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.

[LurkingSince'98]

hey Cynic

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam

[LurkingSince'98]

“...and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Unless I slept through it the ‘last day’ has not occurred.

Until that day I will do what He commands me to do:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56)....

For the Greater Glory of God

[LurkingSince'98]

I have had a devotion to the Blessed Virgin since I was a child as did my mother and her mother.

I sure Jesus Christ like people like you who mock his Mother.

good luck with that..

just think what most real men would do to some stranger who mocked their mother.

so explain the mocking when your are at your own particular judgement....

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

“Jesus knew EXACTLY how OFTEN this was; as did all the Disciples - once a year.”

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

maybe you could point out which words say ‘do it once a year’...

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

Who was it that posted that Babylon is the code word in Scripture that means the Catholic church?

yes and where did they get their ‘SSDR’ scriptural Secret Decoder Ring?

Inventive protestants who can time warp as well as use their secret decoder ring to INTERPRET Scripture...

Babylon was mentioned multiple time in the Old testament in a period of history prior to the founding of Rome or the birth of Christ.

If Scripture is divinely inspired then how did Babylon, the city, time warp into the new Testament?

AMDG

[daniel1212]

True. This hysterical opposition to the inspired (at least in this verse) translation by St. Jerome is childish and beside the point.

Therefore let no man glory in men. (1 Corinthians 3:21)

Meanwhile, that Jerome etc. was Divinely inspired as were the writers of Scripture is the issue.

The Protestants confuse the inspired quality with the canonicity. Just bear that in mind: all these rhetorical "just like" are making reference to two independent attributes of a religious text. The Church teaching is by and large inspired, and so is the Holy Scripture; but the Holy Scripture stands out as the true and direct witness of Christ and the Catholic Faith: it is both inspired and canonical.

This has already been dealt with. You stated that "in the inspiration part there is no difference," btwn inspired, "dictated" statements by doctors and prelates of the church, but "the difference is in the historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ." The canonicity is a result of book being established as Divinely inspired, but "in the inspiration part there is no difference" according to you.

your making infallible teaching as being inspired of God

I just got done telling you that infallibility and inspiration are also two different things. If I say that 2+2=4, it would be an infallible statement of mine, because it contains no error;

Rather, what you had told me was that "when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God," and as regards that, in response to my question, "Are all infallible teachings inspired of God, if not wholly?" you said that "If a teaching is wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God." This did not mean all the work was infallible but the part that was infallible was inspired.

Thus you hold that "when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God," and thus "it is wholly inspired by God" and in the actual "inspiration part there is no difference" btwn Divine inspiration of Scripture and Holy Spirit inspired, "dictated" statements by doctors and prelates of the church. 2+2=4 is indeed infallible, which means an atheist can speak infallible truth, which i myself have expressed, but we are dealing with teaching by doctors and prelates of the church being inspired as Scripture is, which was your argument, despite the difference "in the historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ."

Any definitive teaching of the Church on the content of our faith is infallible

...and thus divinely inspired

That does not follow, although it may be. There is no "thus".

Now it seems obvious that "If a teaching is wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God" is no longer obviously the case. But an infallible teaching that is only 80% infallible is not an infallible teaching, thus despite what seems to be later backtracking, if doctors and prelates of the church when speaking on F+M were infallible then they were wholly infallible, and thus they must be wholly inspired.

Thus the point thus remains that you hold writings like parts of the summa are infallible and Divinely inspired, and "in the inspiration part there is no difference" as regards "Divine inspiration of Scripture and Holy Spirit inspired statements by doctors and prelates of the church, yet the sources i provided deny that,

such as (again), Infallibility "merely implies exemption from liability to error," "not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible," in "which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance." "God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

In addition, while you hold that Jerome was inspired in writings his translation, as were docs and prelates of the church speaking on faith and morals, Tommy Lane, S.S.L., S.T.D. (License in Sacred Scripture, Doctorate in Sacred Theology) states ,

Our translations are not inspired; only the original text in the original language is inspired. http://www.frtommylane.com/bible/introduction/inspiration.pdf

Other Catholics hold that translations are not inspired, and one also states that "the Vulgate is a composite work, many parts of which Jerome did not translate" citing Plater, W.E. and H.J. White. Grammar of the Vulgate. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1926.

Trent did affirm the Vulgate to be the authentic text for sermons and disputations, but this did not exclude textual corrections, or specify which version of the Vulgate, and which lead to the the embarrassing Sistine Vulgate .

as any vision of a holy person it is precisely that, inspired.

Again, the problem here remains that in the actual "inspiration part there is no difference" btwn Divine inspiration of Scripture and Holy Spirit inspired, "dictated" statements by doctors and prelates of the church. While "the difference is in the historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ," your position still greatly expands upon the number of texts that i see RCs holding as Divinely inspired. Which essentially makes them equal with Scripture as being the word of God, God being the author, even though RC teaching i see denies this even of papal infallible teaching.

no other weight than that which they already possess (Ratzinger)

Correct: the Catechism merely summarizes, organizes and lists the doctrines that had been infallible already. It is not a new teaching. As an infallible document it could not be otherwise.

Ratzinger was not saying Catechism merely summarizes, organizes and lists the doctrines that had been infallible already, so that all it contains is infallible teaching, but the infallible nature of its teachings depend upon whether they were previously est. as being infallible. Which as said, is often much a matter of interpretation.

Your description also seems to blur the distinctions made btwn different magisterial levels

But I said nothing about that, so I hardly "blurred" anything. Of course there are levels and degrees of applicability, and one needs to pay attention to those lest he overclaims inspiration or infallibility of any doctrine.

Whether your expressly said so or not, it remains that making the entire teaching of the Holy Church, as expressed for example in the Catechism of the Church, to be infallible (and insomuch as is infallible it is inspired) does blur the distinctions made btwn different magisterial levels, as it presumes all that is in the Catechism is infallible. Yet RCs much judge which level each teaching falls under if they want to know what level of assent is required (unless they just render implicit assent to all).

And as the Catechism can make mistakes and undergo corrections, this also requires judgment on the part of the RC.

Of what use is infallibility if it is uncertain about what is?

When you are not certain, you can ask, but generally there is a consensus on what is infallible speech and what is not.

Ask who? Cardinal Wuerl? Catholic Answers? FR? Or does the Vatican have a 800 number hotline to the pope? Who still may be dismissed as speaking as a private theologian. One can receive different answers from each on issues interpreting the higher levels of the magisterium, and Rome abounds with different opinions. One of which is the issue here of docs and prelates of the church speaking on faith and morals being inspired as were the original writers of Holy Writ.

Further, whether a statement is infallibly defined or not, if the Magisterium proposed something for our salvation, we should obey and seek to understand.

Obey first and understand/ask questions later is not the same as studying to determine the veracity of what is taught, and approved teaching i provided censures the later.

Infallibility is primarily a tool in the Pope's possession in case of a severe dissent among the bishops. So far it has not been needed.

Whether or not that is held as the case, he can act autocratically in so doing.

[LurkingSince'98]

gotta go - bye now

have a great weekend and a Blessed Palm Sunday.....

For the Greater Glory of God

[Alamo-Girl]

Praise GOD!!!

Thank you so much for sharing that with us, dear brother in Christ!

I think everyone should experience Spiritual Services - what a joy! And how wonderful that your congregation is sharing its facilities. May God abundantly bless each and every one of you!

[daniel1212]

I am amazed at the amount of work you put into that, dear brother in Christ, thank you! The Scripture reference for "Amen!" caught my eye the first time LurkingSince'98 raised it because a Protestant Service can become quite full of Amens!

To that end, in the following song - one of my most beloved - there are at least 35 "amens" - and the Gospel story to boot, which would entail Scripture references on end.

Amen and Amen! And the "Scripture Mass" only listed a few.

[Alamo-Girl]

Amen!

[Elsie]

Unless I slept through it the ‘last day’ has not occurred.

You are correct; som how can your choisen church claim folks HAVE been raised already?

[Elsie]

I have had a devotion to the Blessed Virgin since I was a child as did my mother and her mother.

So?

[Elsie]

I sure Jesus Christ like people like you who mock his Mother.

Nice try; but I'm MOCKING the false IMAGE of Mary that your chosen religion has created

[Elsie]

so explain the mocking when your are at your own particular judgement....

I just did.

[Elsie]

If Scripture is divinely inspired then how did Babylon, the city, time warp into the new Testament?

Obviously, it stands for something else.

How did the Woman in Heaven transmogrify into Mary?

[Elsie]

I'm the Boss!

[daniel1212]

someone or another is always calling Rome to be Babylon when there wasn’t a Rome at that point in the OT. So my question was exactly what city did Babylon refer to?

In its 294 occurrences it can refer to the actual city or spiritually to other city/states or the world system, that being interpretive, but while you want to both hold Peter as the pope in Rome and exclude the church of Rome as being the Babylon of Rev. (not that i hold it as necessarily being so) , yet you have,

The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. (1 Peter 5:13)