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.

[Elsie]

She contradicted me directly thereby calling me a liar.

You may contradict me all you want; and I won't think you are calling me a liar.

Just make sure you have a handful of facts.

[metmom]

Only because of 1 Corinthians 1:26-29.

[LurkingSince'98]

Do Holy people worship dead bodies on display?

Maybe you missed my post on the topic:

If ANY Catholic EVER worships ANYONE other than the three persons of the TRINITY they are automatically EXCOMMUNICATED Latae sententiae.

Latae sententiae is a Latin phrase, meaning “sentence (already) passed”, used in the canon law of the Catholic Church.

A latae sententiae penalty is one that follows ipso facto or automatically, by force of the law itself, when a law is contravened; a penalty that binds a guilty party only after it has been imposed on the person is known as a ferendae sententiae (meaning “sentence to be passed”) penalty.[1]

The Code of Canon Law, which binds Catholics of the Latin Church, inflicts latae sententiae censures for certain forbidden actions. Worshiping anyone other than the trinity does it.

Now I have said it multiple times, so if you have read that and still repeat the lie - then why?

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam

[Gamecock]

Out darned spot, out I say… .

[LurkingSince'98]

nice snark.

BTW what do you say to all the protestants who are going through RCIA right now to enter the Catholic Church.

are they escaping protestantism or they just not protesting anymore?

AMDG

[Karl Spooner]

Mow how many times do I have to post the picture of the Pope worshiping Mary? Why do you ignore them?

[LurkingSince'98]

you may have lived in a Catholic neighborhood, but you obviously never attended a Catholic Mass, because if you did you would know it is all Scriptural.

I believe, nearly 80% of the Old and New Testaments are read at daily Mass over a period of three years. This is a hold-over from the first centuries when no one had any bible at all so whatever they know they heard in Church.

I wouldn’t know since I have never been to a protestant service, however, I have been told by protestants that there is more Scripture in a Catholic Mass than they hear from their preacher or pastor on any given Sunday.

Now if you actually go to a Church on the Lords day, your particular mileage may vary.

For The Greater Glory of God

[LurkingSince'98]

Prayer is not Worship, well maybe for a protestant since it is all they know but not to a Catholic.

and since this will be the second time I am posting the same thing in the same thread I will say goodbye.

I believe the problem originates from what I have been told by protestants I trust who have told me that prayer is worship and worship is prayer so if you are praying to Mary you are in fact worshiping her.

However, if protestants have only one kind of prayer, which is always ‘worship’; it should be fairly obvious that is the catch.

Because for a Catholic there at least seven distinct types of prayer that I am aware of and probably others I am not.

Distinct Catholic Prayer Types:

1) Adoration - as I understand it equivalent to a protestant’s worship;

2) Contrition - a prayer of sorrow and repentance;

3) Thanksgiving - such as saying grace before meals;

4) Supplication - a request for strength, healing or help;

5) Meditation - prayer for understanding a particularly deep aspect of Christ’s life - like the Agony in the garden;

6) Contemplation - a prayer state of being open to hearing the words of the Holy Spirit; and

7) lectio divinia - a very slow, deliberate contemplation on a scriptural passage or passages.

My Prayer for today Wednesday:

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

My Lord and My God, how truly wonderful and glorious you are, I adore you with profound reverence.

Forgive me for my transgressions and weaknesses of this day, as I am sorry for how they hurt you, since you have suffered so much for me when I have so much trouble making my sacrifices for you during Lent.

Thank you for all the gifts you have bestowed on me and my family, I am forever in awe of the insights you provide to me in my work that enable me to do your work.

I ask for for the grace to better serve my family better especially my wife and daughter and for the understanding of other folks point of view.

Glory be to the Father and The Son and the holy Spirit as it is now and ever shall be world without end, Amen.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

For the Greater Glory of God

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies

[Karl Spooner]

what was wrong with 588?

[Religion Moderator]

You accused the other poster of dishonesty.

Do not accuse another Freeper of telling a lie (or repeating a lie) - it attributes motive, the intent to deceive. It is a form of "making it personal."

Words such as "false" "wrong" "error" do not attribute motive.

Also, do not assume that because another Freeper contradicts you that he is calling you a liar. That is "taking it personally." Posters who take things personally may have problems on "open" Religion Forum threads where their deeply held beliefs may be condemned. Such posters should ignore "open" RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled "prayer" "ecumenical" "devotional" or "caucus."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[LurkingSince'98]

hey KS

just repeat what you said so we can all have a look-see.

AMDG

[Karl Spooner]

Yes you win. You can call everyone a liar, but I get docked.

[Gamecock]

If it walks like a duck…

[Religion Moderator]

My warning was addressed to both of you and everyone else.

[LurkingSince'98]

but what did you actually say?

maybe you could rephrase it so we get the gist - that’s what I’ve been trying to do - without much success.

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

Point of order??

you said: “You accused the other poster of dishonesty.”

What do you think she did, blow kisses?

[Karl Spooner]

but what did you actually say?

Maybe the mod will say. I didn't mean to hurt anyone other to try to drift them to the truth.

[Religion Moderator]

I’ll restore 588 so you can see. It wasn’t as bad as some of the other posts accusing others of telling lies, but it was the first one I saw tonight.

[daniel1212]

Of course Salvation doesn't, -- no one is that ignorant.

Not ignorant to believe but perhaps as to what words can convey, but i provided the second option which she should have argued for if it was.

Surely nothing justifies the sleazy Protestant "highly favored".

They both simply use charitoō, and your opinion is just that, which also should make you even more opposed to the NABRE : "And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." Also here and here .

And the Jerusalem Bible : "He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! The Lord is with you.'" These are read far more than the Vulgate or the DRB.

In addition, an apologist with a bit more weight than you (Jimmy Akin states in response to a questioner:

I was watching EWTN earlier and it was mentioned that only two people in the New Testament are referred to as “full of grace” – Jesus (John 1:14) and Mary (Luke 1:28). Of course I thought this would be a really neat thing to mention to my Protestant friends (especially if we’re talking about Jesus and Mary being the New Adam and New Eve).

BUT I wanted to go beyond the English and examine the original Greek – but I don’t know a lot about Greek! So I have two twofold questions:

(1) does John 1:14 use kecharitomene as fully (pardon the pun) as Luke’s usage in 1:28 or does John 1:14 follow more closely to Acts 6:8 when Stephen is referred to as “full of grace and power”?

John 1:14 says that Jesus was plErEs charitos, which literally means "full of grace." (Those capital Es arepresent etas, so pronounce them like the e in "they"; the word is thus pronounced PLAY-RACE).

Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means "one who has been graced" or "woman who has been graced" (since the gender is female). It doesn't literally mean "full of grace," though that is defensible as a free translation.

Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plErEs charitos, so again it's literally "full of grace" and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.

If it is the latter, (2) does that mean there really isn’t a literal “full of grace” parallel between Luke 1:28 and John 1:14 or can I find that literal parallel somewhere else in the New Testament?

Not that I'm aware of, and I'd almost certainly be aware of it if there were.

Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch Luke in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible affirm "graced," and use it to justify their theological interpretation: The Gospel of Luke could have described her with the words full of grace (Gk. pleres charitos) as he did of Stephen in Acts 6:8, yet here he uses a different expression (Gk. kecharitomene) that is even more revealing than the traditional rendering. . It indicates that God has already "graced" Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who "has been" and "is now" filled with divine life.- http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11460004&postcount=3

And she was, but it is the excess extrapolative attributions that go far above and beyond what is written that is the issue.

when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God..What sets the Holy Scripture apart from other teaching of the Magisterium is not that the Holy Scripture is the only inspired text, but that it is canonized by the Church to be inerrant and relate directly to the historical events surrounding Christ.

You also said in your next post,

The canonicity of scripture means that this is a material (1) directly related to the historical events surrounding Jesus Christ; (2) written by an apostle or a person equally connected to the person of Christ; (3) is inerrant; (4) was used in the Holy Liturgy of the Early Church.

Thus I see no distinction being made btwn the manner and level of Divine inspiration, but what sets them apart is its canoncity, content, authorship, inerrancy, use used in early Holy Liturgy, unless docs and prelates speaking on matters of faith and morals can be Divinely inspired and yet make errors.

What if any distinction do you see are regards any type and level of Divine inspiration of Scripture, and doctors and prelates of the church of Rome? And can you specify who some of these are if not popes, and the works you hold as being Divinely inspired (and thus binding i would assume)?

Infallibility of the Pope is different from both inspiration and canonicity as it pertains to the Pope's authority to settle disputes even among the bishops when the consensus is lacking.

But all you state is a functional difference, not any theological distinction btwn any type and level of Divine inspiration of Scripture and infallible statements, while the claimed charism of infallibility precludes errors.

Finally, it is a useful idiom do say instead of "inspired", "dictated by the Holy Ghost", but I am only aware of the expression used ex cathedra in Providentissimus Deus:

I was aware of what Providentissimus Deus states, which is why i asked, and thus in essence you were and making no real distinction btwn the Divine inspiration of Scripture and doctors, prelates (popes or including them) in speaking on faith and morals.

you do not even have a list of all infallible teachings

Of course not. This is akin to telling us when Christ will come again: not useful knowledge. Whether formally and canonically binding as dogma or not, any uttering of the Magisterium is to be met with serious attention, and if formulated as definitive, with obedience.

Hardly. The very requirement of obedience to that which is formulated as definitive makes a definitive list of what is definitive useful to say the least. Some way all encyclicals are infallible, others say no; some think Humanae Vitae is infallible, while the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected it; some think some arguments behind infallible statements are infallible, while being uncertain the level of other magisterial teachings, and wonder what constitute "official teaching on many issues.

You exhibit the typical Protestant legalistic thinking that confuses the Holy Church with a police station.

Oh? It is RCs who present Rome as the police station and judge that solves the problem of interpretation, according as they interpret Scripture and Rome.