Catholic Reform vs Protestant Reform

CMR ^ | June 29, 2010 | Taylor Marshall

[NYer]

Taylor Marshall, a Catholic convert, is one of our favorite bloggers. We've asked him to write a few guest posts for us this month and he kindly agreed. He's a lot smarter than us so be prepared for some high falutin poly syllabic words. And check out his blog as well.

A Protestant reader of Canterbury Tales recently asked why Catholics believe that tolerating heresy is "noble," and also wondered why the Catholic Church condemned the Protestant Reformers who sought to bring about reform. The reader writes:

So heretical teaching within the Catholic Church should be kept unchecked because that would more noble? Or does that only apply to Protestants?

At root, this question seeks to draw out the difference between "Protestant Reform" and "Catholic Reform." This is a good question and worthy of a lengthy response. Here's my meager attempt at it:

Dear Clamence,

We cannot fight heresy by creating new heresies. For example, in many regards the Monophysite heresy (i.e. "Christ has one nature") was an over-reaction to the Nestorian heresy (i.e. "Christ is two persons"). The Catholic Church has always sought to aim directly at the truth, and not merely at the destruction of error. Too often the refutation of error crosses over into further error.

Similarly, Luther and Calvin sought to displace misunderstandings about grace and merit (i.e. the faulty nominalism spawned by William of Ockham) by creating an alternate vision of grace and merit (which ironically embraced Ockham's nominalism and repackaged it). Luther's "solution" was in fact heretical. A quick fix is often faulty. Duct tape can "fix" almost anything - but it eventually gives way to other problems.

The annals of Church history are filled with Catholic Reformers: Paul, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Maximus, John Damascene, Pope Gregory VII, Francis, Dominic, Catherine of Sienna, Ignatius, Teresa of Avila, et al. Each of these Catholic Reformers retained the unity of Christ's Church, submitted to church leadership, and patiently brought about renewal. In many cases, each experienced active persecution from other Christians and even fell under the suspicion of heresy. However, their humility and silence eventually vindicated their cause as advocates for the evangelical truth of Christ's doctrine.

Saint Francis of Assisi is perhaps one of the best examples of patience in the cause of reform. When St Francis went to Rome to seek recognition from the Pope, the Pope dismissed him impatiently and told him to go "lie down with the pigs."

After a little while, Francis returned smeared with swine feces and stinking to high heaven. When the Pope objected, Francis answered, "I obeyed your words and merely did as you said. I lay down with the pigs." Suddenly the Pope realized that this was a holy man who was willing to obey even in the face of humiliation. The Pope listened to Francis' vision for renewal and the rest is history.

When rebuffed by the pope, Saint Francis could have appealed to Sacred Scripture, showing this his pattern of life was poor and lowly like that of Christ. He might even have contrasted his own "biblical life" against the extravagance of the Papal court. Francis may even have rightly rebuked the abbots, bishops, and cardinals for lacking evangelical witness. Instead, Francis followed the path of Christ. He allowed himself to be misunderstood and maligned, knowing that God would bring about his vindication...and God always does.

Contrast Saint Francis to Martin Luther. Luther did not visit Rome for confirmation of his cause, nor did he respect the structures of the Church. In fact, Cardinal Cajetan met privately with Luther and explained how Luther might modify his message so that Cajetan could have it approved by the Roman Curia. If Luther had moved more slowly and charitably, he may have become "Saint" Martin Luther.

Unfortunately, Luther was adamant and stiff-necked. He would not attempt compromise. If the Pope would not agree with him, then he would reject the papacy. Period. Luther would not tolerate any authority that failed to support him immediately and without question. Consequently, when the papal bull arrived, Luther burned it publicly and began to curse the pope as Antichrist.


Note the difference between Francis and Luther. The former moved slowly and humbly. The latter acted independently and rashly. Consequently, the history of Protestantism is marked by rash and hasty division - there are now 36,000 Protestant denominations.

As the Apostle James wrote: "the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God" (Jas 1:20). History shows that God does not use "hot-heads" to guide His Church into righteousness. God chooses those who are little, meek, and humble - for such is the kingdom of Heaven.

Herein lies the mystery of Catholic Reform.

[NYer]

Ping!

[PetroniusMaximus]

“Each of these Catholic Reformers retained the unity of Christ’s Church, submitted to church leadership, and patiently brought about renewal”

Hypothetical: Would it be possible for the Roman Catholic Church to reach such a level of corruption that it was cut off or discarded by God?

[NYer]

Would it be possible for the Roman Catholic Church to reach such a level of corruption that it was cut off or discarded by God?

No. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).

[arthurus]

Following your wording-No. Is there a level that would bring such action by God? Surely, but the Church cannot reach that level. The historical upwelling of reform from within is the what maintains the Church. God is working with fallible humans whom he has endowed with free will. He does not cut them off for small deviations or reparable corruption which is inevitably repaired.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“No. The Church is Christ’s bride”

No, that is not correct. The Gentile church can be “cut off” if they doesn’t stand fast - just like Israel was...

“Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”

-Rom 11

“Otherwise you too will be cut off.”

[PetroniusMaximus]

ping to #6

[Sergio]

Bookmark.

[SoothingDave]

Upon this rock...the gates of hell shall not prevail, etc.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Hypothetical: Would it be possible for the Roman Catholic Church to reach such a level of corruption that it was cut off or discarded by God?”

No. The Church comes from God. The Church is never corrupt - people in it often are, however.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“No, that is not correct. The Gentile church can be “cut off” if they doesn’t stand fast - just like Israel was...”

This is not the “Gentile church”. It is simply the Church. There are no gentiles or Jews in the Church - there are only Christians. And the Church cannot be cut off from God because it is from Christ.

[Tao Yin]

Luther would not tolerate any authority that failed to support him immediately and without question.

Really? That's a bit hyperbolic. At the Diet of Worms, he said, "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (..), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."

Martin Luther was a flawed man, as are we all. All of the characters in this story are from a time long ago. But to condemn Luther because he didn't wallow in pig sh## while absolving his supposed betters of their arrogance is plain silly.

Stating that Martin Luther burned the Papal bull, while ignoring that Martin Luther's works were burned first. I'm not saying that Martin Luther was justified in burning the bull, just noting the double standard. Arrogance in the Catholic Church is accepted, expected, and justified.

Stating that Martin Luther was arrogant, while ignoring the fact that those at the Diet of Worms treated Martin Luther as a deviant child, ignored any attempt at reason, and gave anyone the legal right to kill Martin Luther without recourse.

My main problem with this whole article is the same as my problem with the Catholic Church. People at the top can be arrogant (even when they're wrong), but people on the bottom are to be subservient. The Catholic Church stinks of man's desire to have power over other men. It stinks of abuse of power. It stinks of the attitude that lower men should know their place.

The point of this article seems to be that reformers in the Catholic Church should tread carefully because those higher up in the church are arrogant and have a right to demand blind devotion without question or thought. I saw no regret or complaint about the structure of the Catholic Church, just an acceptance of elitism. Maybe that's why people kiss the pope's ring while he sits on an earthy throne: it makes sense them in their world view.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Stating that Martin Luther was arrogant, while ignoring the fact that those at the Diet of Worms treated Martin Luther as a deviant child, ignored any attempt at reason, and gave anyone the legal right to kill Martin Luther without recourse.”

NYer is more than capable of responding to you on all of your points, but I hope you don’t mind if I make a point here. You seem to be equating Luther with the Church. Luther had NO AUTHORITY. The Church had AUTHORITY from Christ. In other words, Luther was acting like a deviant child defiantly insisting he was right and his parents were wrong. Also, the idea that only Luther was reasonable and the whole Church or even the whole Diet of Worms was unreasonable is simply ridiculous. Luther’s whole life was marked by rash decisions and actions. The Diet of Worms was anything but rash or unreasonable.

Also, I think you might be making a mistake about what “outlaw” means. The actual decree read like this:

“For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favor the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.”

The concept of “outlaw” that you are describing is what was believed to be found in medieval English common law. I don’t believe it existed in imperial law in the Holy Roman Empire. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

[PetroniusMaximus]

Tell it to Paul.

He spells it out pretty clearly.

[PetroniusMaximus]

Pint to Post 6

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Tell it to Paul.”

He already knows.

“He spells it out pretty clearly.”

Yep:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28.

I agree with St. Paul.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“I agree with St. Paul.”

“Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”

-Rom 11

[the invisib1e hand]

Protestants didn’t “reform,” they rebelled, or revolted.

[annalex]

I would add that, perhaps, at best, the term “reform” can loosely apply to Luther in his earlier years. A reformer, however, would not call the Pope anti-Christ or desecrate monasteries. These were acts of someone who lost his faith and not a reformer.

What went on from then on in Protestantism had nothing to do with reform altogether.

[annalex]

Right. I should have read down to your post before posting mine.