For those of you familiar with Church history, the Reformation refers to a period of instability and power-challenging in the 16th century led by the likes of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox. The result of this challenge to the Roman Catholic establishment, the Protestant church(es).
Maybe I’m not seeing something here, but why do we call this the “reformation”? This has puzzled me for several years; that, by the very definition of the word, it really seems to be a mislabeling of a very important era in church history. In fact, it’s more of a church split than an internal improvement or correction.
If the church had remained united as one, under the Roman head, then yes, we can properly call it a reformation, but a reformation is not a creation of something separate and different. Does anyone agree?
In fact, the Catholic church followed this shake-up with their very own [now also mislabeled]
reformation: the Counter-Reformation. This did away with the practices that rightly troubled the “reformers” like Luther and Calvin. Things like countering corrupt bishops and priests, banning the selling of indulgences, creating barriers to other financial abuses, as well as returning to a more foundational spirituality were all on the table at the Council of Trent (pictured right).
The Counter-Reformation, in my opinion, should truly be called the Reformation since, by its definition (the act of reforming; state of being reformed; improvement, betterment, correction, reform), implies an internal change and not the creation of another entity that is different.
Old Label / New Label
Reformation / Church-Split
Counter-Reformation / Reformation
Screw the Positive Spin - Yay? Nay?
Maybe I’m not seeing something here, but why do we call this the “reformation”? This has puzzled me for several years; that, by the very definition of the word, it really seems to be a mislabeling of a very important era in church history. In fact, it’s more of a church split than an internal improvement or correction.
If the church had remained united as one, under the Roman head, then yes, we can properly call it a reformation, but a reformation is not a creation of something separate and different. Does anyone agree?
In fact, the Catholic church followed this shake-up with their very own [now also mislabeled]
reformation: the Counter-Reformation. This did away with the practices that rightly troubled the “reformers” like Luther and Calvin. Things like countering corrupt bishops and priests, banning the selling of indulgences, creating barriers to other financial abuses, as well as returning to a more foundational spirituality were all on the table at the Council of Trent (pictured right).The Counter-Reformation, in my opinion, should truly be called the Reformation since, by its definition (the act of reforming; state of being reformed; improvement, betterment, correction, reform), implies an internal change and not the creation of another entity that is different.
Old Label / New Label
Reformation / Church-Split
Counter-Reformation / Reformation
Screw the Positive Spin - Yay? Nay?
2 comments:
Yes I totally agree. What exactly is it though that causes you to think of these things? An inquiring nature? Its great, we need more people to look into why things are the way they are, because then things change.
Matt, I think you have a point - however, I think you may have mistaken the intention of the Reformers. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc, felt that the Catholic Church wasn't even close to the biblical church presented by Paul in the book of Acts. They did not consider themselves to be making something new or coming up with a new creation, but rather to be reformulating the God-given instutution of the church and returning her to her roots, where the scripture was accessible to all people in their own language, faith was understood as the vehicle through which salvation was given, and the average, everyday commen person could enjoy the gifts that the church provided, rather than being forced to pay for the institutions excesses. So in the sense that they considered themselves to be returning to the original theological and institutional model given in the New Testament, the were reforming.
I do see you rpoint about the conter-reformation, though it only applies, IMO, if the intention of the refermers was to create a new church. I don't think it was.
Post a Comment