In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Introduction by Nancy Hudson annotated translation by Frank Tobin .   ’    Pater Noster The text of the sermon on the Pater noster (the “Our Father”) is based on a homily given by Nicholas of Cusa on January 1, 1441, in Augsburg. The transcription and dissemination of the sermon was done at the request of the bishop of Augsburg, Cardinal Peter von Schaumberg. Seven manuscripts of the sermon in his native Mosel-Franconian dialect and one incomplete early Latin translation are extant. Although the written version remains in the form of a sermon, it incorporates many of the philosophical concerns with which he was preoccupied, including those of De docta ignorantia. Certainly the Neoplatonic movement of a divine source flowing out in theophany, return, and final theosis underlies the structure of the sermon. However, there is evidence that his philosophical preoccupation is only a means for explaining the Pater noster rather than an end in itself. That is, the sermon remains a sermon, speaking to the audience rather than about God. In the first paragraph his explanation of the prayer as a teaching tool that acts as sustenance for “each and every person in this visible world” suggests that the philosophy clearly serves the prayer rather than vice versa. Cusanus has not given us a theological description of God, a hymn to God’s greatness, or a speculative treatise. The sermon on the Pater noster is, quite simply, a homily on how to live one’s life. An analysis of the sermon reveals a clear, detailed, and even artistic structure. The introduction catches our attention by impressing on us that the words of the prayer are divine words. Then Nicholas of Cusa justifies why he presumes to interpret God’s own words. Although no one is able completely to understand Christ’s teaching, the grace of God has 1 given some clearer insight, just as some are better able to gaze at the sun. Finally, he outlines the four points into which he has divided the phrases of the Pater noster: (1) God as universal source, (2) the flowing out, (3) the return, and (4) the final goal of divine union. Before taking up these four points, he again reassures us that the prayer is perfect, with not a single word out of place. Cusanus’s method consists of a dissection of the prayer not merely into sentences, but into phrases and discrete words, where even conjunctions are invested with sometimes surprising meaning. His initial severing of “Our Father” from “who art in the heavens, hallowed be thy name” has the effect of transforming the entire sentence from an address to and a description of God into an invitation to know an immanent God who gives us our very being. The basis of this contention is not mere causality but theophany, for, as he states, “ten are from one and have nothing from themselves.”1 Accordingly, “we are nothing of ourselves.” Because “a father is a natural, first, and highest source and is alone a beginning of us all,” God’s oneness is the source of the being of all things. This line of thinking is further supported by his interpretation of “in the heavens.” “Heavens” does not describe some otherworldly location but “those natures with understanding.” In addition to locating the divine in human rationality, Cusanus here employs the notion of human being as microcosm (“The highest creatures .l.l. have in their power the lowest, just as the mobile, living nature of trees has in it the lowest elements.”). This raises a possible discrepancy between where one finds knowledge of God (i.e., in the intellect) and the notion of theophany. While he previously called God “the Father in whom all things are,” here he sets up an apparent opposition between “all natures beneath humankind,” whose “common mother” is the earth, and “heavenly, spiritual natures.” Perhaps the answer is found later in his comments about Christ having taught us to pray that the will of God be done “as in heaven, so also on earth.” Because the earthly realm is where human desires hold sway, “the sensual, fleshly nature must be turned toward the intelligent nature and remain united with it in obedience.” Cusanus is not pitting intellect 2 Nancy Hudson and Frank Tobin 1. This passage builds upon Nicholas’s view that “one” is not just a single unit but an enfolding of all numbers. See the essay by Elizabeth Brient in this volume for more on his use of...

Share