Reformation Rule of Faith

POSTED BY KEPHA

In re-reading chapter three of MacCulloch's The Reformation, one of the things that caught my attention was Luther's appeal to the secular rulers to correct the corrupt Church hierarchy. It made me reflect more on some thoughts I had from Elder Hoss' recent blog entry on Cullman's relfections on Scripture and Vatican II, as well as ones I had in a recent conversation on the topic of whether or not Christian truth is propositional. My thoughts can be summed up in the following section of the conversation I had.

I was affirming that Christian truth is primarily propositional, my conversant (a Protestant) was denying. In the course of the conversation, he appealed to Pseudo-Dionysius' portrayal of the Church hierarchy as made in the image of the hierarchy of angels in Heaven. In keeping with this otherwordly understanding of the hieratchy, he made the case that the bishop is a living bearer of what has been handed down. The bishop, he said, is "traditioned." Thus, the truth of charity, for example, is not something that the bishop hands on propositionally, but is instead a reality that the bishop hands on by his own person.

I informed him that this was a common Catholic ecclesiological understanding today. The then-Cardinal Ratzinger, for example, in his Called to Communion, wrote that the word and the witness (apostolic successors) can never be seperated. Further, because of the unique, supernatural relationship between Jesus and the witness, the witness is enabled to act as an altus Christus or in persona Christi. This is the basis for the Catholic contention of a "living Magisterium."

The problem, I point out, was that these "living witnesses" (or, one could even refer to them as "life-givers of Tradition") often fail or fall in their calling. And when they do, I pointed out, their is something that stands over and against them, namely, the Truth, a Truth that is not inextricably bound to them. The Apostolic Propositions stand over and against the leaders of the Church. Because all of the leaders of the Church are not impeccable, talk of them as "living witnesses" or a "living Magisterium" must be incredibly cautious and take into serious consideration the theological implications of such language, espeically in light the numerous warnings throughout the New Testament to beware of false teachers who will come from within the Church. The Apostles should themselves set the example for all church leaders. The Apostle Peter was vehemently rebuked in public by the Apostle Paul because "he stood condemned" for not having stood fast in "truth of the Gospel." The "truth of the Gospel" was, at least in the Apostle Paul's mind, the Rule of Faith by which both Peter and himself were held accountable.

This brings me back to Luther. I see Luther's appeal to the secular authorities to correct the ecclesiastical authorities as an alarming example of what happens when their is not a recognized standard to stand over and against the ecclesiastical authorities. Luther, a monk, priest, and professor, saw that the ecclesiastical leaders "stood condemned" because they had not been walking in accordance with "the truth of the Gospel." He painfully sought out some legitimate means to correct these ecclesiastical leaders. The Reformation that resulted from Luther's desperate plea reveals that there was more than one conscience that could no longer take any more. What reigned supreme for Luther, it seems to me, was the Gospel. This was why he could see a hierarchy in the Canon, gradually reject certain teachings, withstand both ecclesiastical and secular authorities, and maintain his status as an Evangelical.

Reformation Repentance

POSTED BY KEPHA

There were so many reforms taking place at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries: printing reforms, biblical scholarship reforms, reforms of scholarship in general (in what we would call the Liberal Arts), political-philosophical reforms (with the discovery of the Americas and Cicero), philosophical reforms (with the appearance of Plato), and monastic reforms. So much was happening at simultaneous and overlapping times. In all honesty, I cannot help but think of the Book of Daniel, for in that writing the Angel Gabriel makes clear to Daniel the governance of God over this world, His world; every ascension of every king, every disposal of every king, the rise and fall of every nation – everything is governed by this great God of ours!

The primary reason why I have begun to study this massive movement (i.e., The Reformation) within the People of God, a movement that shook the world, is because as my views of Catholicism have begun to substantially change, I found myself plagued with confusion, fear and anxiety, because while my views of Catholicism were changing for the worst, my views of the alternatives (i.e., Protestantism) remained the same: Protestantism was, I had been taught via the Catholic apologetics cultural movement, various man-made movements (e.g., Lutheranism, Calvinism, Zwinglism) that broke with the True Church of Christ, and have since spiraled into chaos and were in desperate need of re-conversion to this Church. Thank God that the infallible Council of Vatican II decreed that Protestants, alone with atheists, Muslims and Jews, might be saved! What mercy is shown by Holy Mother Church!

Having this view of the alternatives to Rome while continuing to have a negative view of Catholic claims does not bring about a very good spiritual status. Thankfully, I finally came to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, I was wrong in my understandings of the alternatives. In fact, I came to realize upon reflection that I had never read a single book on the Reformation. All that I had ever known about this diabolical act of depraved man was mediated to me by the Catholic apologetics cultural movement. Thus began my formal studies into the Reformation. So far I have read only Roland Bainton's The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, and am now half-way through Dairmaid MacCulloch's massive The Reformation.

So where is Cogito now in his still novice stage of inquiry? He thinks that The Reformation, that is, the various Reform movements that permeated a sinful Christendom, sparked by a monk, priest, and professor of the people of God in Wittenburg, Martin Luther, a man of tremendous passion and conscience and love for God; these Reform movements, collectively, called Sancta Mater Ecclesia to metanoia, and calls her still to repentance. But this call to repent by the Reformers was very specific. It was not a call to repentance of someone who was as of yet unconverted. This call to repentance was to the Church! Nay, there is a yet better description. Various, independent representatives of the People of God stood up during the homily, so to speak, and chunked a roll of toilet paper at the preacher because there was crap coming out of his mouth.

It was interesting to me that MacCulloch in his first chapter paints such a positive picture of the Catholic laity in the pre-Reformation period. Despite the political and ecclesiastical corruptions that existed here and there, the laity knew what they needed from the Church and they sought it out, even if they had to find it elsewhere (e.g., confraternities or devotions). Even outside of these, there was a common cultural understanding that everyone had to help each other get to Heaven. The foundation of this was intercession, be it from the saints, the Virgin or from the people. But as I re-read these initial chapters, I see that it was precisely from among this people, the People of God, that the Reformers and the Reform movements came from.

To be sure, Catholics, there was and is no Reformed Church. But to look for such is to completely misunderstand what the Spirit of God was doing. The Reformation . . . . The Reformation was calling the Church to re-examine herself in light of her existence. Centuries had passed and various erroneous pious traditions had affected and shaped the Church, forgeries had affected and shaped the Church, sinful leaders had affected and shaped the Church, tradition had affected and shaped the Church, the pope had affected and shaped the Church; now, the Church was called to look into the mirror of God's Law, as James says in his epistle, and examine herself. Even now when Rome has done so much cosmetic or plastic surgery, there are at least some faithful left of The Reformation cause(s) that still hold Rome accountable to God's Law.

Gasparo Contarini

(Update added below, 5/30/09)

While setting the stage for his account of the Reformation, MacCulloch gives prominence to the role St. Augustine's works played in shaping the intellectual and spiritual world that Luther and his contemporaries inhabited. He highlights the contrast between Augustinianism and the humanism represented by Erasmus, with the former much more pessimistic about the human condition. One of the figures MacCulloch profiles at this point is Gasparo Contarini, who would be made a cardinal by Pope Paul III:

He was a Venetian nobleman and diplomat whose reading in the Gospel of Matthew and the writings of Augustine brought him to a spiritual crisis, plunging him into despair about his worthlessness in God's sight... In 1511 he experienced a sense of mystical peace that released him from anxiety; suddenly he felt his worries foolish and unnecessary in the face of a gracious free gift of forgiveness from God. (pp. 111f)

Contarini is a curious personage, for although he remained a Roman Catholic, his beliefs and experience had a definite similarity to Luther's. In 1541 he represented Rome at the Colloquy of Regensburg, which had as its purpose the reunion of the Western Church. The colloquy was ultimately unsuccessful, with its compromises deemed unacceptable by both sides, but Contarini's efforts to articulate a common doctrine of justification are worthy of note.

Contarini advocated a mediating position called 'double justice', or the combination of inherent and imputed righteousness. The following is his explanation:

Seeing we have affirmed that we attain a twofold righteousness by faith: a righteousness inherent in us, as charity, and that grace whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature; and the justice of Christ given and imputed unto us, as being graft into Christ, and having put on Christ: it remaineth that we inquire, upon which of these we must stay and rely, and by which we must think ourselves justified before God, that is, to be accepted as holy and just, having that justice which it beseemeth the sons of God to have. I truly think, that a man, very piously and christianly, may say, that we ought to stay, to stay I say, as upon a firm and stable thing able undoubtedly to sustain us, upon the justice of Christ given and imputed to us, and not upon the holiness and grace that is inherent in us. For this our righteousness is but imperfect, and such as cannot defend us, seeing in many things we offend all, &c.; but the justice of Christ which is given unto us, is true and perfect justice, which altogether pleaseth the eyes of God, and in which there is nothing that offendeth God. Upon this therefore, as most certain and stable, we must stay ourselves, and believe that we are justified by it, as the cause of our acceptation with God: this is that precious treasure of Christians, which whosoever findeth, selleth all that he hath to buy it.

The passage is from the cardinal's Tractatus de Justificatione and is quoted from the translation in Richard Field's Of the Church (App. to Bk. III, ch. 11). I have been unable to find the original work for comparison, but substantially the same words are quoted by Turretin (Loc. XVI. q. 2, 18). Leopold von Ranke's History of the Popes also includes a paraphrase (Vol. I, Bk. II, sec. 5), with this interesting comment:

Contarini "Tractatus de Justificatione." But the reader must not consult the Venice edition of 1589, which was that I first saw, where this passage will be sought in vain. In 1571 the Sorbonne had approved the treatise as it stood; in the Paris edition of that year it is given unmutilated. In 1589, on the contrary, the inquisitor-general of Venice, Fra Marco Medici, refused to permit its appearance; and, not satisfied by the omission of condemned passages, he so altered them as to bring them into harmony with the Catholic tenets. We are amazed on finding the collection in Quirini. These instances of unjustifiable violence must be remembered, if we wish to explain so bitter a hatred as that cherished by Paul Sarpi.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia gives the following assessment of Contarini's view of justification:

In many of these writings Contarini touched upon the questions raised by Luther and other Reformers; in stating the Catholic view, however, he was not always fortunate. Thus, in describing the process of justification, he attributes the result largely to faith — not to faith with incipient charity in the Catholic sense, but to faith in the sense of confidence. However, he departs again from the Protestant view by including in the preparatory stage a real breaking away from sin and turning to good, a repentance and detestation of sin. Thus also, in describing the essence or the causa formalis of justification, he requires not only the supernatural quality inherent in the soul, by which man is constituted just, but, in addition to that, the outward imputation of the merits of Christ, believed to be necessary owing to the deficiency of our nature. It would be unjust, nevertheless, to class Contarini among the partisans of the Reformation. The above-mentioned views were taken only in part from the teaching of the Protestants; as yet the Church had given no definite decision on these matters. Moreover, Contarini wished always to remain a Catholic; at the Conference of Ratisbon he protested repeatedly, that he would sanction nothing contrary to the Catholic teaching, and he left the final decision of all matters of faith to the pope.

Here is the original Latin of the passage from Contarini, as printed in Field:

Quoniam diximus ad duplicem justitiam nos pervenire per fidem, justitiam, inquam, inhaerentem nobis, et charitatem ac gratiam qua efficimur consortes divinae naturae, et justitiam Christi nobis donatam et imputatam, quoniam inserti sumus Christo et induimus Christum, restat inquirere utranam debeamus niti et existimare nos justificari coram Deo, i.e. sanctos et justos haberi, ex, inquam, justitia quae deceat filios Dei, et oculis Dei satisfaciat, an hac justitia et charitate nobis inhaerente, an potius justitia Christi nobi donata et imputata? Ego prorsus existimo pie ac Christiane dici quod debeamus niti, niti inquam tanquam re stabili, quae certo nos sustentat, justitia Christi nobis donata, non autem sanctitate et gratia nobis inharente. Haec etenim justitia nostra est inchoata et imperfecta, quae tueri nos non potest quin in multis offendamus, quin assidue peccemus, ac propterea indigeamus oratione qua quotidie petamus, 'Dimitte nobis debita nostra.' Idcirco in conspectu Dei non possumus ob hanc justitiam nostram haberi justi et boni, quemadmodum deceret filios Dei esse bonos et sanctos, sed justitia Christi nobis donata est vera et perfecta justitia, quae omnino placet oculis Dei, in qua nihil est quod Deum offendat, quod Deo non summopere placeat. Hac ergo sola certa et stabili nobis nitendum est, et ob eam solam credere nos justificari coram Deo, i.e. justos haberi et dici justos. Hic est pretiosus ille Christianorum thesaurus, quem qui invenit vendit omnia quae habet ut emat illum.

Contarenus, de Justificatione. [p. 592. Par. 1571.]

Posted by Iohannes.

Update: For more on Cardinal Contarini, including a rough English translation of his work on justification, see this page.

Medieval Europe

- Maurice Keen


I just finished the Penguin History of Medieval Europe by Maurice Keen. This is a good little outline of the religious, intellectual, social and political history of Europe from 800-1453 A.D. The ideas of the middle ages were the assumptions of the Reformation and early modernity. Understanding its background will help us understand our subject itself.

The theme which runs through Keen's Medieval Europe is the idea of Christendom: the unity of Christian Europe. He traces its development, expansion and disintegration.

The foundations of Christendom were the Roman Empire and the Christian Faith. The Germanic invaders who inherited Europe inhabited the Mediterranean world of Rome. They adopted Roman Law and Latin culture and customs. They also took the Latin religion - Christianity. The ecumenical Empire of Rome was seen with religious meaning. The external tranquility of the pax romana was the means of the spread and security of gospel of peace for the soul. The peace in the commonwealth which God had brought in Rome was for (1) the incarnation of the Son of God and the accomplishment of redemption and (2) the application of redemption. The Roman Empire was thus seen with a missionary mandate.

Medieval Europe, as a Christian Republic, faced external and internal challenges. From without she was assaulted by Norsemen, Magyars and finally Mohammedans. The 1st two she subdued and conquered. She was able rally to common cause against Islam but not ultimately able to defeat. The crusade was the ultimate expression of the ideal of the unity of the Christian republic. Within she faced the question of the Commonwealth's authority: Pope or Emperor, and later, the authority of Church Councils.

Finally, the centralization of power in the great princes and the efficiency of their administration of government caused the emergence of national consciousnesses and the destruction of Christian unity. The power of the papacy in the late middle ages destroyed the influence of parochial clergy. When the papacy was disrupted during the Great Schism the secular rulers filled the vacuum of power and took control over the church in their countries.

This was the situation of Europe when Luther nailed his 95 theses. If Europe had not lost the ideal of Christendom to the fragmentation of nationalism she would have been able to withstand the Reformation without the rupture of the body of Christ. But Christendom was already divided by national and political loyalties and churches essentially belonged to the secular king. The Reformation only broke down the facade of unity.

Diarmaid MacCulloch's The Reformation

It is striking to me, the relation between Church and State. From the 4th century until the Reformation in the 16th century, there had been but one relationship in the West, that between the Catholic Church and the various empires. The two were intimately intertwined with each other; at times they were hard to distinguish. Particular families would dominate a bishopric or monastery. Even the Chair of Peter proved not to be immune from such socio-poltical invasion and corruption. At other times it seemed that the Church dominated the secular: Popes would crown kings, divide territory (e.g., the Americas), ride into battle even! The ancient earthly kingdom of Israel seemed to be alive and well in the Medieval Ages.

It is interesting that the Reformation movements, largely, did not seek to overthrow this relationship, that is, to do away with it. In fact, among the magisterial Reformers, it appears (thus far) that Martin Luther was the only one to emphasize the seperation of Church and State, even if later Lutheranism did not. Aside from Luther, it appears that the Anabaptists and other radicals such as the Mennonites were the ones to stress this seperation, although this cannot even be said of all the radicals!

The Reformation movements gave the secular rulers Christian alternatives to Rome. Once a ruler decided in favor of a particular Reform movement, there was simply nothing that Rome could do about it; she was forced, in other words, to embrace a co-existing version of Christianity. The explosion of ecclesial options, however, had tremendous theological implications. To proclaim Rome to be wrong was one thing, but to be given the opportunity by a ruler to actually establish a Reformed Church, which entailed producing a reformed theological system of beliefs, was quite another. In some cases, some Reform movements flat-out rejected the triune nature of God and the divinity of Jesus! Even Scripture was not immune to the Reform, for one one occassion Calvin had to fight for the canonicity of the Song of Songs! Issues such as Predestination and Infant Baptism could prove to be a deadly battle, literally. Magisterial Reformers were developing important aspects of their theology as time went and the ramifications of the Reformation unfolded. For instance, MacCulloch says that Luther continued to believe in Purgatory until the 1530's. In the case of Calvin, MacCulloch states that Predestination only gradually became an important aspect of his theology. MacCulloch notes that Zwingli somewhat changed his position on the Eucharist toward the end of his life.

The Reformation movements won their opportunities, but establishing the socio-political reality of their cause was quite an adventure, to say the least.

It is fascinating to compare and contrast the Reformation movements of the Protestants with the reformation movements within the existing Catholic Church. The pre-Reformation lay movements became much more important and useful in light of the Reformation. Saints were raised up in this time of chaos, such as Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Even more fascinating for me is to compare the "conversion experiences" of both Luther and Ignatius, and Luther and Erasmus. They both saw what Luther saw, but they reacted very differently. Why? On a somewhat different note, having read Teresa of Avila's Interior Castle, how is it that she could have such an amazing view of grace and the Christian life, and Luther such a wretched and hopeless works-righteousness view?

Lest the odds seem against Luther, it should be said that in comparing and contrasting these things, one vital thing that is revealed is that theology and doctrine were of immense importance for Luther, and that this, seemingly, could not be said about Ignatius, Teresa or John. Indeed, the halmark of their lives even to this day is their spirituality. They are considered masters of the spiritual life. Rebellion was simply wrong for them. Obedience and seeking God in what was already established was their outlook and response to the corruption within the Church.

What do we say in 2008? One obvious thing is: Protestants are still here (notice I didn't say "The Reformation movements are still here."), and Rome is still here. Both have gotten substantially larger, although I'm not sure that is a good thing for Protestants. Rome seems to be experiencing a revival; Protestants seem to be confused, divded, seeking help from Rome, and even converting to Rome. What the Hell?