What will you have, Reformation or Revolution?
A very close friend of mine from my high school days and beyond is in the RCIA process of converting to the Catholic Church. He is to be received into the Church this coming Easter. He has never formally studied philosophy or theology. But, he rhetorically asks an interesting question: If the Reformation happened, why is anyone still protesting? That is, if the Church was indeed reformed, why would anyone remain out of communion with it? This is a fascinating question, it seems to me, which presupposes that the Church indeed underwent a period of reformation in response to the writings and wranglings of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.
Many Catholic scholars do attest that at least one good thing that came as a result of the Protestant Reformation and this was the Catholic Reformation. St. Catherine of Sienna and others had called for a massive reformation in the Church much prior to the rise of Martin Luther. But by the time the Church got a pope who was serious about enacting widespread reform in the Catholic Church (which was Pope Paul III, 1534-49), Protestantism was already itself widespread throughout Europe. (Incidentally, there were many religious orders founded during this time, and the most successful was to come from St. Ignatius Loyola-the Jesuits; the order was founded the same year as the election of Pope Paul III.) Paul III appointed a large commission of cardinals and other important individuals to study his proposed agenda for a massive council of the Church and to present a report on abuses in the Church. Pope Paul III apparently anticipated much of what the commission had to report on abuses and recommendations for reform and brought changes to the papal court and Curia prior to the Council, which he would initiate. This would be the monumental Council of Trent (1545-1563). (The Council stretched over many years, but only during short stretches of time did it do most of its work.) Paul III was followed by even more aggressive popes for bringing about reform and continuing the Council until it was brought to completion. Again, this time was additionally brought blessings by such great men as Sts. Peter Canisius and Charles Borromeo. Also famous from this time period and evidence of the reinvigoration of the Church were: Sts. Teresa of Avila, Vincent de Paul, John of the Cross, and Francis de Sales.
But it was St. Pius V (1566-1572) who would bring about some of the most lasting and impressive of the implementations of the Council. He revised the Roman Breviary (1568) and the Roman Missal (1570). And published the last universal catechism of the Catholic Church before the current one: it was known as the Roman Catechism (1566).
As has often been the case in the long history of the Church, reforms had been called for and they have been met. So, it seems that my friend's question is a reasonable one. Why be a non-Catholic Christian in a post-Reformation age? It seems to me that the only way for a non-Catholic Christian to answer this question is to give an anti-Catholic answer. That is, by providing an answer that no Christian would have given prior to the 16th century. For example, the answer given by a Protestant today as to why he persists outside of the Church will be in direct contradistinction to the views expressed by St. Vincent of Lerins in the 2 prior posts. An enormous amount of that which has been dogmatically declared in the 18 Ecumenical Councils and widely believed by all Catholics prior to Martin Luther has fallen from belief and practice among the vast majority of all Protestants. And in this way, the spirit of Protestantism exists in an attitude of anti-(pre-16th century)-Christianity. One who does little other than hearken back to the Bible (or to the Bible and the first six General Councils of the Church) cannot do otherwise than to be anti-Christian in this way. That is to say, much of the teaching of Luther (and especially Zwingli) merely contradicted widely believed and received teachings of the Church, even teaching (e.g., on the Eucharist) which had been settled long before (e.g., in the 4th Lateran Council).
If there was reformation, and there was widespread correction of abuses in the Church, then why persist in disunity with the Church? This question leads me to believe that what was wanted by the original Protestants was not so much Reformation as Revolution. Protestantism is not so much the reforming of that which is ancient as it is the overturning of so much believed by and practiced in the Church prior to the 16th century. When beliefs and practices, which have such ancient and well-established precedent in the Church, are done away with by the Reformers, what could this be but Revolution?
posted by Jeremiah Kier Cowart at 12:32 PM
3 Comments:
Hey Jeremiah, I see why you responded the way you did at my blog. Here are a few brief responses I have to this post.
Jeremiah declares:
"Why be a non-Catholic Christian in a post-Reformation age? It seems to me that the only way for a non-Catholic Christian to answer this question is to give an anti-Catholic answer. That is, by providing an answer that no Christian would have given prior to the 16th century."
My Response:
This perhaps demonstrates a lack of complete understanding of the Reformation and its history. I am not sure how much research you have actually done with regard to the Reformation.
I grant the Catholic Church did "reform" certain areas which were much needed (for example, the issue of the practice of Indulgences at that time). However, the Catholic Church did not "reform" all that was needed.
Instead, it anathematized what it did not like about Luther and the Reformers w/o even giving Luther (and the Reformers) the time of day to hear his/their pleas and protests. This is clearly seen in history (especially in the many councils that were gathers in Worms - there were many more after Luther had appeared - were you aware of this?).
For this I think the Catholic Church itself caused the divide to be much greater than it should have ever been. There were much more serious issues than Indulgences involved in the Reformation (albiet the issue of indulgences was important).
I believe, and it is demonstrated in history, that the Reformation became much larger and greater than it ever should have been due to the incompetance of Pope Leo X and especially Cardinal Cajetan and his 'group.' (details withstanding for lack of space).
Luther was protesting about Justification (salvation) being "sold" to the common people via indulgences. This practive, which was very common in that time was clearly unbiblical and anti-Christian. This is why Luther placed such an emphasis on sola fide was because of the "selling" of salvation through indulgences (most Protestants are not even aware of this because they do not take the time to study the Reformation). Granted this practice was reformed by the Church, and one can see that in the documents of Trent, it was not completely reformed and is still believed today (at least in a practical sense).
I cannot tell you how many heinous Catholics I meet or know today who think they have obtained "eternal life (i.e. salvation) merely because they are "Catholic.") There is not difference here today than there was at the time of the Reformation.
Salvation is given by God through grace and faith (Eph. 2:8) not by being a memeber of the Catholic Church alone. There is so much more than can be said, but space does not allow. However, let me state that I am not anti-Catholic. But I am also not anti-Christian and this involves much more than merely being a part of the Catholic Church.
I have no doubt that a Catholic can be "saved" even if he/she remains Catholic (as many Protestants would disagree with me). I am not of the opinion that Catholics are damned to hell simply because they are Catholic (as many Protestants do). However, I am unwilling to, at this point anyway, to convert to the Catholic Church for very important reasons that have not been satisfactorily answered for me by the Catholic Church and its theologians.
If you want to call this being out of fellowship, then so be it. However, good ecumenical discussions between Catholics and Protestants should continue and certain important theological issues still need to be discussed and settled.
I, of course, have sorta been all over the place with this response, but like I have said before, these issues are better discussed, than typed about in blog comment spots.
btw, re-reading my comments I need to calrify something.
When I use the word "heinous" I meant those who get drunk, do drugs, commit fornications, etc. and yet claim they will have eternal life because they are members of the Catholic Church.
Just to clarify what I meant.
Hey there.
Very good comments. Let me just interact a bit here and there. Regarding the first quote of mine that you list, I meant that in a doctrinal/liturgical sense. That is to say, the answers one hears today, in replying to that question, are not answers that would have been given by any Catholic prior to 1500.
I stated in the original post "But by the time the Church got a pope who was serious about enacting widespread reform in the Catholic Church (which was Pope Paul III, 1534-49), Protestantism was already itself widespread throughout Europe." So, yes, I back everything you said and then some regarding the mishandling of affairs prior to Paul III. No doubt, the popes who preceded him were not lacking in inability to handle the situation.
However, if Luther is not given so much time of day, on the one hand I am sympathetic with what you say (due to the granted ineptitude), yet on the other hand, when I read the Theses, for example, they are dramatically pushing the envelope of heterodoxy. It is very clear that he reduces the authority of the pope to merely recognizing what God has already done, etc. This is well before he publically denounced such authority outright, questioned clerical celibacy, altered the teaching on the Eucharist, etc. Still, the Theses are really pushing it, to be sure. The rest we can hash out by phone. As you say, it's much better that way. BUT NB: this question of authority underpinning the comment below that I address will undoubtedly rear its head. It always has to for the Protestant because that is the most ultimate question for him to answer: On the basis of what authority can I stand and denounce the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church? The Church, on the other hand, with infallibility and General Councils has had a constant answer to that question. However, when those things are thrown by the wayside, as they most certainly were in Protestantism, I fail to see how the person so doing leaves himself in a reliable position.
One final thing, you say "However, the Catholic Church did not "reform" all that was needed." But, I think it's just these types of attitudes that are genuinely 'Protesting' and revolutionary. After all, what man by himself (or group of men even) can tell the universal Church how it has formally erred? All such attempts to do so had been reckoned with in Councils prior to this time, most dramatically in General or Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, I don't see why any Christian would shift his view away from this common understanding of ancient Christian practice. Note St. Vincent of Lerins' quote in a previous post. Even in his day, this was the sure judgment. One relies on the General Councils when all else seems to difficult to determine.
Post a Comment
<< Home