Comic song about St Anselm?

OffeiriadOffeiriad Shipmate Posts: 46
Hi folks!
Years ago, one of my students turned up a comic song about St Anselm's theology (in the style of G & S). I wish I could find it again, but Google has revealed nothing! Anybody got an ideas please? Thank you!

Comments

  • How might St Anselm's theology be defined? That word may suggest a clue...

    ...but if the song was never published, or in the public domain, it may be lost for ever.
    :disappointed:
  • OffeiriadOffeiriad Shipmate Posts: 46
    Hmm, it was 15 years ago that
    I heard it. She found it somewhere on the internet...
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited February 28
    Yes, you did say she *turned it up*, and I'm afraid I didn't quite catch the meaning.

    Well, it must be somewhere in cyberspace...
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    How might St Anselm's theology be defined? That word may suggest a clue...

    ...but if the song was never published, or in the public domain, it may be lost for ever.
    :disappointed:

    Didn't Anselm put the final boards in place on penal substitutionary atonement?
  • So he did, it seems - not much of a basis for a comic song...
  • :lol:

    Not exactly Gilbert & Sullivan, but... :grin:
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited March 2
    Okay fine, Gilbert and Sullivan it is. To a familiar tune from Penzance.

    When Anselm was a little lad
    He sought the monastery,
    But asked if he's on board with this,
    His dad replied, "not very".
    Poor Anselm took the fever then,
    But Dad remained emphatic.
    The fever was then found to be
    Naught but psychosomatic.
    When Mother died his father cried
    and found anew religion,
    But asked if Dad went overboard,
    The lad replied, "a smidgeon."

    Anselm set off to see the world
    When Dad became a fundy.
    He walked across the mountain pass,
    And wandered through Bur-gundy.
    When he returned his dad had died,
    And once he could confirm it,
    He went and asked a bishop nearby
    If he could be a hermit.
    The goodly bishop told him how
    To find the path to heaven:
    He went and made his promise to be
    A monk, at twenty-seven.

    A scholar he then proved to be,
    A theologic maven,
    That far and wide men came to Bec,
    A scolar-ary haven.
    But when the Bastard crossed the sea,
    And acted most contrar-y;
    Our Anselm shrove him and became
    Archbish’ of Canter-berry.
    And there he stayed throughout his days
    A modest hermit no mo’
    He proved to be a model bish’
    And wrote Cur Deus Homo.

    by yours truly
  • cgichardcgichard Shipmate
    Delightful! Thankyou, @mousethief
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Didn't Anselm put the final boards in place on penal substitutionary atonement?
    His version isn't as individualistic as modern PSA; it does actually make sense in the terms of the society in which Anselm propounded it.
    (The first statement of modern PSA is AIUI Luther, though it's debatable whether it was Luther's preferred model of the atonement; Aulen argued that Luther uses Christus Victor models in his catechisms, which are presumably what he thought should be the fundamental understanding.)

  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Mousethief!! Where is the rolling-around-with-joy emoji when you need it? :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Thanks guys. :blush:
  • OffeiriadOffeiriad Shipmate Posts: 46
    Thank you for this: Garasu found the one I only half remembered, but Mousethief's original composition is awesome!
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Didn't Anselm put the final boards in place on penal substitutionary atonement?
    No, Calvin just didn’t understand Anselm. Yes, Anselm did speak in terms of satisfaction, which reflects the way of society in his day, but he explicitly said that a sin can be atoned either through punishing the wrongdoer or through satisfaction made by either the wrongdoer or by someone else on his behalf (aut poena aut satisfactio, “either punishment or satisfaction”). He explicitly denied that you could make satisfaction by punishing someone else on the wrongdoer’s behalf. Christ, for Anselm, gave satisfaction by being the perfect example. Calvin, on the other hand, introduced the concept of a ‘transfer of penalty,’ thus completely changing the Anselmian doctrine.

    See J. Patout Burns, “The Concept of Satisfaction in Medieval Redemption Theory,” esp. pp.286-289; Paul Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation, pp.89-104; John D. Hannah, “Anselm on the Doctrine of Atonement” (Bibliotheca Sacra 135, 1978), pp.333-344; Paul J. LaChance, “Understanding Christ’s Satisfaction Today,” esp. p.61.
  • Mousethief that is brilliant!
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    .
    kmann wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Didn't Anselm put the final boards in place on penal substitutionary atonement?
    No, Calvin just didn’t understand Anselm. Yes, Anselm did speak in terms of satisfaction, which reflects the way of society in his day, but he explicitly said that a sin can be atoned either through punishing the wrongdoer or through satisfaction made by either the wrongdoer or by someone else on his behalf (aut poena aut satisfactio, “either punishment or satisfaction”). He explicitly denied that you could make satisfaction by punishing someone else on the wrongdoer’s behalf. Christ, for Anselm, gave satisfaction by being the perfect example. Calvin, on the other hand, introduced the concept of a ‘transfer of penalty,’ thus completely changing the Anselmian doctrine.

    Excellent, thank you. I feel better about Anselm now. Not about Calvin but that was never likely in the first place.

    @Gracious Rebel, @Offeiriad, @Lamb Chopped — Thank you!
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    .
    kmann wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Didn't Anselm put the final boards in place on penal substitutionary atonement?
    No, Calvin just didn’t understand Anselm. Yes, Anselm did speak in terms of satisfaction, which reflects the way of society in his day, but he explicitly said that a sin can be atoned either through punishing the wrongdoer or through satisfaction made by either the wrongdoer or by someone else on his behalf (aut poena aut satisfactio, “either punishment or satisfaction”). He explicitly denied that you could make satisfaction by punishing someone else on the wrongdoer’s behalf. Christ, for Anselm, gave satisfaction by being the perfect example. Calvin, on the other hand, introduced the concept of a ‘transfer of penalty,’ thus completely changing the Anselmian doctrine.

    Excellent, thank you. I feel better about Anselm now. Not about Calvin but that was never likely in the first place.
    Ah well. I will not abandon all hope. :wink:

    And I concur that you channeled Gilbert and Sullivan brilliantly!

Sign In or Register to comment.