The Catholic Response at Trent
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, – in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, – wrestling the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, – whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, – hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established. [1]
The language could not be more clear. In no uncertain terms, the Church categorically condemned anyone interpreting Scripture apart from the predetermined interpretation of the Catholic Church. The Church believed that she was “to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures.” Here, the “holy mother Church” makes it clear that she determined, or stood over, as Luther put it, what Scripture meant. No one is free to read and come to their own interpretation. Certainly the rejection of perspicuity is at play here.
In addition, Trent clearly stated that the only legitimate translation to be used in writings, sermons, and personal reading was the Latin Vulgate. In other words, the Vulgate (with the Apocrypha) was the only authoritative translation of Scripture and must be the sole translation used by Christians. [2]
This clear condemnation against vernacular translations was a direct assault on the Reformed doctrine of perspicuity. The Reformers were clear, as has been established, that laity should have access to the Bible in their own language (since it is clear) so that they may read it for themselves and be drawn closer to Christ. Furthermore, the Reformers believed that a vernacular translation of Scripture would greatly enhance the Reformation as everyday people could see for themselves, in the clear words of Scripture, how off base and unbiblical the Catholic Church had become.
These decrees from Trent was not a surprise or even new to the Christian world. Since the development of Medieval theology, the Church had long rejected perspicuity and held to the Church’s authority over the interpretation of Scripture considering the Vulgate as the sole translation of Scripture.
One 15th Century Catholic theologian, Jean Gerson, argued “that the authority to judge and declare what the literal sense of Scripture rests in the church alone. Instead of the literal sense being the plain sense” the literal sense had become the “private property” of the Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit. In other words, “the Scripture means what the Church says it means.” [3] As Gerson’s pre-Trent theology reflected, what the Roman Catholic Church decreed to be obeyed as official Church dogma at Trent was nothing new but an official statement of an old belief. Once again, what separated Luther’s Reformation (and the Reformation in general) from the Catholic Church was the issue of perspicuity.
Furthermore, following Trent, the Church established the Index. The Index was itself an admission on the part of the Roman Catholic Church that the Reformation spread because of the printing press. The Index, then, was a long list of banned books that Catholics were not allowed to read from authors and theologians such as Luther, Erasmus, and John Calvin.
In addition to the Index, the Catholic Church established a group called “The Congregation” that read various books to determine what should be added to the Index. [4] Foundational to such actions is the assumption and firm doctrinal belief that anything outside the authoritative interpretation provided by the Church was blasphemous. In other words, the Church determined what was blasphemous and what was orthodox because the Spirit works through her to determine the meaning of Scripture.
In other words, the Church not only affirmed her rejection of perspicuity in which the Reformers challenged, but went out of her way to insure that anyone that proposed different interpretations based on their reading of Scripture was banned and silenced.
Once again, the debate over Scripture was centered not on the Bible’s authority, but on its perspicuity and who had the right to determine its meaning. If Scripture is clear, as the Luther argued, then the Pope did not stand above Scripture. Instead, Scripture stood above the Church and vernacular translations were a must common Christians. On the other hand, if Scripture is obscure and unclear, as the Catholic Church vehemently defended and decreed, then the Bible must only be read and studied in the pre-approved translation and interpreted through a pre-approved lens granted by the Church and her bishop.
Once again, it was perspicuity that was under attack.
[1] Roman Catholic Church, The Council of Trent Fourth Session, trans. James Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 17-21 [on-line], accessed 16, August 2010, http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct04.html; Internet.
[2] The Council declared:
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema . . .
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod, – considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic, – ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. Ibid.
[3] Pettegrew, “The Perspicuity of Scripture,” 220.
[4] This group continued to exist until it was disbanded in 1966.
The Real Divide: Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 1
The Real Divide: Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 2
The Real Divide: Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 3
The Real Divide: Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 4
For more:
Theology - Luther: Right Doctrine and Righteous Living Go Hand-in-Hand - A Message the Church Needs to Recover
Reviews - Reviews in Brief: Martin Luther and the Reformation
Reviews - The Theology of the Reformers
Reviews - The Unquenchable Flame
Reviews - Luther: Man Between God and the Devil
Reviews - The Trial of Luther
Reviews - Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death
Reviews - "On the Necessity of Reforming the Church" by John Calvin
Reviews - John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, & Doxology
Reviews - Christianity's Dangerous Idea
0 comments:
Post a Comment