And when (it must be asked) did the Roman Catholic Church
become the Roman Catholic Church?
That is a difficult question indeed and one I've addressed
from time to time. There is an answer but it's not straightforward. Recently
I've even heard some rather absurd arguments from Confessionally Reformed
circles, one history professor (of all things) has tried to argue that the
Catholic Church only became 'Roman' at the Council of Trent! Roman Catholicism apparently
didn't exist until the mid-16th century!
Is this a serious person? Has this man's factionalism so
taken hold of him that he's reduced to making a fool of himself and destroying
his credibility? It would seem to be the case.
The seeds of Roman Catholicism were certainly planted in the
wake of Constantine's transformation. Most would agree that early pontiffs like
Leo and Gregory were asserting the claims of Rome and the primacy of the
Papacy. This is of course the essence of what 'Roman' Catholicism is. It claims
to be catholic, representative of the universal Church but what unites the body
of Christ are the Petrine claims of the Roman ecclesiastical order, the
Magisterium guided by the Papacy.
Was this a reality in the 6th century, in the time
of Gregory the so-called Great? Probably not. Rome was claiming pre-eminence
and was on the road to cementing that claim but at that time it still had
viable rivals. It was Roman Catholicism in essence but not yet able to apply
let alone enforce the claims.
I would argue this was the period of Old Catholicism, an era
of downgrade, contradictions and ever-growing darkness. The watershed change arrived
in the 11th century. The Gregorian Reforms, the Great Schism of 1054
and the Crusades point to a consolidation of power on the part of the Papacy.
It was now able to make its grandiose claims and enforce them and use its official and institutional power to
influence European politics and geopolitics. Its main rival, Eastern Orthodoxy
represented by the Patriarch and Emperor of Constantinople were effectively
removed from consideration in the Teutonic-Latin domains of Central and Western
Europe and the Greeks would soon suffer from political decline and collapse.
This schism had already been a de facto reality for some time but now the
Papacy was able to assert its grandiose claims without protest or at least
without protest that anyone would deem as legitimate.
By the 11th century we can most certainly speak of
a Roman Catholic Church and yet in reality it had already existed for
centuries. The Catholic (Counter) Reformation transformed Romanism once more,
but such changes have been part and parcel of its history. Rome is slow to
change but it does change and has continued to do so right up unto the present.
Rome like its Confessional opponents also has a progressive theology.
To suggest Rome did not become Rome until Trent is not an
argument worthy of serious consideration. By utilising such criteria we could
point to the modern Roman order and absurdly argue that Roman Catholicism
didn't exist until Vatican II.
Perhaps the greatest irony of this Magisterial Protestant
argument is its progressive orthodoxy and the rather incongruous results it
produces.
For example if we venture back to the Middle Ages, we find
many of this stripe arguing that Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas were
Bible-believing Christians, even though one would be hard pressed to find any
overlap of their ideas with Magisterial and Scholastic Protestantism. But
they're reckoned to be Bible-Believing Christians because during those
centuries they were devoted members in good standing of the Roman Communion.
Now when we consider figures like Wycliffe or even Peter
Waldo (who is by no means the sole founder (if founder at all) of the Lyonist
branch of the Waldenses), well, they are praiseworthy to a point but they
clearly didn't teach Justification by Faith Alone and so our praise and
certainly our identification with them is suspect.
Some historians like Philip Schaff go further and dismiss
them as being as unworthy of the Protestant label, having not embraced its core
principles. And so, since they're not Protestants and they weren't Roman
Catholics in good standing... then they're medieval oddities, orphans and
worthy of only a passing consideration.
The present author does not accept these narratives but for
the sake of argument will grant them. However one finds it ironic that by 1600,
anyone professing the very same beliefs as a Bernard or Thomas would have been
reckoned an idolatrous heretic by the Protestants who were then entering in on
the Scholastic period and the age of Confessions.
How can this be apart from a progressive ideal being applied
to both historical theology and theology itself? The standard of orthodoxy had
changed and though Confessionalists would stop the 'progress' they haven't. And
this is true even today.
Well these medieval men must be understood in their context
we're told. That's how everyone thought. Is that so? Then how do you explain
the voices of protest? There were certainly people Bible-in-hand condemning the
theologies of Bernard and Thomas and yet they don't seem to count. Likewise at
the time of the Reformation the violent policies of the Reformers are defended
by their context. That's what everyone believed we're again told. But again,
it's not true. There were voices of protest who argued from the Scriptures that
Calvin et al. were wrong. But due to progressive theology and historiography
their voices do not count.
Indeed by the 17th century the Waldensians would
have also been reckoned heretical by the heirs of Wittenberg and Geneva. But
this takes an even more interesting turn as by 1700 some of the early Reformers
from the first half of the 1500's would (if temporally relocated to the 18th
century) be reckoned as heretics as well. Many of the beliefs tolerated in the
days of Luther and Calvin were by the 18th century intolerable and
unacceptable.
Then of course we come to the 20th century and
many of the beliefs that were tolerated even in Confessional Protestant circles
in the 17th century are reckoned dubious if not heterodox.
In some instances it's literally a case of building the tombs
of the prophets even while they are their executors.
Protestantism once happily set itself in opposition to the
current of Roman Catholicism. During the Romanticism of the 19th
century many Whig historians lionised and appropriated the pre-Reformation
movements even to the point of anachronism and misrepresentation. Backwards
Rome was the enemy and so they wanted to identify with voices that represented 'progress'
even during the darkness of the Middle Ages. And in so doing historians (like
Wylie for example) often misrepresent what these groups were really all about.
And yet something happened in the 20th century.
Confessionalism began to feel pressures from not only without but within.
Theological Liberalism threatened on one front, but Fundamentalism, Biblicism and
the novelty of Dispensationalism threatened on others. This combined with
trends toward secularism and the impulses of New Evangelicalism,
Confessionalism began to be stretched a bit thin. In terms of Evangelicalism
there is something of a love/hate relationship. Confessionalism has always
embraced the vision of a Christian society even if there hasn't always been
agreement with regard to what it would look like and how to achieve it. It will
be granted that Confessionalists have always been determined to hold fast their
views and plod along towards the goal as opposed to Evangelicalism with its
endless accommodations and compromises which are embraced for the sake of
expediency.
And yet both Evangelicalism and Theological Liberalism have
scorned the past and given the threats of the day it would seem some
Confessionalists and indeed some Evangelicals have sought to re-write the old
metanarrative. The new version is not so much about the triumph of
Protestantism as a revival of Early Christianity and a necessary wresting away
of the Western mantle from the hands of the pope, but instead has sought to
appropriate the past. Don't misunderstand me the old Protestant narrative also
contained some schizophrenic elements in that it did attempt to retain the
Medieval connections so exemplified in the purged cathedrals. The massive
edifices and all their social symbolism were certainly retained and yet they
were purged. There was an attempt at continuity and yet, there was also a
definite break and a turning of the back on the past.
The Twentieth Century saw a reconsideration of this narrative
and thus today many Evangelicals and Confessionalists look back almost with
fondness on what was once considered a Dark Age. And figures that were once
reckoned dubious if not objects of scorn are today being rehabilitated and
celebrated. Even those who heartily rejected the Evangelicals and Catholics
Together (ECT) document in the 1990's have largely embraced the rehabilitation
of Roman Catholicism. And much of Roman Catholic cult and culture have been
embraced at least in part and much that was once rejected and disdained is now
memorialised and celebrated. From Lent to reflections on the Notre Dame fire,
today's Evangelicals are moving toward the Tiber and not a few Confessionalists
are feeling the pull.
When I was growing up in Fundamentalist circles no one
considered Roman Catholics to be fellow Christians. Those days are long gone.
While the Confessionalists would have always been a bit more circumspect, one
wonders at the change. At one time Boettner's critique of Roman Catholicism
(with all its faults) was considered standard fare and its virulent
condemnations of Romanism weren't controversial in the least. And yet today I
regularly encounter not only Evangelicals but Confessionalists who seem more
than willing to not only embrace Roman Catholic figures from the past but even
contemporary theologians... even prelates such as John Paul II are reckoned
fellow believers.
The Judaizing impulses of Theonomy contributed to this trend
as the Middle Ages were celebrated and through the efforts of the advocates of
Dominion Theology this once almost anomalous way of thinking has become not
only mainstream but the orthodoxy of the present hour.
Most think in terms of some kind of New Christendom. Yes,
there are those in Reformed circles who profess a belief in Two Kingdoms and
have spoken in somewhat negative terms with regard to Christendom. Nevertheless
their embrace of Kuyper's Sphere Sovereignty and in particular his
transformationalist views of Common Grace have practically speaking brought
them full circle.
Unlike some they may be less convinced of stamping the
Decalogue on public buildings or changing the US Constitution to explicitly
profess Christianity but in terms of the day-to-day they embrace the same
Right-wing and socially conservative positions advocated by those who openly
advocate for some kind of Christian Nationhood or Neo-Constantinianism.
Even those who have merged Classical Liberalism with
Protestant Orthodox theology and as a consequence advocate for some kind of privileged
or preferential pluralism... tolerance for other religions but Christianity
given an open preference by the state... have nevertheless rejected the actual
New Testament metanarrative with regard to This Age.
This era is dominated by a very simple theme, namely the
Church versus the World. And at least according to Revelation it seems clear
the World (humanly speaking) wins the day. Aided by the False Church, which it
then persecutes and destroys, the Bestial World's domain is that of political
power, war and the coin. We are the sheep led to the slaughter, the
cross-bearing martyrs who are more than conquerors.
In some ways I have more respect for the true Theonomists who
have examined post-Reformational history and have realised that the present
synthesis of Classical Liberalism and Reformation Protestantism is
unsustainable and cannot be reckoned Biblical. And thus they sought to undo it.
The movement survives but most have compromised (to some degree) on this point.
They have to, because Protestantism itself shattered the Old Christendom and
more importantly its epistemological basis.
There have been many attempts to connect Classical Liberalism
with Reformation theology and yet they don't stand up well in the face of
scrutiny. While shaky cases can be made for connecting individualism and
humanism with freedom of conscience and notions such as the perspicuity of
Scripture... in other words every man has a right to understand and apply the
truth in his own way... these are like genies released from a bottle, a
Pandora's Box now shattered. It's almost as if the implications were happily
ignored during the seasons of perceived social consensus but now that the
consensus is shattered very few Right-wing folks want to probe these questions
too deeply. Increasingly they are moving away from doctrinal individualism even
while still embracing a culture which politically and economically deifies the
individual and roots ethics in utilitarian calculus. But even more problematic
many of these same Christians are confused by believing this epistemology to be
somehow Christian, even Biblical.
Between philosophic speculative theology and a rank Judaizing
hermeneutic many paradigms are reckoned 'Biblical' and yet all too often they
represent syncretic influences and are dominated by historical meta-narratives.
Confessionalism relies on a meta-narrative of Arrested
Progressivism, a manifest and seemingly unstoppable progression of doctrinal
development which then suddenly must cease and desist in the 17th
century. It provides a convenient method for ordering the narrative of Church
History and indeed some have milked it for all its worth but it finds no root
in the New Testament and even less of a basis in the currents of Western
intellectual history.
And frankly it's no surprise that many in the mainstream
remain unconvinced by such arguments. They too have embraced the narrative of
progress and find the Confessionalist barricade and case for stoppage to be
both absurd if not contradictory.
Confessionalism let alone when it's rooted in an Arrested
Progressivism is wrong headed and fails in its claims. Its intentions may have
been pure though given the political nature of the Confessional impulse even
motive must be brought into question. It has failed to stop the Progressive
tide and demonstrates that it is still subject to these tendencies. From its rehabilitation
of Roman Catholicism to its continued (if often subtle) modifications and novel
interpretations of its own authoritative texts, the movement still falls prey
to the progressive impulse. Indeed some of the greatest hostility is directed
toward those within the movement who entrench in the past and insist on
historical readings and applications of the Confessions and Catechisms.
And of course the movement has no time for Biblicism which
challenges not only its progressive metanarratives regarding Church History but
its very epistemology, ethos as well as many of its basic definitions.
The New Testament metanarrative focuses not on a Church
seeking worldly power and prestige, nor on an institution developing a
comprehensive philosophical system to answer and remedy the complexities of the
world but a remnant martyred body bearing and proclaiming witness against the
world and the false church.
According to Peter the Church fulfills a role similar to that
of the ark. Like Noah we condemn the world and the ark we build bears witness
that we reject the world system and that judgment is coming. The quest for
scholastic mastery and comprehensive philosophic dominance are in the end about
power, rule and providing an epistemological consensus for the establishment of
a social order. These quests are not only wrong-headed in their origin but
undertaken in vain. Our worldview is apocalyptic and rooted in the knowledge of
Christ. We are engaged in a spiritual war and the effects of the Fall are so
profound that the only victory is found in the destruction of this Death-Age,
this aeon that has been accursed.
That's not progress. In fact all such notions of progress are
pure myth. It is a case of the world chasing its own tail and devouring it. We
are commanded to abide, trust, obey and like the heroes of Hebrews 11, we are
to live by faith while confessing that This Age has nothing to offer and is not
our home. So called progress is but one
step closer to doom. So called progress is not the advance of the Kingdom but
that of Babel. The Kingdom we serve is not empirically verifiable. It is seen
only by those indwelt by the Spirit. It is not something in which men can point
and say 'Lo here, or lo there'. It does not consist of food or drink or earthly
treasures. Men may remake these things in endless succession. Man may dazzle
the senses with his toys and his attempts to plaster over the world's gangrenous
canker. Men may seek to impose their paradigms on history, knowledge,
technology, law and society. But in the end, the paradigms serve the interests
of their civil and ecclesiastical political factions.
But the notions are without basis and when compared with
history, they are exposed as mere contrivance. When weighed against Scripture,
they also fail.
And yet the greatest irony is in that Confessionalism has
rooted itself in its stability and constancy... and yet cannot escape a
reliance on the notion of progress, both past and present. This dynamic
groundwork is essential to the era and context of Confession and yet history
also demonstrates that despite the movement's attempt to establish an unmovable
and steadfast marker, the progress (or more rightly momentum) has neither been
arrested nor can it be. The foundations of the Confessional system (and its
corollary narratives) are built on sand.
The Remnant Narrative rooted in Biblicism is one we've also
seen before and it's one that has suffered great manipulation and abuse. Yea,
even the older versions of Confessionalism employed, abused it and thus
discredited it. Nevertheless there's something to it but it opens the door to
not only a different read of Church History but a reconsideration of the West
and its glories. The Remnant Narrative can be salvaged and with some wisdom
re-utilised. It requires both reconsideration and recasting but these are tasks
to be considered at another time.