil à monsigneur Jehan de Haynau qui dalés lui
estoit. Li dis messires Jehan li respondi et dist:
[180] «Certes, sire, je ne vous saroie consillier. Le milleur
pour vous, ce seroit que vous vos retraissiés et
mesissiés à sauveté, car je n’i voi point de recouvrier.
Il sera tantost tart: si poriés ossi bien chevaucier
5 sus vos [ennemis[353]] et estre perdus, que entre
vos [amis[354]].»
Li rois, qui tous fremissoit d’aïr et de mautalent,
ne respondi point adonc, mès chevauça un petit
plus avant; et li sambla que il se voloit radrecier
 10 devers le conte d’Alençon son frère, dont il veoit les
banières sus une petite montagne. Li quelz contes
d’Alençon descendi moult ordonneement sus les
Englès, et les vint combatre; et li contes de Flandres,
d’autre part. Si vous di que cil doi signeur et leurs
15 routes, en costiant les arciers, s’en vinrent jusques à
le bataille dou prince, et là se combatirent moult
longement et moult vaillamment. Et volentiers y
fust venus li rois Phelippes, se il peuist; mais il y
avoit une si grande haie d’arciers et de gens d’armes
20 au devant que jamès ne fust passés, car com plus
venoit, plus esclarcissoit ses conrois.
Che jour, au matin, avoit li rois Phelippes donné
à monsigneur Jehan de Haynau un noir coursier,
durement [grant[355]] et biel. Li dis messires Jehans
25 l’avoit bailliet à un sien chevalier, monsigneur Thieri
de Senselles, qui portoit sus se banière. Dont il avint
que li chevaliers, sus ce coursier, le banière monsigneur
Jehan de Haynau dalés lui, tresperça tous les
[181] conrois des Englès. Et quant il fu hors et oultre au
prendre son retour, il trebucha parmi un fosset, car
il estoit bleciés dou tret des arciers, et là chey. Et y
euist esté mors et sans remède, mès ses pages, sus
5 son coursier, autour des batailles, l’avoit poursievi,
et le trouva si à point qu’il gisoit là et ne se pooit
ravoir. Il n’avoit aultre empeecement que dou cheval,
car li Englès n’issoient point hors de leurs batailles,
pour nullui prendre ne grever. Lors descendi li
10 pages, et fist tant que ses mestres fu relevés et
remontés: ce biel service li fist il. Et saciés que
li sires de Senselles ne revint mies arrière par le
chemin qu’il avoit fait; ossi, au voir dire, il ne
peuist.

15 § 281. Ceste bataille, ce samedi, entre la Broie et

Creci, fu moult felenesse et très horrible. Et y avinrent
 pluiseur grant fait d’armes qui ne vinrent mies
tout à cognissance; car, quant la bataille commença,
il estoit jà moult tart: ce greva plus les François
20 c’autre cose. Car pluiseurs gens d’armes, chevaliers et
escuiers, sus le nuit, perdoient leurs signeurs et leurs
mestres. Si waucroient par les camps, et s’embatoient
souvent à petite ordenance entre les Englès où tantost
il estoient envay et occis. Ne nulz n’estoit pris
25 à raençon ne à merci, car entre yaux il l’avoient ensi
au matin ordonné, pour le grant nombre de peuple
dont il estoient enfourmé qui les sievoit.
Li contes Loeis de Blois, neveus dou roy Phelippe
et dou conte d’Alençon, s’en vint avoech ses gens et
30 desous se banière combatre as Englès, et là se porta
moult vaillamment, et ossi fist li dus de Loeraingne.
[182] Et dient li pluiseur que, se la bataille fust ossi bien
commencie dou matin que elle fist sus le vespre, il y
euist eu entre les François pluiseurs grans recouvrances
et grans apertises d’armes qui point n’i furent.
5 Si y eut aucuns signeurs, chevaliers et escuiers
françois et de leur costé, tant alemans que savoiiens,
qui par force d’armes rompirent les arciers de le bataille
dou Prince et vinrent jusques as gens d’armes
combatre as espées, main à main, moult vaillamment.
10 Et là eut fait pluiseurs apertises d’armes.
Et y furent, dou costet des Englès, très bon chevalier
messires Renaulz de Gobehem et messires Jehans
Chandos. Et ossi furent pluiseur aultre, les quelz je
ne puis mies tous nommer, car là dalés le Prince estoit
15 toute la fleur de chevalerie d’Engleterre. Et adonc
li contes de Norhantonne et li contes d’Arondiel, qui
gouvrenoient le seconde bataille, et qui se tenoient
sus èle, vinrent rafreschir la bataille dou dit Prince;
et bien besongnoit, car aultrement elle euist eu à
20 faire. Et pour le peril ou cil qui gouvrenoient et servoient
le Prince, se veoient, il envoiièrent un chevalier
 de leurs conrois devers le roy, qui se tenoit plus
amont, sus le mote d’un moulin à vent, en cause
que d’avoir aye. Si dist li chevaliers, quant il fu venus
25 au roy: «Monsigneur, li contes de Warvich, li
contes de Kenfort et messires Renaulz de Gobehem,
qui sont dalés le Prince vostre fil, ont grandement à
faire, et les combatent li François aigrement. Pour
quoi il vous prient que vous et vostre bataille les
30 venés conforter et aidier à oster de ce peril; car, se
cilz effors monteplie longement et s’efforce ensi, il
se doubtent que vostres filz n’ait à faire.»
[183] Lors respondi li rois et demanda au chevalier, qui
s’appelloit messires Thumas de Nordvich: «Messires
Thumas, mes filz est il ne mors ne atierés, ou si bleciés
qu’il ne se puist aidier?» Cilz respondi: «Nennil,
5 monsigneur, se Dieu plaist, mais il est en dur
parti d’armes: si aroit bien mestier de vostre ayde.»
—«Messire Thumas, dist li rois, or retournés devers
lui et devers chiaus qui ci vous envoient; et
leur dittes de par moy qu’il ne m’envoient meshui
10 requerre pour aventure qui leur aviegne, tant que
mes filz soit en vie. Et dittes leur que je leur mande
que il laissent à l’enfant gaegnier ses esporons; car
je voel, se Diex l’a ordonné, que la journée soit
sienne, et que li honneur l’en demeure et à chiaus
15 en qui carge je l’ai bailliet.»
Sus ces parolles, retourna li chevaliers arrière, et
recorda à ses mestres tout ce que vous avés oy: laquèle
response les encoraga grandement, et se reprisent
en yaus meismes de ce que là avoient envoiiet.
20 Si furent milleur chevalier que devant, et y fisent
pluiseurs apertises d’armes, ensi que il apparu, car
la place leur demora à leur honneur.

§ 282. On doit bien croire et supposer que là

 où il avoit tant de vaillans hommes, et si grant multitude
25 de peuple, et où tant et tel fuison de le partie
des François en demorèrent sus le place, que il y ot
fait ce soir pluiseurs grans apertises d’armes, qui ne
vinrent mies tout à cognissance. Il est bien voirs que
messires Godefrois de Harcourt, qui estoit dalés le
30 Prince et en se bataille, euist volentiers mis painne
et entendu à ce que li contes de Harcourt fust sauvés,
[184] car jà avoit il oy recorder aucuns Englès que on
avoit veu sa banière, et qu’il estoit avoech ses gens
venus combatre as Englès; mès li dis messires Godefrois
n’i peut venir à temps. Et fu là mors li contes sus
5 le place, et ossi fu li contes d’Aubmale ses neveus.
D’autre part, li contes d’Alençon et li contes de
Flandres, qui se combatoient moult vaillamment as
Englès, cescuns desous sa banière et entre ses gens,
ne peurent resister à le poissance des Englès; et furent
10 là occis sus le place, et grant fuison de bons
chevaliers et escuiers dalés yaus, dont il estoient
servi et acompagniet.
Li contes Loeis de Blois et li dus de Loeraingne
ses serourges, avoecques leurs gens et leurs banières,
15 se combatoient d’autre part moult vaillamment; et
estoient enclos d’une route d’Englès et de Gallois
qui nullui ne prendoient à merci. Là fisent il de
leurs corps pluiseurs grans apertises d’armes, car il
estoient moult vaillant chevalier et bien combatant.
20 Mès toutes fois leur proèce ne valli riens, car li dessus
dit demorèrent sus le place, et tout cil qui dalés
yaus estoient. Ossi fist li contes d’Auçoirre, qui estoit
moult vaillans chevaliers, et li contes de Saint
Pol, et tant d’autres que merveilles seroit à recorder.

25 § 283. Sus le vespre tout tart, ensi c’à jour fallant,

se parti li rois Phelippes tous desconfortés, il y
 avoit bien raison, lui cinquime de barons tant seulement:
c’estoit messires Jehans de Haynau li premiers
et li plus proçains de lui, li sires de Montmorensi,
30 li sires de Biaugeu, li sires d’Aubegni et li sires
de Montsaut. Si chevauça li dis rois, tout lamentant
[185] et complaindant ses gens, jusques au chastiel de la
Broie. Quant il vint à le porte, il le trouva fremée
et le pont levet, car il estoit toute nuis, et faisoit
moult brun et moult espès. Adonc fist li rois appeller
5 apriès le chastellain, car il voloit entrer dedens: si
fu appellés, et vint avant sus les garites, et demanda
tout en hault qui c’estoit qui buschoit à ceste heure.
Li rois Phelippes, qui entendi le vois, respondi et
dist: «Ouvrés, ouvrés, chastellain, c’est li infortunés
10 rois de France.» Li chastelains salli tantost
avant, qui recogneut la parolle dou roy, et qui bien
savoit jà que li leur estoient desconfit, par aucuns
fuians qui estoient passet desous le chastiel; si
abaissa le pont et ouvri le porte. Lors entra li rois
15 dedens et toute se route, qui n’estoit mies trop grande.
Si furent là jusques à mienuit. Et n’eut mies
li rois conseil que il y demorast ne s’ensierast là dedens:
si but un cop, et ossi fisent cil qui avoech lui
estoient. Et puis s’en partirent et issirent dou chastiel,
20 et montèrent as chevaus, et prisent gides pour
yaus mener, qui cognissoient le pays. Si entrèrent
ou chemin environ mienuit, et chevaucièrent tant
que au point dou jour il entrèrent en le [bonne[356]] cité
d’Amiens. Là s’arresta li rois et se loga dedens une
25 abbeye, et dist qu’il n’iroit plus avant si saroit le verité
de ses gens, liquel y estoient demoret et liquel
estoient escapet. Or revenons à le desconfiture de
Creci et à l’ordenance des Englès, et comment, ce
samedi que la bataille fu et le dimence au matin, il
30 perseverèrent.
[186] § 284. Vous devés savoir que la desconfiture et la
perte pour les François fu moult grande et moult
horrible, et que trop y demorèrent sus les camps de
nobles et vaillans hommes, dus, contes, barons et
5 chevaliers, par lesquelz li royaumes de France fu
moult depuis afoiblis d’onneur, de poissance et de
conseil. Et saciés que, se li Englès euissent caciet
ensi qu’il fisent à Poitiers, encores en fuissent trop
plus demoret, et li rois de France meismes, mès
10 nennil; car le samedi onques ne se partirent de leurs
conrois pour cacier apriès homme. Et se tenoient
sus leurs pas, gardans leur place, et se deffendoient
à chiaus qui les assalloient. Et tout ce sauva le roy
de France de estre pris, car li dis rois demora tant
15 sus le place assés priès de ses ennemis, si com chi
dessus est dit, qu’il fu moult tart, et qu’il n’avoit dalés
lui à son departement non plus de soixante hommes,
uns c’autres. Et adonc le prist messires Jehans
de Haynau par le frain, qui l’avoit à garder et à consillier,
20 et qui jà l’avoit remonté une fois, car dou
tret on avoit occis le coursier dou roy, et li dist:
«Sire, venés vous ent, il est temps, ne vous perdés
mies ci si simplement. Se vous avés perdu à ceste
fois, vous recouverés une autre.» Et l’enmena li
25 dessus dis messires Jehans, ensi que par force.
Si vous di que ce jour li arcier d’Engleterre portèrent
grant confort à leur partie, car par leur tret
li pluiseur dient que la besongne se fist, comment
que il y eut bien aucuns vaillans chevaliers de leur
30 lés qui vaillamment se combatirent de le main, et
qui moult y fisent de belles apertises de le main et
de grandes recouvrances. Mais on doit bien sentir et
[187] cognoistre que li arcier y fisent un grant fait, car par
leur tret de commencement furent desconfi li Geneuois
qui estoient bien quinze mil, qui leur fu
uns grans avantages. Car trop grant fuison de gens
 5 d’armes richement armé et paré et bien monté, ensi
que on se montoit adonc, furent desconfi et perdu
par les Geneuois qui trebuchoient parmi yaux et
s’entoueilloient si que il ne se pooient lever ne ravoir.
Et là entre ces Englès avoit pillars et ribaus, Gallois
10 et Cornillois, qui poursievoient gens d’armes et arciers,
qui portoient grandes coutilles, et venoient entre
leurs gens d’armes et leurs arciers qui leur faisoient
voie, et trouvoient ces gens d’armes en ce
dangier, contes, barons, chevaliers et escuiers; si les
15 occioient sans merci, com grans sires qu’il fust. Par
cel estat en y eut ce soir pluiseurs perdus et murdris,
dont ce fu pités et damages, et dont li rois
d’Engleterre fu depuis courouciés que on ne les avoit
pris à raençon.

20 § 285. Quant la nuis ce samedi fu [toute[357]] venue,

et que on n’ooit mais criier ne jupper ne renommer
nulle ensengne ne nul signeur, si tinrent li Englès à
avoir la place pour yaus, et leurs ennemis desconfis.
Adonc alumèrent il en leur host grant fuison de fallos
25 et de tortis, pour tant qu’il faisoit moult brun. Et lors
s’avala li rois Edowars, qui encores tout ce jour n’avoit
mis son bacinet; et s’en vint o toute sa bataille
moult ordonneement devers son fil le Prince: si
l’acola et baisa. Et li dist: «Biaus filz, Diex vous
[188] doinst bonne perseverance! Vous estes mes filz, car
loyaument vous vos estes hui acquittés: si estes
dignes de tenir terre.» Li Princes à ceste parolle
s’enclina tout bas et s’umelia, en honnourant le roi
5 son père, ce fu raisons.
Vous devés savoir que grant lièce de coer et grant
joie fu là entre les Englès, quant il veirent et sentirent
que la place leur estoit demorée, et que la nuitie
avoit estet pour yaus; se tinrent ceste aventure à
10 moult belle et à grant glore. Et en loèrent et regratiièrent
 li signeur et li sage homme, moult grandement
et par pluiseurs fois celle nuit, Nostre Signeur qui
tel grasce leur avoit envoiie. Ensi passèrent il celle
nuit sans nul beubant, car li rois d’Engleterre ne voloit
15 mies que nulz s’en fesist. Quant ce vint le dimence
au matin, il fist grant bruine et tèle que à
painnes pooit on veoir lonch un arpent de terre.
Dont se departirent de l’ost, par l’ordenance dou roy
et des mareschaus, environ cinq cens hommes d’armes
20 et deux mil arciers, pour chevaucier à savoir
se il trouveroient nullui ne aucuns François qui se
fuissent recueilliet.
Ce dimence au matin, s’estoient parti de Abbeville
et de Saint Rikier en Pontieu les communautés de
25 Roem et de Biauvais, qui riens ne savoient de le
desconfiture qui avoit esté faite le samedi. Si trouvèrent
à male estrine pour yaus en leur encontre ces Englès
qui chevauçoient, et se boutèrent entre yaus, et cuidièrent
de premiers que ce fuissent de leurs gens. Si
30 tost que li Englès les ravisèrent, il leur coururent
sus, et là de recief eut grande bataille et dure. Et
furent cil François tantost desconfi et mis en cace, et
[189] ne tinrent nul conroy. Si en y eut mors sus les
camps, que par haies que par buissons, ensi qu’il
fuioient, plus de sept mil; et se il fesist cler, il n’en
fust jà piès escapés.
5 Assés tost apriès, en une aultre route, furent rencontré
de ces Englès li arcevesques de Roem et li
grans prieus de France, qui riens ne savoient ossi de
le desconfiture. Et avoient entendu que li rois ne se
combateroit jusques à ce dimence, et cuidièrent des
10 Englès que ce fuissent leurs gens: si s’adrecièrent
devers yaus; et tantost li Englès les envairent et assallirent
de grant volenté. Et là eut de rechief grant
bataille et dure. Car cil doy signeur estoient pourveu
de bonnes gens d’armes, mais il ne peurent durer
 15 longement as Englès; ançois furent tantost desconfi
et priès que tout mort, petit s’en sauvèrent. Et y
furent mort li doy chief qui les menoient; ne oncques
il n’i eut homme pris à raençon.
Ensi chevaucièrent ceste matinée cil Englès querant
20 aventures, qui trouvèrent et rencontrèrent pluiseurs
François qui estoient mari et fourvoiiet le samedi,
et qui avoient celle nuit jeu sus les camps, et
qui ne savoient nulles nouvelles de leur roy ne de
leurs conduiseurs. Si entroient en povre estrine pour
25 yaus, quant il se trouvoient entre les Englès, car il
n’en avoient nulle merci, et mettoient tout à l’espée
sans merci. Et me fu dit que, de communautés et de
gens de piet des cités et des bonnes villes, il en y
eut mors, ce dimence au matin, plus quatre tans que
30 le samedi, que li grosse bataille fu.

§ 286. Ce dimence, ensi que li rois d’Engleterre

[190] issoit de messe, revinrent li chevauceur et li arcier,
qui envoiiet avoient esté pour descouvrir le pays, et
savoir se nulle rassamblée et recueilloite se faisoit
des François. Si recordèrent au roy tout ce que il
5 avoient veu et trouvé, et li disent bien qu’il n’en estoit
nulz apparans.
Adonc eut conseil li rois qu’il envoieroit cercier
les mors, à savoir quel signeur estoient là demoret.
Si furent ordonné doi moult vaillant chevalier pour
10 là aler, et en lor compagnie troi hiraut pour recognoistre
les armes, et doi clerch pour registrer et escrire
les noms de chiaus qu’il trouveroient. Li doi
chevalier, ce furent messires Renaulz de Gobehem
et messires Richars de Stanfort. Si se partirent dou
15 roy et de son logeis, et se misent en painne de veoir
et viseter tous les occis. Si en trouvèrent si grant
fuison que il en furent tout esmervilliet, et cerchièrent
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com