There was a wide diversity of theological beliefs among professing Christians between the time of the apostles and the Reformation. That diversity included widespread acceptance of doctrines contrary to what's believed by both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Even in the last years leading up to the Reformation and in the earliest years after its start, there was significant sympathy for Protestant beliefs in Roman Catholic circles. People who believed in doctrines like the papacy and transubstantiation would affirm justification through faith alone as well, for example. That sort of diversity is reflected even in the Roman Catholic leaders who attended the Council of Trent. See, for instance, here; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle Of Roman Catholicism (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1959); Marvin Anderson, The Battle For The Gospel (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1978); H. George Anderson, et al., edd., Justification By Faith (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985). Here, for example, are some of the many illustrations one comes across while reading through David Daniell's biography of William Tyndale:
"Many [Christians in London], and probably most, were aware of some loosening of traditional belief in the ways of the Church, and conscious of new ideas coming in quickly from Germany. There was no doubt a confused feeling there might be no harm in subscribing to both beliefs, in the absolute Church and in Luther's sola fides. Evidence from wills may support this....He [Thomas Bilney] had studied Erasmus's Novum instrumentum, and in the Latin version there he had found for himself Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, with profound effect....Like Luther, Bilney found that this inward experience went with an understanding of the pointlessness of a religion based only on outward observances. Yet his deviations were few and slight: he held the orthodox [Roman Catholic] position on the central doctrines of papal supremacy and the authority of the Church, on transubstantiation and confession. He wanted reform from the inside, and like Erasmus he felt free to attack the worship of images and saints....The heresy of the Cambridge men did not include rejecting the Pope's authority, or sacramental issues: they denounced prayers to saints and affirmed, from reading the New Testament, justification by faith alone....In March 1518 Erasmus had sent More a copy of Luther's Ninety-five Theses, with a jocular letter including the anti-papal games, and witty satirical diatribes against abuses within the Church, which both of them loved to make. Luther was thought of then as a powerful speaker and writer, a great scholar, even in all his contradictions, a great man, but no more, it was imagined, than a new version of a familiar old character, the charismatic prophet, this time with real learning. Thomas More, as Erasmus hinted in a letter to Luther of 30 May 1519, was probably one of the 'great men' in England 'who think the best of your writing', and More himself in his 'Letter to a Monk' of 1519 saw Luther not as a heretic but simply as an extreme Augustinian. Events in Germany steadily darkened the sky" (William Tyndale: A Biography [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001], pp. 106-107, 177, 180, 254)
Jason-
ReplyDeleteIf you get a chance, try and track down a copy of David Bagchi's book, Luther's Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists 1518-1525 Minneapolis: fortress Press, 1991) (assuming you don't already have it).
Bagchi has sifted through a great bulk of early 16th Century Catholic apologetics, devoting the entire volume to their argumentation against Luther, rather than Luther's argumentation against them.
Some of the facts are amazing- like his evaluation of the first 4 major written responses to the 95 Theses. Bagchi notes 3 of the authors were Domincans. One would assume they would have unity in their responses- but Bagchi notes they all differed consistently and dramatically, with four different sets of conclusions.
This is just a teaser- there are more examples like this. The book does an excellent job highlighting that indeed, even those responding to Luther struggled to be unified against him.
Out of all the books I have devoted to Reformation studies, this one is my top 10 list. I plan on highlighting some of his research in future blog entries.
Blessings to you!
JS
James,
ReplyDeleteI haven't read that book. It looks like a good one. Thanks for the recommendation.
Dominican monks disagreed on how best to answer Luther? So what?
ReplyDeleteIf any denomination grow large enough and gains enough scholars who have read widely, you'll find them discussing matters from a wider range of interpretations. Catholics today have everything from liberals to ultra-conservatives. There's even some Catholic geocentrists and creationists.
Or take Protestantism. C.S. Lewis's opinion of Genesis and Jonah are on par with them being myths. While Josh McDowell argues they are history.
Triabloguers are I assume all conservative Calvinists, and you formed your blog as a consequence of holding similar opinions, interpretations of Scripture, science, history, etc. But if you visit other Christian blogs and forums with far more members like Christian Forums, or, Catholic Answers, the latter of which has had up to 2 million members online at once, many members visiting from a variety of Christianities other than merely Catholicism, you'll find different opinions and arguments, covering everything from the interpretation of Genesis to the interpretation of Revelation.
Ed Babinksi wrote:
ReplyDelete"Dominican monks disagreed on how best to answer Luther? So what? If any denomination grow large enough and gains enough scholars who have read widely, you'll find them discussing matters from a wider range of interpretations."
You don't seem to make much of an effort to discern the context and meaning of a post before you reply to it.
Roman Catholics make claims about church history, such as the history of their beliefs. James Swan and I were addressing some common Catholic claims about pre-Reformation history, the history of some Protestant beliefs, and what happened during the Reformation, for example. Telling us that denominations tend to become more disunited as they grow doesn't justify the sort of Catholic claims about church history that we were addressing. The general tendency for denominations to become more disunited as they grow doesn't address the specific claims, including historical claims, made by members of a specific denomination that we're discussing.
Greetings! Saw your post in Gogle Blogsearch and came to read. I read the cuurent post and the earlier one linked.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the word "doctrine" is being used too frequently, paticularly when it's use seems undefined and can mean almost anything among the two posts. Poorly defined terms seem to predominate in any comparison of Catholicism with Protestantism.
Yes, "There was a wide diversity of theological beliefs among professing Christians between the time of the apostles and the Reformation." Heresies were rife. Good Christians like Jerome rose up to defend the truth, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary.
While "Roman Catholic leaders who attended the Council of Trent" may have varied in their individual beliefs, collectively the Church was united in defining dogma and teaching that dogma. Catholic dogma was also uniform among all the Catholic Churches and not just the Church at Rome.
Its always interesting to read discussions regarding "Roman Catholicism" which ignore the greater universal Church. The dogmas of the Catholic Church are the one and same dogmas of the Church at Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc. The only distinction is that among all the Catholic Churches, only the Church at Rome alone has never ever taught heresy. Not once.
The fact that particular Catholics may not have understood the Epistle of James and came to hold the heresy of "justification through faith alone" is a poor foundation on which to rest Reformation history. The indisputable fact is that those truths which trace back from the Reformation to the Apostles are the one and same truths held by Catholics, all Catholics, not just the Roman Church. Those things hald and taught by Reformation Protestants which have no provenance among the Catholic Churches are by and large errors (heresies to be more precise).
Luther lacked the charisma of infallibility and unfortunately got many thngs wrong. Unfortunately, those errors still persist to this day and age.
I encourage you good folks and readers of Triblogue to always sek the truth, even if it turns out to be an inconvenient truth.
God bless... +Timothy
Timothy wrote:
ReplyDelete"Poorly defined terms seem to predominate in any comparison of Catholicism with Protestantism."
You then go on to fail to define your own terms, and you make a lot of undocumented assertions about church history. In the post I linked to above, which you claim to have read, I document the early absence and widespread contradiction of many Roman Catholic beliefs. I've also documented that some Catholic beliefs were disputed in Catholic circles even up to and during the time of the Reformation. Why don't you address the specifics of what I've documented instead of making vague references to how "Catholic dogma was also uniform among all the Catholic Churches", "those truths which trace back from the Reformation to the Apostles are the one and same truths held by Catholics, all Catholics, not just the Roman Church", etc.? Whether a belief like the perpetual virginity of Mary or prayers to the deceased is an apostolic doctrine is one of the issues under dispute. You can't just assert that a belief is apostolic, without any supporting argumentation, if the alleged apostolicity of that belief is an issue of disagreement. If, on the other hand, you're only referring to beliefs that Catholics and Protestants hold in common, then so what? How would arguing for such beliefs counter my argument against Roman Catholicism? You need to be more specific and offer documentation for your disputed claims.