Reformation - Why?

A defense of why the Protestant Reformation came about and why it is important to the Reformed Faith today.

Author: Randy Pritts

The Protestant Reformation is a very important predecessor to the defense of the "Reformed" Christian persuasion. Though not called Reformed at the time, there were several Reformation participants that held beliefs and convictions very close to our own. In several parts of Europe after that the time (Switzerland/Belgium/Netherlands/Norway/Bohemia/Scotland/parts of England and France/etc..) Reformed could be considered the prevalent Protestant denomination. What then brought this split in the Church? How does this apply in this day and age and our current defense?

Two points I would like to make clear from the outset: 1. My observations and opinions are focused upon the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church specifically, not towards individual believing brothers and sisters in Christ. 2. The eventual split from the Roman Catholic Church was truly unfortunate. It is not something Protestants need to recant from or apologize for however; they were given no other conscionable option.

Introduction:

To best express the factors leading to the split caused by the Protestant Reformation, instead of starting with Wycliff or Huss or even the Luther95Thesis , I point you rather to the written response by the Roman Catholic Church the ComdemnationOfLuther1520 .

"For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world's glory, and contrary to the Apostle's teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed."

Notice here that their "distress and grief of mind" is not directed at their own abuses of power and political corruptions, no, rather it is focused on the character and evidences of their many accusers. Their behavior, not even fully addressed in the CouncilOfTrent several years later, is presented as exemplary and most pious and beyond reproach.

Next, you'll notice the soft sell praising Rome's ally Germany while in the same paragraph blaming Germany for not clamping down sooner, not penalizing or expelling the heretic rascals, relieving the Holy Church of this "disturbance" long before this.

"Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance. Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation no less learned than true and holy of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord's field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history."

Thus, in their own words is evidenced a concern of theirs, preceding Luther at least by a couple hundred years, that they had made multiple determinations against and had elicited state action against.

Now, when it comes to their refutation of the 95 Thesis specifically, they counter with 41 points regarding Indulgences and the Treasury of Merits they allegedly possess and the Purgatory that they believe necessitates all that. The argument essentially is that the Church does not have to answer for its abuses and corruptions, they are the successors of Peter, get back in your obedient hole else be expelled, striped of you worldly wealth, eternally damned. Nothing left to debate. No hope left to internally reform. All that was left was for Protestants to make a break.

Fortunately, several of the surrounding monarchs/potentates and Barons/Professors/Clergy had had enough with Rome too, were eager to make a break to protect and sponsor us as well.

"If, however, this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices, much to our regret, should stubbornly not comply with the mentioned stipulations within the mentioned period, we shall, following the teaching of the holy Apostle Paul, who teaches us to avoid a heretic after having admonished him for a first and a second time, condemn this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices as barren vines which are not in Christ, preaching an offensive doctrine contrary to the Christian faith and offend the divine majesty, to the damage and shame of the entire Christian Church, and diminish the keys of the Church as stubborn and public heretics."

In other words they thought if they made a stern enough of an example of Luther the various political/university/lower Church support Luther was enjoying would be cut off. It had the exact opposite effect. Instead it opened the flood gates of reformation.

The core theologies made clear.

There are two ways for us to come to an understanding of what the two divided parts of the religion are about. One way, the more common, is the atomistic method, isolating element by element to compare the two side by side. The second manner is to compare systemically, as one whole, determine what holds the whole all together, the irreducible determining principles without which the entirety would collapse. With the Protestant belief system that systemic is very familiar, the five solae (Scriptura - scripture, Christus - Christ, Gracia - grace, Justification by faith, Gloria - God's glory) alone. Take away one of those five pillars and the entire Protestant system folds.

With the Catholics that systemic method is harder to define. They are not at all vocal about it. The 16th century Protestants never got anywhere arguing from the atomistic item by item approach with the Roman Catholics, after all it is their tiny minded bible interpretations up against the magisterium authority of the parent Church. It is the systemic approach however that reveals to us where that superceeding authority is derived and how it plays out in all that they believe/incorperate/worship and practice. What are these irreducible pillars you ask?

1. The nature/grace interdependence.
2. The Christ/Church interconnection.

These two axioms are central to all Roman Catholic practices and beliefs.

In particular for this discussion, our focus presently should be placed on the 'Christ/Church interconnection' that amongst other things states that the Roman Catholic Church is the 'prolongation of the incarnation of Christ'. In other words they believe that Christ's physical human presence on earth is ongoing, given/embodied in Peter, with Peter's death it passed on to them. They are not merely representative ambassadors of Christ, they are the ongoing Christ presence on earth.

It is from this axiom that the Romanists extrapolated authority beyond that of scripture, correct even infallible interpretation, extra-biblical revelation and dogma, a whole host of doctrines and practices that leave the rest of Christianity's heads scratching. It is the implications of this axiom, I do believe, that we see that evolving out over the centuries corrupting the Church in the Middle Ages, that brings about calls for reform from many honest and sincere and devoted directions. It is this same foundational axiom that when called to account strikes out against the reformers seeking to it reform from within. The reaction we then see in their Counter-Reformation here and in the CouncilOfTrent that results from this is the 'do as we say or else' core foundation of their entire theology.

Indeed, the interconnection axiom puts the Church in between the believer and his/her Christ, creates a middle layer through which everything Grace related must be facilitated and processed. It becomes an additional intermediary to the intermediary between us and God. I suppose I would be more willing to see the logic of that if not for the tendency of all men (especially pious leaders) towards self deceit/hardening and corruption portrayed through the Testaments and all of human history.

If history be our guide as to the veracity of this 'prolongation' (or similar Augustinian 'Totus Christus') notion, when has the Church and or its many Vicars ever behaved or manifested anything similar to the incarnate presence on earth of Christ in all of Church history?

From where then is this extraordinary 'prolongation of the incarnation of Christ ' derived?

The nature/grace interdependence is a little more complicated to explain, but equally as important now to add in to the discussion. Nature is meaning all of God's creation. Grace is God's favor/benevolence on the unworthy/undeserving. Interdependence meaning God is dependent on nature to achieve HIS grace.

In order to make use of HIS grace, God employs natural things (water for baptism, blood for cleansing, oil for anointing, etc..) in the hands of HIS priests. These are essentially common items being blessed to perform higher spiritual (supernatural) things. Thus, in each of the seven Roman Catholic Sacraments we find the nature/grace interdependence being used to transfer God's unmerited supernatural benevolence, nature consecrated and sanctified and distributed by guess who - the Christ/Church interconnected priest (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion, Confession, Marriage, Holy Orders, and the Anointing of the Sick). In other words the earthly Church/Priest is God's vessel/instrument for absolution of original sin, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, ongoing sanctification, forgiveness and determination of suitable penance, consecrated marital union, anointing of leadership, anointing for the diseased and afflicted. Christ is the source no doubt, but through Apostolic lineage the Roman Catholic Church is that earthly means of bestowing HIS graces to the creature elevating him/her towards HIS supernatural ends.

Again, those that try hard to adhere to the bible have to ask from where does this nature/grace interdependence come from.

Now maybe, just maybe, a case for these two foundational axioms could biblically be made, but as seen by the responses offered in the CouncilOfTrent and continuing VaticanI+II Synods that is not the tact taken. The two axioms are assumed to be true because "we say so" and "it has always been thus interpreted" and "you are a scoundrel and heretic for thinking anything different". Granted, most founding protestants were born and bred Catholics just awakening to scripture and alternate interpretations and not inquiring of the leadership on the lines of such broad foundational systemics, questioning the smaller corrupted fruits of this theological tree instead. Perhaps now however, we see better how wise it was early on for them to have developed an arguable systematic of their own as a defensible base on which to make their stand on.

Reformation and Counter-reformation.

I will now point your attention to the text contained in the CouncilOfTrent

"THE BULL OF INDICTION OF THE SACRED OECUMENICAL AND GENERAL COUNCIL OF TRENT UNDER THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF, PAUL III

PAUL, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for the future memory hereof."

Pope Paul III is the first of what might be classified "The Reform Popes". Not reformed to the extent the protestants would have liked, but pro reform in a episcopal sense. Since the time of the Western Schism 1378-1417 when there were two even three popes at the same time (perhaps even before the split with the Eastern Church/leading up to that), there had been plenty of calls from within and without for Church reform; top down reforms. Other Councils and so called Pseudo-Councils had been attempted by many to restore the image and confidence of the Church in the eyes of its people and its various political/economic allies. Each effort was either squashed by the preceding popes else negotiated so weak and ineffective so as to not attain their mark. Many of the reforms contained in this Paul III's council finally addressed several of this structural and episcopal (bishops and up) problems.

"At the beginning of this our pontificate,--which, not for any merits of our own, but of its own great goodness, the providence of Almighty God hath committed unto us,--already perceiving unto what troubled times, and unto how many embarrassments in almost all our affairs, our pastoral solicitude and watchfulness were called; we would fain indeed have remedied the evils wherewith the Christian commonweal had been long afflicted, and well-nigh overwhelmed; but we too, as men compassed with infirmity, felt our strength unequal to take upon us so heavy a burthen."

Truth be known, the council had been interrupted several times, in fact Paul III did not live to see it completed. Paul IV considered the issue of reforms dead. Not until Pious IV, was the councils' work resurrected and completed. World events conspired against it. The once powerful image of the Church on the world stage had been tarnished severally, in large part having been taken over by its own abuse and corruptions. There had been a series, let's just say it, of bad Popes, strong handed and questionable diplomacy, lax and unresponsive bishoprics, simony (buying bishoprics) and investiture (placement of bishops by monarchists), poor spiritual training etc.., all a perfect breading ground for even more corruption and public contempt.

By the time of this Counter-Reformation, the time for reconciliation with the Protestant reformers had long passed, the Church had profusely bled out multitudes of Christian believers, plus political support from enough key princes/kings and civil potentates had been lost. All that was left was to tighten down the ship/seal the leaks/come out of this at least with the resemblance of proper order and renewed trustworthiness.

You'll notice that nothing in the way of dogma changes in the several positional decrees of Trent, it is simply strongly stated with several points of anathema attached. What changes are mainly quiet structural and liturgical reforms (increased seminary training, sanctioned lecturers, residency mandated in ones bishopric, etc..). Most of these episcopal changes are good steps for any organization to take that is suffering from a massive exodus and bad reputation. Trent proved to be a mostly effective step forward for the Romans, but not in returning any Protestants (as might be expected).

Finally, in consideration of all this prior information, I will now come to my general conclusions.

Why? From What?

At the very minimum, we should all be concerned with the tendency/inevitability of all men (especially pious men) toward corruption. Whether it be Protestant men or Catholic men, whether they be men living today, reformers/bishops/cardinals/popes or patristic early church fathers, caution and concern must at all times be given. Conversely the same is true in regards to our various private interpretations of Scripture. The Scripture's see are infallible... interpretations by man fallible. Where does that leave us?

Considering all of this preliminary information, let me now list my reasons for the Protestant Reformation to be defended.

1. As for the topic of reformation in general:

   • In the face of obvious and widespread abuse and corruption, reform is a not only a defensible position it is a mandate.
   • In the face of obvious and widespread abuse and corruption that has negative consequences on the Sacred name and reputation of Jesus Christ and His intended bride amongst the nations, reform is not only a defensible position, it is a mandate.
   • In the face of obvious and widespread abuse and corruption, where calls for internal reform are dismissed over and over, the few efforts to reform squashed/defered of ineffectively implimented, where threats of backlash and personal retaliation are made and strategically and with forethought executed, reform is not only a defensible position, it is a mandate.

2. As for the topic of the Protestant Reformation in particular:

   • The Protestant Reformation is best described as a confluence of multiple theological, political, nationalistic, humanist reactions against the abuse and corruption of the Roman Catholic Church; some defensible; some probably not.
   • Had the episcopal and liturgical reforms of Trent been performed anytime prior to Luther the time of this confluence for reformation would not have been as ripe.
   • Had the Church not been so intensely focused on geopolitical power it would not have been as badly perceived and corrupted.
   • Had the response with Luther not been so heavy handed and mismanaged the pressure for immediate reformation might have been lifted.

3. As for the topic of the theology that grew out of the Protestant Reformation:

   • The issue with Roman Catholic theology wasn't so much that there weren't scriptures available to show the start of particular doctrine or practice, the problem more often is how far from the seed scripture the doctrine or practice ends up. It is perhaps the imposing of a predetermined notion on a scripture making it say what it may not actually say to force the underlying systemic axiom.
   • The issues increase where a particular doctrine/practice is not fully supported by the scripture alone but is largely dependent on some secret handed down apostolic (alleged) knowledge or partial mention of it by perhaps a few patristic fathers or tradition. Concern is especially indicated where said doctrine or practice unintentionally has opened the door to possible human abuses and corruptions.
   • It is proper to question the axioms of the "prolongation of the incarnation of Christ" and "Christ/Church interconnection" when they appear on multiple fronts to dilute/interfere or replace the work of both Jesus and or the Holy Spirit. It is almost that they want to attach a revised type of old priestly Levitical order to front end of the order of Melchizedek Jesus the High Priest represents.
   • There are more concerns in this theological regard that the extra time and details in this writing will not allow me to express. The point is that these immediate listed concerns are valid and require serious address.

Conclusions:

Did the reforming protestants get everything right? Of course not. In certain respects, from the final schism on, it was much like the reformers starting to build back from ground level, including a theological base and supportive political structure. It is amazing that there wasn't more sweeping division and chaos and destruction than encountered/exhibited. Nor did the counter-reformation seeking to extinguish it cease to continue. Protestantism is a big wide umbrella containing a multitude of identities and opinions.

This is not to say that the effort then or now is ultimately wrong or misdirected. It is to say that the "Bride of Christ" for the time being has been opened up to experimentalism, a freer flow of ideas and interpretations of religious life under the checks and balances (hopefully) of Scripture. Yes, there is a danger in that. Also too, there is a personal/corporate responsibility along with that. If not for this, however (all risks considered), if it were not for the continuing case for reformation, we would be back to ground zero where the corrupted Church instead of Christ Jesus lords over us.

EDIT:COMPLETE

Comment Board: ReformationWhy Tags: Christianity, Protestant, Reformation, Reformed, Solas, History,

Further Resources:

Child Threads: ReformedWhy WhyCalvinism