G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Well, I’m not a Catholic, but I would distinguish three main reasons for the Reformation.
Was it justifiable? As a split within Christianity, no. Some of its ideas were valuable, but they should have been pursued within the framework of Catholicism. Luther’s teachings were not the Gospel, but only one wacky and interesting interpretation of the Gospel.
- A general movement toward “reform” loosely associated with the intellectual tradition of “humanism” (i.e., the study of ancient texts in order to promote eloquent speech and moral behavior in the present) and reacting against aspects of late medieval Catholicism that many folks saw as corrupt and/or “superstitious.” This movement privileged moral behavior and the study of Scripture over ritual and clerical authority, and it was part of a general cultural trend toward what Berndt Hamm has called the “concentration of norms”–i.e., focus on the basics and thus bring unity to the increasingly diverse and complex world of late medieval Christianity.
- Associated with the above, a push by civil governments to unify society by eliminating the dual structure of authority that characterized the Middle Ages. Marsilius of Padua, for instance, had argued in the 14th century that the Church should not own property or have any kind of coercive authority. Civil governments were seen by advocates of this position as the divinely authorized preservers of order and morality, with the Church having purely “spiritual” functions of teaching and sacramental celebration.
- A trend among some late medieval theologians toward a radical interpretation of St. Augustine stressing human sin and helplessness (part of a general cultural trend which Jean Delumeau has described as an era of guilt and fear). In the case of the idiosyncratic Augustinian theologian Martin Luther, this theology underwent a mutation into a theology of hope and confidence based on trust in the promise of God in Christ, as the only way to escape the burden of guilt consequent on radical human sinfulness. This theology linked up (not without some tensions and conflicts) with the previous two elements, since it provided an explanation for the widespread perception of corruption and superstition (the Church had degenerated into an institution by which humans sought to earn God’s favor), and gave spiritual legitimacy to the drive of civil governments toward unification of authority (by limiting the role of the Church to the proclamation of the Gospel through Word and Sacrament).
Edwin
Which is preferable:
- idolising a Church but keeping at united as a society
- breaking it up but preaching the Gospel
I think my are sympathies with the Reformers. If the Church is becomes an idol that can do no wrong, it is an enemy to the Gospel, & has losts its savour.