Recovering the First Reformation - Toward a Proto-Protestant Narrative of Church History (VI)
Some would date the First Reformation to the era of The Great
Schism (1378-1417) when the papacy was split between the Avignon and Rome
factions. Lollardy proper (it is argued) arose in England during this period
and Czech Hussitism arose immediately after it. The already established
Waldensians also flourished during this era and some believe the period
represents a first wave of doctrinal protest movements – a case of all of these
groups (to varying degrees) appealing to the Scriptures to argue against the
developments within Catholicism.
However I believe this date is too late. The period is
significant to be sure and played its part in setting the stage for the
Magisterial Reformation a century later. The period of Schism and its aftermath
represent another wave or phase of the First Reformation – but it also
represents in some respects a deviation, a point we will return to momentarily.
Gregory VII Hildebrand was pope from 1073-1085 and yet prior
to taking the tiara he had for roughly twenty-five years been one of the most
powerful members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Assistant to multiple popes,
Hildebrand became the master of papal politics and procedure and under his
leadership a series of reforms were instituted which would set the stage for
the period sometimes known as the Imperial Papacy – the roughly two century
long epoch in which the popes were literal emperors over Europe wielding power
on a level never before seen or repeated. The Gregorian Reforms resulted in an
elevated papacy and Hildebrand's crowning achievement was his own election to
the papal throne – extending his reign of influence yet another twelve years.
His papal tenure would deteriorate into a series of battles with the Holy Roman
Empire and it can hardly be said that everything went his way and yet in his
nearly forty years of influence and dominance, he set the stage for the
imperial papacy that was able to call the Crusades and would reach its apogee
in the person of Innocent III (1198-1216).
The Gregorian Reform created the formal curia, broke the
papacy away from Roman politics and the power of simony. The Church extended
its power, excommunicated the resistant East in 1054, and began to appoint and
install a clerical hierarchy committed to the ideals of ecclesiastical independence.
Building on the 10th century Cluniac reforms, the Gregorian movement
centralised power and sought to create a monolithic structure across Latin
Christendom. This was the period in which divergent practices and local custom
were suppressed and in which the Church began to enforce its rules. The Church also
became fabulously wealthy and this is also connected to the cathedral building
so associated with this period.
This brought Rome into conflict with the secular powers
leading to the Investiture Controversy resulting in the now legendary clashes
between the popes and various Holy Roman Emperors. The Concordat of Worms
seemed to settle the issue in 1122 but in reality the conflict would continue
for centuries to come. From Henry IV standing in the snow outside Canossa, to
Barbarossa's submission to the pope in Venice to popes Gregory VII and Paschal
II being imprisoned and on the run and finally the murder of Thomas Becket –
the struggle between papacy and crown would characterise and even dominate the
era.
But it was the push for uniformity, the encroaching power of
the papacy that seemed to provoke a reaction. The Dictatus Papae of 1075 would have far reaching effects and within a
short time the eye of the pope was everywhere and his arm reached places it had
hitherto not been able to penetrate or influence. No longer could local priests
and bishops pursue their own policies or the policies of their secular patrons.
Local liturgical practices and customs also began to fade and become subject to
supervision and regimentation. As a result the dissenters would immediately
appear on the radar (so to speak) and such 'problems' were no longer dealt with
locally – in which a local lord might 'look the other way' at some
ecclesiastical nonconformity as long as the people were honest and diligent in
their work and in the paying of tax.
Now, the authority of the centralised papacy would come to bear
and there was an explosion in dissent – again, was it born as a form of reaction
to these so-called reforms, or did the reforms merely lead to the exposure of
dissident traditions that already existed? The appearance of the Inquisition in
the 1180's was inevitable. The Synod of Verona in 1184 marks the beginning of
what was called the Episcopal Inquisition. It became a more powerful
institution in the 1230's when it was formalised and made answerable directly
to the pope. This was the beginning of the Inquisition proper. There would be
later manifestations – the 15th century Spanish Inquisition remains
in some respects the most famous but actually dealt far less with any kind of
Biblically oriented resistance to Catholicism.
There were already rumblings of change at work – perhaps
provoked in part by the Gregorian Reforms or an indication of growing tensions
that would have led to some kind of reaction had the Gregorian Reforms not
appeared at the time they did.
Peter Abelard was shaking up the theological scene in Paris
and in Italy, Arnold of Brescia his friend and student took some of these subversive
ideas and combined them with an advocacy of apostolic poverty – in direct
contradiction to the growing power and wealth of the papacy and the larger
Church – the wealth being a direct result of the Gregorian Reforms and their
process of centralisation. Arnold would become radicalised and joining with
extant anti-papal forces in Rome he succeeded in driving Pope Eugene III from
the city in 1146.
The city was recaptured in 1155 by Frederick Barbarossa and
Arnold was executed as a heretic that same year. And yet his movement would endure.
The Arnoldists (as they were known) would survive in Italy for some time to
come. They seemed to have exhibited some Donatist tendencies which some
Baptists have confused with an adherence to craedobaptism but there's no
evidence for this. Condemned in 1184 at the Synod of Verona the evidence
suggests they would later merge with some members of the Lombard wing of the
Waldensians – a group associated with non-resistance and poverty.*
The Lyonist branch of Waldensianism is associated with Peter
Waldo and began as a reformist movement within Roman Catholicism. Organised on
the basis of Biblical poverty, the group's ideas were seen as a threat to the
growing wealth and power of the Roman Church. This would lead to their condemnation
and yet their growing popularity and proliferation (along with the even more
dangerous Cathars) would lead Rome to sanction the Dominican and Franciscan
mendicant orders as a form of counter-strategy meant to rival the popular
appeal of the 'heretical' wealth-rejecting groups.
The Lyonists came into contact with the group that came to be
known as the Lombard branch of the Waldensians in the late 12th century
if not sooner. Some have erroneously suggested the Lombard wing was an offshoot
of the former but every indication suggests they were already present and in
existence. Who were they and where did they come from? This is less than clear.
Some believe they were made up of Arnoldist remnants and perhaps members of the
Humiliati order who had become more radicalised in their anti-Catholicism. The
Humiliati are among those condemned by the 1184 Synod of Verona but some
commentators believed them to be a branch of the Waldensians. And yet clearly
not all of them were.
Were the Lombard Waldensians a fusion of ex-Arnoldists and
Humiliati or were they their own movement that incorporated dissidents and the
disillusioned of other movements? We can't be sure.
But in addition to the Lombards there is wide array of
Waldensian movements in the various parts of Germany, the Kingdom of Hungary
(which would include Transylvania, Croatia and Slovakia) as well as Austria,
Bohemia and even Poland (which at that time included today's Belarus and much
of the Ukraine). These Central and Eastern European groups certainly had
greater affinity with the more radical Lombard wing (as opposed to the moderate
Lyonists) and yet any kind of direct affiliation remains an open question. Clearly
there were ties but how formal they were is unknown.
The Lyonists functioned more in terms of the ecclesiola in ecclesia model while the
Lombards and Central European branches (while still practicing a degree of
outwardly conformist Nicodemism) considered Rome the antichrist
and attempted to more or less function as an independent body outside of it.
The groups are collectively known as Waldensian
but as the 1218 Bergamo Conference (obviously conducted underground) indicates,
they were divergent groups sometimes with sharp differences.
Therefore as some have argued it is more proper to speak of Waldensian-isms – all the more when one considers
the fact that mainstream histories have erred in how they've reported on the
figure of Peter Waldo of Lyon and his connection to these groups. Even a
cursory examination reveals that the Lombard wing did not view him as connected
to their founding (even questioning at Bergamo whether or not he was legitimately
a Christian), and I would argue they antedated the rise of the Lyonist group.
Even assuming the remnant Arnoldists (who were moral rather
than doctrinal reformers) entered the Lombard fold, there were no doctrinally
rooted expressions of violence or reform-minded resistance until the Great
Schism. Then we have the episodes of violence associated with the Lollards and
Hussites only to see both groups eventually move away from this view and in
some cases embrace non-violence.
At the eve of the Reformation, we find a variety of
dissenting groups that professed a more or less Biblicist commitment, rejected
the wealth and power of the Church and as such rejected the
Constantinian-Christendom paradigm. In terms of ethics they were very much akin
to the later groups that some have called Kingdom Christians – rejecting
violence, power and wealth.
In terms of soteriology we find a determined effort to derive
doctrine from the Scripture but there is no expression of sola fide. Additionally these groups (with some exceptions)
embraced sacramental efficacy believing the rites imparted grace and possessed
supernatural virtue and yet they also almost overwhelmingly rejected Roman
transubstantiation. Also, most had come to the conclusion that the sacraments
were only two in number.
Out of pragmatic concern, the Hussite remnants, Waldensians,
and Lollards were often reduced to living and worshipping in the underground
and as such had no interest in buildings, ecclesiastical institutions or any
kind of so-called sacred aesthetic. In some cases this rejection of outward
accoutrement was not merely practical but reflected ideology and doctrine.
The Waldensians did not begin to erect buildings until after
their submission to the Magisterial Reformation and the Lollards had a long
folk tradition of mocking church buildings, bells, stained glass, holy water and
all the trappings of the Established Church.
There were other groups that appeared at this time – once
again whether in reaction to the Gregorian Reforms or whether the Reforms led
to their exposure is an open question.
The Cathars immediately come to mind and yet their legacy has
generated some confusion. Older Protestant historians were keen to appropriate
them and many texts treat them as Biblical Christians of the medieval period –
they too begin to show up in the record during the 12th century but
may have been connected to the Balkan-based Bogomils who appeared during the
Dark Ages. The Cathars (or Albigenses) endured terrible persecution, crusade
and were ultimately destroyed by the early years of the 14th
century. Protestant authors tied their persecutions to the greater Reformation
narrative.
But then later historians revealed that the Cathars were far
from being Biblically minded and were in fact proponents of a Gnostic cosmology
that really qualifies as not merely heterodox but as another religion altogether. The
confusion comes from the fact that the Cathars (like the Gnostics of old) used
many Christian terms and concepts and yet their dualist system could not even
been loosely connected to the doctrines revealed in the New Testament.
And yet there is some evidence to suggest that this assessment
may be painting with too broad a brush and such reasoning falls into the
fallacy of monolithic assumption, that is the error to assume there was one
united Cathar movement. In reality there were probably different groups and
some veered much closer to the New Testament views of the Waldensians and of
course others did not.
This also explains why (at least in Southern France) there
seems to have been some overlap between the two groups. Indeed some of the
Lyonist Waldensians in the region may have fallen under Cathar influence and
had (by the standards of the New Testament and the other Waldensian bodies) lost
their way. Or from the other side we might say that some Cathars had converted
to Waldensianism and yet retained views and practices that would have been
considered out of line with Waldensians norms.
The two groups shared a common enemy in the Roman hierarchy
and Establishment and yet they were not friendly as the Waldensians (generally
speaking) definitely viewed the Cathars as heretical. Once again it's all
rather confused and though many modern authors seem to put great stock in the
records and opinions of the Inquisitors, the Biblically minded person cannot do
so.
The Magisterial Reformation is granted a degree of validity
because it proved a lasting (if disunited and fragmented) movement. There are
significant differences between Anglicans and Calvinists not to mention
Lutherans and Anabaptists. The Anabaptists alone are considered the 'radicals'
in that they broke with the Magisterial model and nevertheless survived. And
yet the Anabaptists also broke with historic norms and understandings that even
places them (in many respects) at odds with the pre- or First Reformation
dissenters or proto-Protestants as they are often called.
And yet I would argue the exposing of dissent that would
appear about 1100 represents a First Reformational movement. While its emphases
were not exactly the same as what would be found with the Magisterial
Reformation it nevertheless manifested (in various forms) a concentrated and
doctrinally driven attempt at challenging the authority of Rome and reforming
the Church and/or separating from it if need be. The era of Schism would expand
and modify the larger 'movement' and certainly present new challenges but even
during that period there were some that stayed true to the ethos that had been
'on the radar' since the 12th century, a set of doctrines and ethics
that closely paralleled the pre-Constantinian Church.
----
*The Arnoldist pattern of radicalism followed by an embrace
of non-resistance is one seen over and over again throughout Church history.
The Donatists initially called upon the emperor to right their ecclesiastical
wrongs but when they were persecuted, they came to reject the Constantinian
model. The crisis had forced them to reflect and change and some factions even
came to reject all violence.
The Waldensians were generally known for embracing a position
of non-violence and yet there were episodes in which communities under extreme
pressure from an Inquisitor would rise up. The truth is the movement was never
monolithic and not every community embraced an exact expression of the same
principles. But nevertheless these episodes must be viewed as aberrations as
non-violence seems to have been a widespread accepted and acknowledged tenet of
the group.
The Apostolics, a sect that was never formally affiliated
with the Franciscans and yet was clearly inspired by them were also reacting to
the wealth and power born of the Gregorian Reform. While the Apostolics were
suppressed in the early 1300's, the more radical Dolcinites arose and wielded
violence in an attempt to challenge and cast down the established order. The
movement dispersed when their leader (Fra Dolcino) was executed in 1307.
The Lollards which ostensibly appeared as a result of
Wycliffe's teaching in the latter half of the 14th century at one
time embraced violence as a means of ecclesiastical reform. Some were involved
in the 1381 Peasant's Revolt although the uprising was by no means merely a
Lollard affair or tied to Lollard concerns. Later, the aforementioned Lollard
knight John Oldcastle would lead a failed uprising in 1414 but this was in
contrast to the teachings revealed in the Twelve
Conclusions of 1395 which suggest that Christians should reject violence
and warfare and that the Church should reject power and wealth.
This suggests that even the English Lollards were not as
monolithic as some have assumed. Lacking central organisation all of these
medieval groups encompass a spectrum of ideas. Lollardy would go on to suffer
intense persecution throughout the 15th century and yet survive as a
vibrant underground Church.
Among the Hussites we find a similar albeit greatly magnified
pattern. The Taborites reacted to the mild reformist approach of the Utraquists
in the wake of Hus's execution in 1415. Fortifying themselves in Central
Bohemia, the Taborites took up the sword and defeated multiple crusading armies
sent against them. In the end they were crushed by an Utraquist-Catholic
alliance at Lipany in 1434. The remnants of the group, along with elements from
the Utraquist bodies would under the influence of Petr Chelčický form the Unitas Fratrum, the Bohemian Brethren that
would in the 18th century be transformed (via Lutheran Pietism) into the Moravians. The
original body which was formed in the 1450's, rejected the Taborite-Utraquist
heritage and embraced the nonviolent, nonresistant heritage of Chelčický and
the Waldensians. Eventually under the influence of Lukas of Prague, they would
move away from this teaching by allowing for Christians to serve in public
office but they would never again embrace politically violent radicalism –
something still seen in the Moravian legacy.
One
group of Anabaptists also went through a similar experience with the Münster
debacle in 1534-35. And yet after this the default Anabaptist position would be
one of nonviolence and nonresistance.
Apart from the Arnoldists and individual Waldensians
committing acts of violence, the pre-Schism (pre-1378) period of dissidence
retained its non-violent character. Men and women recognised the Roman Church
had fallen into error and apostasy and they sought to establish and function
within a parallel underground Church. There were debates over whether to
function as an ecclesiola in ecclesia
– a little church within the Church, or whether to split entirely which under the totalitarian papacy was
perilous to even speak of. The movements which arose during Schism period are
in many respects similar. They were Biblically minded and thus anti-Catholic
and yet sections of Lollards and Hussites incorporated Sacralist thinking
leading them to break with the ethics of the pre-Schism Reformation and its
attempts to revivify apostolic and early Christianity.