Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

[Gamecock]

Full Title: Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

In the field of Reformation studies, Professor Brad Gregory is somebody for whom I have immense respect.  Those outside the discipline of history are possibly unaware of the ravages which postmodernism brought in its wake, making all narratives negotiable and fuelling a rise in interest in all manner of trivia and marginal weirdness.  Dr. Gregory is trained in both philosophy and history and has done much to place the self-understanding of human agents back at the centre of historical analysis.  Thus, for those of us interested in the Reformation, he has also played an important role in placing religion back into the discussion.  For that, I and many others owe him a great debt of gratitude.

I therefore find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of writing a very critical review of his latest book, The Unintended Reformation (Belknap Harvard, 2011). The book itself is undoubtedly well-written and deeply learned, with nearly a third of the text devoted to endnotes.  It is brilliant in its scope and execution, addressing issues of philosophy, politics and economics.  Anyone wanting a panoramic view of the individuals, the institutions and the forces which shaped early modern Europe should read this work. Yet for all of its brilliance, the book does not demonstrate its central thesis, that Protestantism must shoulder most of the responsibility for the various things which Dr. Gregory dislikes about modern Western society, from its exaltation of the scientific paradigm to its consumerism to its secular view of knowledge and even to global warming. I am sympathetic with many of Dr. Gregory's gripes about the world of today; but in naming Protestantism as the primary culprit he engages in a rather arbitrary blame game.

Dr. Gregory's book contains arguments about both metaphysics and what we might call empirical social realities. On the grounds that debates about metaphysics, like games of chess, can be great fun for the participants but less than thrilling for the spectators, I will post my thoughts on that aspect of the book in a separate blog entry. In this article, I will focus on the Papacy, persecution and the role of the printing press.  This piece is more of a medieval jousting tournament than a chess game and will, I trust, provide the audience with better spectator sport.

One final preliminary comment: I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific. In what follows, however, I am deliberately combative.  This is not because I wish to show disrespect to Dr. Gregory or to his Church or to his beliefs; but he has set the tone by writing a very combative book. I like that. I like writers who believe and care about the big questions of life. But here is the rub: those who write in such a way must allow those who respond to them to believe with equal passion in their chosen cause and to care about it deeply and thus to be equally combative in their rejoinders.

A key part of the book's argument is the apparent anarchy created by the Protestant emphasis on the perspicuity of scripture. In this, Dr. Gregory stands with his Notre Dame colleague, Christian Smith, as seeing this as perhaps the single weakest point of Protestantism. He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation). This creates a very diverse and indeed chaotic picture of Protestantism such that no unifying doctrinal synthesis is possible as a means of categorizing the whole.  

I wonder if I am alone in finding the more stridently confident comments of some Roman Catholics over the issue of perspicuity to be somewhat tiresome and rather overblown. Perspicuity was, after all, a response to a position that had proved to be a failure: the Papacy.  Thus, to criticize it while proposing nothing better than a return to that which had proved so inadequate is scarcely a compelling argument.

Yes, it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method.  The ability to ignore or simply dismiss as irrelevant the empirical facts of papal history is quite an impressive feat of historical and theological selectivity. Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries. 

Never mind.  Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say  - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams. 

Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI.  Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.  

Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority.  After all, it was so long ago and so far away.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.  

Forget it.  Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.  

Perhaps it is somewhat aggressive to pose these points in such a blunt form. Again, I intend no disrespect but am simply responding with the same forthrightness with which certain writers speak of Protestantism. The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity.  These are all empirical facts and they are all routinely excused, dismissed or simply ignored by Roman Catholic writers. Perspicuity was not the original problem; it was intended as the answer.   One can believe it to be an incorrect, incoherent, inadequate answer; but then one must come up with something better - not simply act as if shouting the original problem louder will make everything all right. Such an approach to history and theology is what I call the Emerald City protocol: when defending the great and powerful Oz, one must simply pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.  

Given the above empirical facts, the medieval Papacy surely has chronological priority over any of the alleged shortcomings of scriptural perspicuity in the history of abject ecclesiastical and theological disasters. To be fair, Dr. Gregory does acknowledge that 'medieval Christendom' was a failure (p. 365) but in choosing such a term he sidesteps the significance of the events of the late medieval period for papal authority. The failure of medieval Christendom was the failure of the Papacy. To say medieval Christendom failed but then to allow such a statement no real ecclesiastical significance is merely an act of throat-clearing before going after the people, the Protestants, who frankly are in the crosshairs simply because it appears one finds them and their sects distasteful. Again, to be fair, one cannot blame Roman Catholics for disliking Protestants: our very existence bears testimony to Roman Catholicism's failure. But that Roman Catholics who know their history apparently believe the Papacy now works just fine seems as arbitrary and selective a theological and historical move as any confessionally driven restriction of what is and is not legitimate Protestantism.  

As Dr. Gregory brings his narrative up to the present, I will do the same. There are things which can be conveniently ignored by North American Roman Catholic intellectuals because they take place in distant lands. Yet many of these are emblematic of contemporary Roman Catholicism in the wider world. Such, for example, are the bits of the real cross and vials of Jesus' blood which continue to be displayed in certain churches, the cult of Padre Pio and the relics of Anthony of Padua and the like (both of whom edged out Jesus and the Virgin Mary in a poll as to who was the most prayed to figure in Italian Catholicism). We Protestants may appear hopelessly confused to the latest generation of North American Roman Catholic polemicists, but at least my own little group of Presbyterian schismatics does not promote the veneration of mountebank stigmatics or the virtues of snake-oil.

Still, for the sake of argument let us accept the fideistic notion that the events of the later Middle Ages do not shatter the theology underlying the Papacy.  What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid.  The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching. Such a Church is as chaotic and anarchic as anything Protestantism has thrown up. 

Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture, then it seems reasonable to insist in response that discussions of Roman Catholicism include not simply the Newmans, Ratzingers and Wotjylas but also the Kungs, Rahners, Schillebeeckxs and the journalists at the National Catholic Reporter.  And why stop there?  We should also throw in the sedevacantists and Lefebvrists for good measure.  They all claim to be good Roman Catholics and find their unity around the Office of the Pope, after all. Let us not exclude them on the dubious grounds that they do not support our own preconceived conclusions of how papal authority should work.  At least Protestantism has the integrity to wear its chaotic divisions on its sleeve.

Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions. Certainly, the bloodshed along confessional lines in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was terrible, but doctrinal disagreements did not begin with the Reformation. The New Testament makes it clear that serious doctrinal conflict existed within the church even during apostolic times (I hope I am allowed, for the sake of argument, to assume that the New Testament is perspicuous enough for me to state that with a degree of confidence); and the link between church and state which provided the context for bloodshed over matters of theological deviancy was established from at least the time of Priscillian in the late fourth century. It was hardly a Protestant or even a Reformation innovation.

When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages. No doubt the Spanish Jews and Muslims, the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites and many other religious deviants living before the establishment of any Protestant state might have wished that their sufferings had received a more substantial role in the narrative and more significance in the general thesis. Sure, Protestantism broke the Roman Catholic monopoly on persecution and thus played a shameful and ignominious part in its escalation; but it did not establish the precedents, legally, culturally or practically.

Finally, the great lacuna in this book is the printing press. Dr. Gregory has, as I noted above, done brilliant work in putting self-understanding back on the historical agenda and thus of grounding the history of ideas in historical realities rather than metaphysical abstractions. The danger with this, however, is that material factors can come to be somewhat neglected. His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print. The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion. I suspect there is a very plausible alternative, or at least supplementary, narrative to the 'Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge' thesis: the printing press did it because it made impossible the Church's control of the nature, range, flow and availability of knowledge.

Ironically, the printing press is one of the great success stories of pre-Reformation Catholic Europe. One might argue that it was a technological innovation and thus not particularly 'Catholic' in that sense. That is true; but for some years after it was invented it was unclear whether it would be successful enough to replace medieval book production. In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans. In other words, it was the vibrancy of late medieval Catholic piety, of which Dr. Gregory makes much, that ensured the future of the printing press and thereby the shipwrecking of the old, stable forms of knowledge.

The Roman Catholic Church knew the danger presented by the easy transmission of, and access to, knowledge which the printing press provided. That is why it was so assiduous in burning books in the sixteenth century and why the Index of Prohibited Books remained in place until the 1960s. I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought. Women in Britain had the vote, Elvis (in my humble opinion) had already done his best work and The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were starting to churn out hits before Roman Catholics were free to read David Hume without specific permission from the Church.   

Of course, Dr. Gregory knows about the Index; but he seems to see it as a response to Protestantism, not as an extension of the Church's typical manner of handling deviation from its central tenets and practices which stretched back well before the Reformation. And therein lies the ironic, tragic, perplexing flaw of this brilliant and learned book: Dr. Gregory sets out to prove that Protestantism is the source of all, or at least many, of the modern world's ills; but what he actually does is demonstrate in painstaking and compelling detail that medieval Catholicism and the Papacy with which it was inextricably bound up were ultimately inadequate to the task which they set - which they claimed! - for themselves.  Reformation Protestantism, if I can use the singular, was one response to this failure, as conciliarism had been a hundred years before.  One can dispute the adequacy of such responses; but only by an act of historical denial can one dispute the fact that it was the Papacy which failed.

Thanks to the death of medieval Christendom and to the havoc caused by the Reformation and beyond, Dr Gregory is today free to believe (or not) that Protestantism is an utter failure.  Thanks to the printing press, he is also free to express this in a public form. Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.

[BlueDragon]

that is not Rome that is what I have heard from Protestants!

You mean like the straw-man, alleged (technically hearsay) quotes from *some* Protestant, you gave as intro to the giganto copy/past list you brought in #380, which as you then further say;

"...if you do not care enough to exam properly... DO YOU REALLY THINK GOD FORGIVES YOU???

which strongly suggests that scarcely any live up to, including yourself?

A few items have already been highlighted for you, with the question posed by Elsie -- "do you really want to go there?" --with those items showing themselves to be quite likely needing some further attention on your own part --- just going by what we have all been witnessing (if paying close enough attention) on just as seen acted out (by yourself) on FR alone.

I'm not perfect --- but I do rely upon the Lord, His own Spirit within me, to show me where it is that I'm sinning -- and for Him to convict me of that. Occasionally,He can use people too, to bring things to my attention.

I did notice on possible error (there could be more) in my own previous communication with you --- for you seemed to include the part about your wife and daughters "being slighted" was just a joke you included? Like -- it was a joke all along, just a little funny comic relief amid the more serious? If so -- hey, I do the same sort of thing, mixing the two, with it being more difficult to convey clues as to "this is humor" then a "this is not" in textual fashion, than in person. So-- sorry I missed it (if I did from the beginning).

Even then, turning back to how we may realize our own being forgiven, even by God, I am forgiven already.

A blanket pardon. Yet if the conscience not examined, and the conviction not come (conviction -- not to be confused with condemnation -- this is a very important difference) then I would hardly be able, by effort of my own conscience examining itself, to find the truth of the matter as to those things found even within my own heart, the human heart being wicked beyond all things -- who can know it? ---as it is written Jeremiah 17:9

[PeterPrinciple]

The point is that if one believes in fairy tales, other than the true scriptures that God wrote to us, the odds are very high that they will be believing the false Christ that is sent here first claiming to be Christ.

---

As the Bible says, a lot of people are going to be surprised..........................

And the hard part is understanding that God is in control of that.

[Karl Spooner]

And the hard part is understanding that God is in control of that.

Each person decides for themselves whether they believe in fact or fiction. Don't make it sound like they don't have control over themselves in what to believe.

[daniel1212]

If that be the case, then Gregory the Great who was depicted as taking dictation, should be looked into more deeply than those apologist whom employ ellipses to get around Gregory ...writing in paragraph after paragraph just how wrong the very idea of that sort of one bishop over ALL others was..

Quite the picture:

[goodwithagun]

I teach high school English. Sentences aren’t “defined.” Sentences, within the context of an entire work, are interpreted. Interpretations take into account many aspects; i.e., author background, historical circumstances, psychology, etc. Perhaps that’s where you’re having problems. You should have gone to Catholic school, because the nuns would have taught those literary concepts better than your teachers apparently taught them. The phrase you posted is not a prayer. Yes, it does state Mary twice (you can count!), but stating somebody’s name does not a prayer make. In fact, I’ve said two prayers for you today and didn’t mention Mary once!

[Karl Spooner]

In fact, I’ve said two prayers for you today and didn’t mention Mary once!

You are making good progress! If I may so.

[Karl Spooner]

If I may say so. Brain works, fingers don’t.

[goodwithagun]

Your Bible must come with a condescension insert. The Bibles in the Baptist church I grew up in came with those. I never actually saw the inserts, but they must have been there. The parishioners always used them when they saw somebody responsibly sipping an alcoholic beverage or witnessed a married man and a married woman (not to each other) engaging in innocent, friendly conversation.

[Karl Spooner]

Just forget all of that and study the bible. No PC stuff or feel sorry for me junk. Eternity awaits you, if you can cut it.

[annalex]

So you are arguing that the copyist...

Copyists probably not, and I did not mention them. I think my post is sufficiently clear as it is written. If you have a serious question I'll be glad to answer.

[annalex]

In 211 it is clear that Salvation is speaking of the Vulgate as the original to Douay, which renders Luke 1:28 correctly; She is referring to Douay as the "original English translation", so clearly the post made no claim about Latin being the language in which St. Luke wrote. It helps, if you are going to post opinions to acquaint yourself with the nature of the controversy and the text of the relevant posts before opining.

Moreover, when her post was apparently misunderstood, she clarified:

The Vulgate was Latin translated by St. Jerome

226

Where does the [Roman] Catholic church teach that Gregory "wrote as the Holy Spirit dictated to him"?

Nowhere: I was pointing out the detail of the image I posted. Art has its own language and is there to educate, in this case, about the inspired nature of Pope Gregory's work. St. Gregory the Great is a doctor of the Church and like any definitive teaching of the Church it is inspired without, of course, being canonical scripture.

annalex (yet another "internet babbler"?)

I post, -- on Religion Forum that is, -- the teaching of the Catholic Church as I understand it, and generally, I do. If I post something that does not conform with the Catholic teaching, I ask fellow Catholics to point my error and I will stand corrected. That is the difference between Protestants posting their thoughts and ideas, typically quite heretical and without authority other than inside their own heads.

[goodwithagun]

I just received news that the father of a dear friend has passed away. He was young, and it was sudden and completely unexpected. I have more things to deal with now than an online quarrel. I will pray for you as I've said I will pray for Elsie.

[boatbums]

And kittehs ain’t any easier! ;o)

[LurkingSince'98]

Hi Cephas,

you may not care what this Catholic thinks or what a Catholic Saint wrote about the very subject you brought up.

My wife and I try hard to be faithful Catholics and work hard at it and have a good understanding of the consequences.

We sometimes chuckle when we hear protestants and other Catholics complain about how tough their faith is when they have only one or two children (”be fruitful and multiply”) believe in a “prosperity theology” (”passing through the eye of a needle”) and on the Lord’s Day go somewhere “to fellowship” (don’t you love it when they make a verb out of a noun?)

Why have tried very hard for years and have grown much closer to the Lord and then we read this: “The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved” by St. Leonard of Port Maurice the full text is here: http://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml

It was like having a bucket of ice water thrown in our faces. The following few quotes from the beginning of the sermon are just a warmup:

“Did all those who followed Christ follow Him even unto glory?....The point of this instruction is to decide whether the number of Christians who are saved is greater or less than the number of Christians who are damned; it will, I hope, produce in you a salutary fear of the judgments of God.”

“Brothers, because of the love I have for you, I wish I were able to reassure you with the prospect of eternal happiness by saying to each of you: You are certain to go to paradise; the greater number of Christians is saved, so you also will be saved. But how can I give you this sweet assurance if you revolt against God’s decrees as though you were your own worst enemies? I observe in God a sincere desire to save you, but I find in you a decided inclination to be damned. So what will I be doing today if I speak clearly? I will be displeasing to you. But if I do not speak, I will be displeasing to God.”

“....You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, “Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom.” Saint Anselm declares, “There are few who are saved.” Saint Augustine states even more clearly, “Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned.” The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: “Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence.”

“....Look in to the Old and New Testaments, and you will find a multitude of figures, symbols and words that clearly point out this truth: very few are saved. In the time of Noah, the entire human race was submerged by the Deluge, and only eight people were saved in the Ark. Saint Peter says, “This ark was the figure of the Church,” while Saint Augustine adds, “And these eight people who were saved signify that very few Christians are saved, because there are very few who sincerely renounce the world, and those who renounce it only in words do not belong to the mystery represented by that ark.” The Bible also tells us that only two Hebrews out of two million entered the Promised Land after going out of Egypt, and that only four escaped the fire of Sodom and the other burning cities that perished with it. All of this means that the number of the damned who will be cast into fire like straw is far greater than that of the saved, whom the heavenly Father will one day gather into His barns like precious wheat.”

I leave the rest to those interested, however a cautionary note, upon reading it you will have a very good idea where you will end up if you do not change RIGHT NOW.

So likely Peter maybe 1 in 100 will take your admonishment seriously - for just who does PeterPrinciple think he is?

Even better maybe a few more will be inspired to read St Leonard’s sermon - and then again maybe not. For what could any protestant learn from a some very old very dead saint?

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam

[Elsie]

I had a wild one bite me Saturday.

He didn’t cotton to being picked up, as his mama wasn’t around.

Got downright feisty with me; the little furball!

[Elsie]

The phrase you posted is not a prayer.

I've noticed for all the wordiness in this reply, you've finally managed to say what the sentence ISN'T; but not what it is.

[Elsie]

I will pray for you as I've said I will pray for Elsie.

Karl...

...it really DOES make you feel better!

[Elsie]

“....You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, “Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom.” Saint Anselm declares, “There are few who are saved.”

I 'hear' the Bible saying...

1 John 5:9-13

⁹ If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. ¹⁰ He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. ¹¹ And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. ¹² He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. ¹³ These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

[Elsie]

My wife and I try hard to be faithful Catholics and work hard at it...

I hope your own strength never fails you...

[LurkingSince'98]

thank you!

AMDG