To understand the Reformation, we must first understand what it was contesting. This lesson presents how authority developed in the Western Church, and the Catholic logic behind it.
The rise of the papacy
Under Constantine, the papacy as it would later be known did not yet exist. It developed between the middle of the third century and the accession of Gregory the Great in 590, notably under Leo I. The bishop of Rome, successor of Peter according to Matthew 16:18-19, became the head of the whole Western Church.
In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the idea of papal infallibility emerged, though it was not defined as dogma until 1870. The pope also held temporal power. Being declared a heretic then meant being excluded from the whole of society. The unity of the faith was easier to guarantee.
The Catholic logic
The Catholic argument deserves to be presented seriously. A text does not interpret itself. When opposing readings appear, who decides? For Catholic theology, Christ entrusted to his Church, and in particular to the successors of Peter and the apostles, the task of guarding and faithfully interpreting revelation, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
From this perspective, Scripture and tradition are not two competing revelations, but two channels through which the same word of God is handed on. The Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church, is not above the word of God but at its service. This is what the Second Vatican Council would affirm in Dei Verbum (1965).
A Bible grown distant
In practice, by the end of the Middle Ages the Bible had drifted away from the faithful. The liturgy was in Latin, a language the people no longer understood. Rites, legends and devotions took up a great deal of space. Some clergy themselves knew the biblical text poorly. It was this gap that the Reformers would denounce.
Tradition I and tradition II
The Protestant theologian Keith Mathison proposes a useful distinction:
- Tradition I: Scripture is the only source of revelation, interpreted within the Church and according to the rule of faith. This, in his view, is the position of the early Church.
- Tradition II: tradition is a second source of revelation, alongside Scripture.
For Mathison, then, the conflict of the sixteenth century did not set Scripture against tradition, but two conceptions of tradition against each other. Catholic theologians dispute this reading, but it helps to locate the debate.
The Council of Trent
Opened in 1545 by Paul III, the Council of Trent answered the Reformers. According to Victor Baroni, it had to settle four questions:
- The limits of the canon: the Reformers rejected the deuterocanonical books, Trent confirmed them.
- The place of tradition: Trent affirmed that revelation is contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions.
- The reference Bible: Trent declared the Vulgate authentic for the public use of the Church.
- Interpretation: no one may interpret Scripture against the sense held by the Church.
Key points
- Between the third and sixth centuries, the bishop of Rome gradually became the head of the Western Church.
- In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the idea of papal infallibility emerged.
- For Catholic theology, Scripture and tradition are two channels of one and the same revelation, interpreted by the Magisterium.
- Keith Mathison distinguishes a “tradition I”, which interprets Scripture, and a “tradition II”, a source of revelation in its own right.
- The Council of Trent (1545-1563) answered the Reformers on the canon, tradition, the reference Bible and interpretation.
To think about
- The Catholic argument says that a text needs a guaranteed interpreter. What do you think?
- Does the distinction between “tradition I” and “tradition II” help you understand the debate?
Further reading
- Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Canon Press, 2001.
- Second Vatican Council, constitution Dei Verbum, 1965.
- Victor Baroni, La Contre-Réforme devant la Bible, La Concorde, 1943.