From The Christian Reader:
The Counter-Reformation
The Roman Catholic response to the Protestant Reformation is known as the Counter-Reformation. The Catholic Church knew that it had to formulate some sort of answer to the charges being put forth by the Reformers; ignoring them was no longer an option. In today's excerpt from Jonathan Hill's book, The History of Christian Thought, we read a short summary of the most formal response offered by the Catholic Church during the Counter-Reformation: The Council of Trent.
It must be remembered that the Reformation was not an attempt to "re-invent" historic Christianity, but return to it. The seven ecumenical councils (Nicaea 1&2, Constantinople 1,2&3, Ephesus, and Chalcedon) of the early church were accepted by most of the Reformed leaders and the "protest" of the Reformers was a call for the church to return to these foundational teachings and abandon the unbiblical practices that had crept in during the latter half of the Byzantine empire. Although often described as an "anti-Catholic" movement, the Protestant Reformation was nothing of the sort. Its goal was to reform the church, not divide it. The Reformation was a "pro-church" movement that had the "purity and peace of the church" as its sole conviction and aim. The primary disagreement of the Reformers was the Catholic Church's insistence that the interpretations and teachings of Church leaders were on equal footing with the authority of the Bible itself. This tyranny of interpretive authority led to contradictory, and in many cases, heretical, teachings being recognized as "orthodox" Christianity. The Reformers simply wanted a return to biblical sanity. "[T]he Reformation was a movement from heaven that turned attention from a man-centered religion to God; the message was 'Call no man Master. Cease from man and attend to the Word of God.'" [1]
While the Council of Trent seemed to be a step in the right direction, its decrees made it evident that it had no intention of listening to the arguments of the Protestants. The formal response from Trent that the Church's interpretation of Scripture is the only infallible one drew a distinct line in the sand. Just as modern university professors claim that Darwinian orthodoxy is "true science" and any contrary ideas are therefore "unscientific," the Church made its interpretations of Scripture, no matter how fanciful, the "true" orthodox view. This clever tactic slams the door on dissent without ever having to interact with it. With the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church—much like a frustrated parent—was effectively saying the Protestants were wrong because they said so. The decree of the Council made it clear that Protestants should cease their efforts of working within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and begin working outside of it.
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
For the first time in many centuries, the heretics seemed to be having the upper hand. For once their criticisms were justified and their ideas sensible. The Protestant Reformation had split Western Christianity into two while the popes could only sit and watch aghast.
It was time to do something about it. In 1545 the leaders of the Catholic Church met at Trent in Italy. Plans for a council had been brewing for over a decade; Pope Paul III had had to overcome considerable opposition to get things off the ground. The purpose of the council was to plan the reform of both doctrine and church practices in the light of the Reformers' criticisms. It was an immense task, and the sessions of the council lasted on and off for almost twenty years. The bold spirit in which the members embraced it was demonstrated by the fact that Protestant leaders were invited to attend the council—although they were not allowed to speak or play any part.
If these silent onlookers hoped for significant concessions from Rome that might lead to the reconciliation of Catholics and Protestants, they were disappointed. As far as doctrine went, the council saw its task as stating clearly the faith of the Catholic Church and budging not an inch in any direction. On the central doctrine of Lutheranism, the council decreed that faith is indeed necessary to salvation, but it is not sufficient. Salvation comes through works as well as through faith, as James 2:24 states. What of Romans 3:28, which seems to state that faith alone is necessary? The council answers that what this means is that faith is the starting point of salvation. We will not get anywhere if we do not have faith; but if that faith is not accompanied by good works it will be useless.
Equally significant was the declaration of the council that while Scripture is indeed authoritative in all matters, it can be reliably interpreted only by the Catholic Church. So tradition and the "magisterium" or teaching role of the church are equal in authority to the Bible. The council therefore condemned those who rejected as unscriptural the doctrines of purgatory and of transubstantiation, and it maintained that there are indeed seven sacraments, not two as the Reformers claimed.
Nevertheless, the council was prepared to admit that the Reformers' criticisms of church practices did have some merit. Efforts were made to ensure that all clergy were properly educated, and there was a clamping down on people's being bishops of several places at once, like Prince Albert of Brandenburg, who had sparked off Luther's protest in the first place. In general, abuses of church privileges were thoroughly cleaned up. But the council affirmed the importance of monasticism and refused to consider the possibility of married priests.
The decrees of the Council of Trent were finally ratified and promulgated by Pope Pius IV in 1564. The decrees of the council played a similar role in the later Reformation period to that of Nicaea in the later stages of the Arian conflict in the 4th century; it set a standard of faith and practice that defined the Roman Catholic position as opposed to its opponents. It was the centerpiece of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. In fact, Trent would become the standard of Roman Catholicism even in later times. All subsequent Catholic councils, including both Vatican councils, would present themselves as explaining its decrees, not adding to them, just as the councils of the Orthodox Church have been seen as footnotes to the Council of Nicaea.
[Excerpt from Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003), 206-207.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Iain H. Murray, "Foreword," John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion Doctrine and Doxology (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2008) xi.
No comments:
Post a Comment