Thursday, August 03, 2006

A Clarification of the Doctrinal Meaning of Reformation in the Early 16th c.

What I find strange about the almost uncritical connection many Protestants and Anglicans still make between the doctrines of the Lutheran movement and the idea of reform in the Church is the fact that the theological antecedents to Lutheranism were already condemned nearly a century earlier, not by a triumphalist papacy, but by the conciliarist reform council of Constance. If you were an orthodox churchman in the first half of the 16th c., whether you were a reformer (not to be confused with Evangelical) or a staunch curialist, you regarded Wycliffe and Huss simply as notorious heretics condemned by the very spirit of reform which saw the elimination of heresy as one goal in the renewal of the Church. Even the reformed and anti-scholastic chancellor of the University of Paris, Jean de Gerson - admired by Luther - unquestioningly joined in the prosecution and condemnation of Huss. It must have seemed to many if not most of Luther’s contemporaries that he was suggesting the outrageous idea that heresy can accomplish reformation. They, of course, saw these things as antithetical. Their reasoning was that reform meant not a change in doctrine but a return to authentic practice based upon the orthodox doctrine of the Church.

What we fail to perceive after four centuries of denominational fracturing, conflict and now dialogue, modernism, historical consciousness, etc. is the absurdity and revulsion with which the suggestion of a change in doctrine would have been met at the end of the Middle Ages.

12 comments:

Doug said...

Your comments are true. Without the backing of the German Prince's there would have been no Luther and no Protestant Reformation. I believe that a Reformation had been and was continuing to take place but through the slow yet proper channels. Luther would have been nothing more than another defrocked priest if the German's didn't want to get out of their "taxes" to Rome. They saw their way out and took it. And it worked well for the German hierarchy but broke and splintered the Church.

Thomas said...

It is interesting to meditate on the fact that catholic reformers were unambiguously hostile to "evangelical" heresy a century prior to Luther.

You are right that Luther was initially just one more voice calling for reformation among others. Even his appeal to an ecumenical council had become so common leading up to Lateran V that it was outlawed by the Pope. The reforming tradition in fact goes back at least to the restoration of the Roman Papacy at the end of the 14th c. Since then it had varying regional success. The reformation of Spanish Catholicism was very influential on the Council of Trent.

Interesting Facts:

Most of Luther’s criticisms of the late medieval indulgence trade had already been made. One of its critics was none other than Cardinal Cajetan himself.

The 95 Theses – contrary to the myth of All Hallow's Eve 1517 – were written for academic disputation not as a charter of the Protestant Reform.

The 95 Theses actually first drew the ire of certain Dominicans in Germany not for its criticism of the abuse of indulgences (Tetzel) but for certain statements regarding Papal power.

The 95 Theses recognizes, within certain limits, the Papacy, indulgences and purgatory.

Minus a few blemishes, the 95 Theses is a Catholic document and had Luther not allowed his very effective early critics to radicalize him, it might be regarded today by the Catholic Church as a monument to the reform which lead up to Trent.

Thomas said...

melvinmelvin,

Maybe "anti-scholastic" is too general. He certainly anticipated much of the latter humanist and protestant criticm of the various divisions and conflicts plaugeing late medieval university theology.

Thomas said...

melvin2melvin,

Gerson was certainly not a Calvinist. My point is precisely that the terms ‘reformed’ or ‘reforming’ are not necessarily linked to the theology of the Lutheran movement or its late medieval antecedents. In other words, if we are going to be historically objective, we must learn to separate in our minds the vast 15th & 16th c. reform movement in general from the particular theological agenda of the Protestant Reformers. Also, there is a habit in popular Protestant literature of looking for the background to the 16th c. reform in figures such as Wycliffe and Huss. This is extremely historically myopic since there was a vast reforming movement starting in the 14th c. and moving through the 15th c. and early 16th c. among orthodox Churchmen. And frankly had it not been for the late medieval (Renaissance) Papacy, which seriously retarded its progress (initially), this mainstream reform movement would likely have diffused the forces which (possibly) inevitably lead to the Lutheran revolt.

Conciliarism – despite its latter condemnation (though some dispute it) – was a program of reform. The council of Constance called for regular meetings of an ecumenical council to carry out the ordinary governance of the universal Church, which included oversight of the pope. The awareness of the need for reform in the Church did not begin with Luther. The expression “head and members” can be traced back to the 14th c. It also issued decrees concerning clerical education, residence, etc. (and in this it anticipated both Lateran V and Trent). I am not advocating Conciliarism. I am simply observing that those who were zealous for reform (and who were also not Papal patsies – in fact Gerson and others of the time have some very sobering things to say about the origin, power and place of the Papacy) were is no sense proto-Lutherans. There is no essential connection between the spirit of reform and the evangelical doctrines of the 16th c.

Gerson’s criticisms of 14th c. scholasticism were similar in certain respects to the criticisms made by the later humanists and protestant reformers.

As for late medieval theology, you are right that there are different interpretations of the character of the period (Gilson, Oberman, etc.). As a pretty convinced Thomist, however, I favor Gilson’s theory of a general decline (which is essentially Unklarheit), and which happily lends itself to a critical interpretation of the roots of the Reformation.

-Thomas

Thomas said...

melvin2melvin,

You wrote: “Frist, Unklarheit? Really? This again is an absurd theory.”

Correct me is I am wrong, but wasn’t the council of Trent the first ecumenical council to define the nature of justification? Granted, the theology of justification which it taught had been in existence for some time and is essentially the Thomistic one in which justification is framed in terms of the efficient, formal (infused) and final cause. It also made certain clarifications designed to distance the Catholic understanding from Pelagianism, on the one hand, and Lutheranism on the other. Does this not, however, amount to a crossing of the categories of which you wrote (i.e. faith & theology)? And it is not like there was only one view of justification prior to the Council. The Dominican, the Franciscan, the Augustinian views were different. It seems to me that Trent “clarified” the exact position of the Roman Church with respect to the nature of justification.

You wrote: “If [Conciliarism] is condemned it not a theory of reform.”

My point was not to identify conciliarism with “reformed” Catholicism. Rather, I am saying that the main contributors to the Council of Constance, such as Gerson, saw the Council as an opportunity not only to resolve the Papal schism, but to reform the life of the Church in general and yet never flinched in their repudiation of Wycliffe and Huss (i.e. obviously they did not feel that a change in doctrine was necessary in the reform of the Church). I am not saying that Gerson was a conciliarist; however, the Council of Constance is still counted as an ecumenical council and it happened to endorse conciliarism.

I am not certain what your problem is exactly with the basic observation I am making which is that the call for reform predated the Reformation and in certain parts of Christendom was fulfilled without any need for the theology of Luther.

Thomas said...

melvin2melvin,

I do not know how you got the strange idea that I am a conciliarist. You are correct in saying that the Papal magisterium repudiated the concilarist decree of Constance (Haec sancta). However, the Council itself promulgated this decree. Thus historically, the Council of Constance is a conciliarist Council. I am a Roman Catholic, so I am not bound by the teaching of a council that does not ultimately have Papal approbation. But let’s be honest about what happened. We accept the line of Popes chosen for us by the authority of the same Council that decreed to limit the power of the Popes by subordinating them to the universal jurisdiction of a lawfully assembled ecumenical council. Perhaps that strange fact can help us to appreciate the skepticism of our Protestant brethren.

As for Luther’s role leading up to the Tridentine decree on justification, clarifications in Church teaching have almost always, if not always, been precipitated by challanges to the traditional interpretations of divine truth. Perhaps you could speculate that were it not for the Lutheran movement, the Council of Trent – like the Fifth Lateran Council – would have restricted itself to moral and institutional reform measures rather than disputed points of theology. But this is far from saying that authentic reform required a change in doctrine.

You wrote: “It did not really make certain statements to distance itself from Pelagian thought it simply incorporated preexisting statements of the magisterium into Trent.”

With the advent of Lutheranism, the Church came face-to-face with what could be called the extreme opposite of Pelagianism. In other words, the extreme limits of Christian soteriology finally emerged as marked by Pelagianism on one end and Lutheransim on the other. Interestingly the formative period in Western Catholic theology falls between the full appearance of these two extremes. The conciliar text (session VI) reflects an emerging awareness of the middle position Catholic soteriology must take.

As to the nature of justification, perhaps it is too strong to describe the teaching of the Council as formally Thomistic. Nevertheless, the influence of the Angelic doctor over the Council is not disputed. What, in your opinion, does the Council of Trent say about infused habits of grace? This was a disputed point between the ‘via antigua' and the ‘via moderna' prior to the Council, was it not? It certainly had much to do with Luther’s early criticisms of scholastic theology (Heidelberg Disputation 1517).

Doug said...

Melvin seems to be a little bit full of himself:

"Melvin rocks!!!!!!!! "


"Melvin the destroyer!!!!"

I didn't realize this was a contest. Are you a theologue? I am interested in the debate but without the caustic attitude.

Doug said...

Melvin,
I am using the word theologue with a negative connotation, rather than its natural meaning, which is basically a student of theology. Instead I am using it in a derogartory way. I am using it in the sense of someone who uses theology for knowledge and argument rather than for spiritual purposes.

Doug said...

You are right. How did you intend your comments:

"Melvin rocks!!!!!!!! "

"Melvin the destroyer!!!!"

These, no the face, seem bragadocious, arrogant, and prideful. But, please, interpret them for me. What did you mean by them? I am not correcting your reasoning, but your presentation. St. Paul and St. John tells us to do everything in love and not boastful (1 Cor. 13). Tell me, were these comments loving? That is my point. Maybe the reason people rush to these sorts of judgements is because the writer makes it easy. Many a person can be won over with argumentation, but many more with patience and love. I'm sorry, but your comments and attitudes are coming over as arrogant. I will try to put the best possible spin on your comments from here on out, but it would be helpful if you were able to tone your "internet attitude" down.

Doug said...

By the way, I never called you a theologue, I merely asked was this your intention, because your "internet etiquete" appeared as such.

Thomas said...

melvin2melvin,

You wrote: “By definition a council can not do this nor was it ever able to do this. The point is that no council is able to subordinate a pope to a council. Beside Councils do not have "universal jurisdiction", as you style it, according to Vatican I only the pope does.”

As ‘I’ style it? What are you talking about? I am simply reporting what Constance said. I am not suggesting that it is true. Why do you keep implying that I am a conciliarist? There is really no good response I can make to you as long as you keep muddling my position.

But I will make the following points:

It was certainly not immediately evident to all following the Council of Constance that its earlier decrees were null (despite the respect shown to the legates of Gregory XII). In fact, Martin V conceded to the Council of Pavia/Siena which met five years after Constance in accordance with the decree Frequens which was itself an extension of Haec sancta being a program of reform governed by regular meetings of ecumenical councils. The Council of Basil which also met in accordance with Frequens thought nothing of appealing to Haec sancta in its conflict with Eugene IV. Granted, doctrinal clarification came, but not when one would have expected it (i.e. Trent). Instead it had to wait until Vatican I.

Thomas said...

You wrote: “Ecumenical council's do not have universal jurisdiction so I do not accept this point (nor should you).”

This statement is erroneous if taken in an unqualified sense. Of course ecumenical councils have universal jurisdiction. That is by definition the character of a universal council. The one condition is that there can be no ecumenical council without the approbation of the Apostolic See.

As for the Council of Constance, my point was that the authority of neither the Avignonese nor the Pisan Popes were recognized and that the Roman Pope was only nominally recognized as part of a compromise which saw his resignation as the necessary means to ending the schism. In better times the conciliarism of the first sessions of the Council would have eliminated it from orthodox memory – much like the Robber Synod of Ephesus. However, because of the compromised condition of Papal authority (i.e. no one could say for certain who the true Pope was) the same Council that openly espoused conciliarism (although it is granted that Haec sancta did not have the doctrinal force of the later Sacrosancta) was allowed to accept the resignation of the Roman Pope and take the necessary steps to elect a successor.

You wrote: “This was the death of conciliarism.”

The difference between ‘Exsecrabilis’ and ‘Pastor Aeternus’ requires very little explanation. The former is clearly a disciplinary decree limited in scope whereas the latter is a doctrinal one. In other words, given the developed formal decree on conciliarism at the latter sessions of Basil (Sacrosancta), Exsecrabilis is a poor refutation. In fact, Exsecrabilis had very little effect as a disciplinary injunction. Appeals to an ecumenical council continued to be made as evidenced by the unabashedly hopeful expressions of confidence in the reformatory power of an ecumenical council at the opening session of the Fifth Lateran Council. People in general continued to believe that councils - not Popes - would bring about a reform of the Church. For this reason, Luther wasn’t acting particularly heretical when he made an appeal to an ecumenical council. Rather, he was acting like many other reformers in the early 16th c.

I would characterize Exsecrabilis, not as the death blow to conciliarism – even St. Thomas More favored conciliarist ideas and it formed the basis to Gallicanism – but as a step forward in the late medieval and principally Dominican driven development of formal ecclesiological Papal supremacy.