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]

would you?

AMDG

[mdmathis6]

The righteous laity need to rise up and insist on another Canon...the right to rise up and immediately put out of the church any of the leadership who have defamed Christianity by behavior, expressed political thought, or heretical discourse as proscribed by the scriptures, those scriptures as collected declared as Holy by the early church fathers. These canon you cite use “collective” language but God will judge each soul individually, not collectively.

Each stone in Solomon’s temple was fitted without the use of cutting instruments...each stone was unique, there was no collective uniformity. There’ll be no “blaming the leadership” on the count of individual Catholics who fail to work against the evil in their leadership. You Catholic folks want to “call” those of us who are not Catholic...home...when your Home is in a shambles.

[Kackikat]

I guess any exposure to unknown beliefs including the arguing that ensues, it could be very disturbing on many levels, even if it were aliens.

I never understood the Bitcoin phenomena, it’s spiraling upward and then down for reasons I wouldn’t consider worthwhile for investment. Last time I heard the Bitcoins weren’t worth much, but I don’t keep up with fads.

Thanks for the chuckle.

[LurkingSince'98]

“Please provide a verifiable transcript of what was actually said. That’s what you’re expecting Protestants to provide. Will you be providing it yourself?”

I plan to make a recording and have it transcribed and annotated chapter and verse.

and what are you going to do Alex, I haven’t heard any of the Calvinistas offering up a $$$

For the Greater Glory of God

[BlueDragon]

Right. That is because my quote was about the saints and not about you.

No --- there was no "quote" from some other person here, which you could make 'adjustment' to while being dismissive, amid all the rest of the habitual mischaracterization of conversations.

It was scripture itself you were monkeying around with that time, changing a single word to better suit your own premise.

All Pauline letters are addressed to some concrete set of recipients.

Yes, as I made some effort to point out to you in the note to which you gave reply. Yet still -- you changed scripture to not only just cut myself out of the picture, but to better suit your own preconceptions.

You don't get to do that.

We in the Catholic Church believe that the letters nevertheless are to be taken as an instruction to all of us, who are called to be saints.

It is widely taken for granted that the messages and theology as those are explained, demonstrated, and further discussed, are meant for all of us -- with the "us" I speak of here being those of the Gentile nations whom He also calls to Himself, in addition to the Hebrews.

I am familiar with the concept. It is as natural as breathing...

From Philippians 2:9-15, for example, we learn that sainthood is worked out in fear and trembling and with God's help.

As it is written, again the same passage which you initially cited;

13 for God it is who is working in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure. [underlining for emphasis added]

which in changing one word --- and by importing reasoning from who-knows what sources (those being difficult to track down as to when & where precisely the changes of application of such concepts as communion of the saints entered the picture as compared to as those can be found traces of in historical record in regards to the primitive church) you have made the Holy Spirit into being a communal effort.

It is (as scripture indicates) the Spirit of the Lord who (as Young's translation worded it)

for God it is who is working in you

It does not say working in a [them] which we then should pray to for guidance...

As to the working of the Holy Spirit within a person;
is it now "Mary" and those perceived to be "the saints" as you would seem to either have it or prefer it, who is now "God working in [those the letter was addressed to]" -- with that question posed to be considered narrowly, as to what Paul wrote to the Philippians, for as has been well enough established (and we would likely find agreement towards) it must first be established who was speaking what, to whom, in what setting, in order to gain clearest sense of the texts.

I suggest that Paul was not speaking of the spirits of saints working in one another, but that Paul was speaking of the Holy Spirit when he wrote "God working in you...".

As you continued, citing a portion of 2 Corinthian 3:18 (not knowing the translation which you used, I will need here chose one);

18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

with your own presentation of the same passage having coming after yourself having said;

My conclusion, from the text, was that therefore when we venerate a saint we also worship God that made them so.

Venerate? Since when did "venerate" include asking for advice from one saint or another considered to now be IN HEAVEN (I do hope they are all there or shall be) as named distinctively, other than God the Father (who is in heaven)".

But we are getting warmer as to the theological differences between; what is spoken of in the scripture passages which you cite, and what we were otherwise speaking of in regards to praying towards those other than God, with your having previously said "Of course when I pray to Mary or to any other saint I pray to that particular saint, -- for his/her intercession, or advice, etc"

If it be so, if it be truly proper to worship God by way of venerating those perceived to be saints, the question also unavoidably arises as to --- just who it is who is being worshiped.

May I suggest that when venerating those whom have come before us (in regards to the Kingdom of God) it be much more theologically sound; that when we pray while also venerating these who have passed on from this realm to the next, we limit ourselves to prayer concerning them to be more as prayers of thanksgiving for those notable persons who have once been living among us on this earth, while if otherwise also seeking guidance from He who as Paul wrote "works within [us] ...for His good pleasure" we by all means should, as scripture abundantly indicates, pray directly towards the singular Creator of the heavens and the earth?

I pose that question to you not in seeking answer in form of instruction from you to myself, but as to points of theological discussion.

Otherwise, if we pray to saints, seeking from them the things of God, even by His own Spirit, if those same saints be now in some manner as one with Him, if those saints now yet further be Him to extent that venerating one (a saint) be worshiping another --even God Himself (for you did just say that when venerating saints you also worship God who made them so) -- then they (the saints prayed to) have lost their own personal identities, or else one is worshiping or at least praying to something identifiably other than God while as you put it --- "venerating" the saints.

If they be as one, and praying to a saint be likened to praying to God (or some particular aspect of Godliness emulated or personified by singularly identifiable "saint") I say again, the saints lose their own identities.

This fluid change of identification of persons and principles by way of substitution, if but by way of subtle blending of identities when not blatant and out-right "change", is exemplified by the very 'adjustment' which you subjected Philippians 2:13 to in the first place, hence my own objections towards that type of action --- oh ye Great Rabbi.

[Alex Murphy]

I plan to make a recording and have it transcribed and annotated chapter and verse. and what are you going to do Alex

I'm not going to be doing anything, except imagining Jim Robinson's reaction when he opens your promised transcript. Are you going to have it notarized, too?

[mdmathis6]

“It’s better to not read the Bible but to implicitly believe it than to read it and not believe it”

Interesting statement. I’ve seen over the years, new babes in Christ having the experience of coming to personally astounding conclusions about their new born faith but being unsure about whether these inborn truths should be heeded...until they were shown in the scripture that yes they were on solid ground all the while, and that they should continue in their scriptures to grow in faith. It is a living testament to the work of the Holy Spirit, already having begun writing God’s word on their hearts. The Bible merely shows them where they are already on track, and the pitfalls to avoid.

[LurkingSince'98]

when you mention JR in a post shod you also include him in the TO?

AMDG

[Alex Murphy]

when you mention JR in a post shod you also include him in the TO?

Try reading my post #893 again.

[Gamecock]

when you mention JR in a post shod you also include him in the TO?

Plank. Eye.

[LurkingSince'98]

read it again and still a waste of my time - like Jim I’m at work

Bye.

[LurkingSince'98]

Plank. Eye.

Plank Bye

[Alex Murphy]

I haven’t heard any of the Calvinistas offering up a $$$

We took up a collection and bought you a card.

[Elsie]

OK so you do think a Catholic Mass has more Scripture than a protestant service - now we are getting somewhere.P>Do you bite your tail when you finally catch it?

[Elsie]

I didn’t think you would be cynical... I guess I had you figured wrong.

Checking up on folks is considered to be CYNICAL in your world?

Do tell!

[Elsie]

I guess I had you figured wrong.

Been tellin' you that; but you will not listen.

[Elsie]

do you really sit in moms basement and ‘spout’??

Do your OWN research.

[Elsie]

first, hearsay is a statement that a person of unknown provenance made regarding what another person said or did

It ain't quite fractal; but, yet again, you are wrong.

Mother Theresa herself could have told you something; but when you repeat it to another; it's hearsay.

---

Strange that a fellow who knows what a WAGER is, fails to admit knowing what HEARSAY is.

---

(Faulty catechism perhaps?)

[Elsie]

second, the folks relaying this were not strangers, they were trusted friends, they had never been known to make a false utterance, they made the statement as a form of testimony of their protestant faith, which I believe to be exemplary and strong.

Doesn't matter: it's STILL hearsay when YOU repeat it to others.

[Elsie]

sixth, remember I want Jim to compare what happens in ONE particular Catholic Mass in our little corner of nowhere to ANY protestant service anywhere in the US.

Maybe he don't wanna play with your TarBaby.