The Reformation and the Church-State divide

[Anoetos]

Something that was bouncing around in my head this weekend as I read Johnson’s history of Christianity, please forgive me the choppy nature of the post, I didn’t have time to polish it up much:

1.In the Middle ages, “society” was conceived as having two “arms”, the ecclesiastical and the secular.

2.Throughout history, an ongoing debate has been raging between proponents of the claims these two “arms”. This debate has expressed itself in “Caesaropapism”, the belief that the state (in the person of the Emperor) has a responsibility to lead the church. Related to this is the idea of Erastianism, which “as a by-word, is used to denote the doctrine of the supremacy of the state in ecclesiastical causes; but the problem of the relations between church and state is one on which Erastus nowhere enters.” (Wikipedia). Another approach was that of the Western Church in the late middle ages. In the Carolingian period the Church was “under the protection” of the Emperor, and Charlemagne actually adjudicated a church discipline issue when he endorsed Pope Leo III and effectively reversed his deposition of 799. As time went on this tension between what we, today, have come to call “Church and State” continued, erupting periodically in events of pretty serious significance (think: Becket and Henry II, the Investiture Controversy, etc.), as the church asserted it’s rights over the state in some cases reserving to itself the right to ratify principal succession.

3.In a sense, the Reformation can be seen as a product of all this coming to a head, at least from a secular perspective. As important as pocketbook issues were, the real issue was still over who had what rights where. Along with Luther’s idea of the priesthood of all believers came the idea that secular authority required no endorsement from the church, and though the language was of yokes and burdens, the fact was that the church was, for all intents and purposes bilking the people of Northern Europe (often with the collusion of their rulers). With Henry VIII (to cite an example) the church was unwilling to grant him an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. It would be nice if we could just say that they were being entirely consistent and were motivated solely by religious and pious motives but a great deal of it had to do with continental politics and Catherine’s being the daughter of the King of Aragon (for all intents and purposes, the King of Spain). At any rate, the church drew a line in the sand in this ongoing debate between the itself and the state and unlike in times past, and for a great number of reasons, the King of England felt not only justified in but fully capable of separating his country from the established church, effectively establishing his own.

4.The current situation is one where, especially in America, the strict separation between church and state is taken, pretty much for granted. But every now and then we still hear grumblings from RC’s that the world would somehow be better off if the church and state were still joined. The current moral decline is often cited as a direct by-product of this separation. The death of the west is blamed entirely on the Reformation by some of these, citing this ensuing separation as the last cause of it.

My question is simple:

Are they right? And, if they are, what would the world look like if the Reformation had never happened the way it did and instead, the church (as it had always done previously) just reformed itself in a way which did not result in the fragmentation of the church and the modification of the Augustinian two kingdoms concept?

[Jude3b]

Something that was bouncing around in my head this weekend as I read Johnson’s history of Christianity, please forgive me the choppy nature of the post, I didn’t have time to polish it up much:

1.In the Middle ages, “society” was conceived as having two “arms”, the ecclesiastical and the secular.

2.Throughout history, an ongoing debate has been raging between proponents of the claims these two “arms”. This debate has expressed itself in “Caesaropapism”, the belief that the state (in the person of the Emperor) has a responsibility to lead the church. Related to this is the idea of Erastianism, which “as a by-word, is used to denote the doctrine of the supremacy of the state in ecclesiastical causes; but the problem of the relations between church and state is one on which Erastus nowhere enters.” (Wikipedia). Another approach was that of the Western Church in the late middle ages. In the Carolingian period the Church was “under the protection” of the Emperor, and Charlemagne actually adjudicated a church discipline issue when he endorsed Pope Leo III and effectively reversed his deposition of 799. As time went on this tension between what we, today, have come to call “Church and State” continued, erupting periodically in events of pretty serious significance (think: Becket and Henry II, the Investiture Controversy, etc.), as the church asserted it’s rights over the state in some cases reserving to itself the right to ratify principal succession.

3.In a sense, the Reformation can be seen as a product of all this coming to a head, at least from a secular perspective. As important as pocketbook issues were, the real issue was still over who had what rights where. Along with Luther’s idea of the priesthood of all believers came the idea that secular authority required no endorsement from the church, and though the language was of yokes and burdens, the fact was that the church was, for all intents and purposes bilking the people of Northern Europe (often with the collusion of their rulers). With Henry VIII (to cite an example) the church was unwilling to grant him an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. It would be nice if we could just say that they were being entirely consistent and were motivated solely by religious and pious motives but a great deal of it had to do with continental politics and Catherine’s being the daughter of the King of Aragon (for all intents and purposes, the King of Spain). At any rate, the church drew a line in the sand in this ongoing debate between the itself and the state and unlike in times past, and for a great number of reasons, the King of England felt not only justified in but fully capable of separating his country from the established church, effectively establishing his own.

4.The current situation is one where, especially in America, the strict separation between church and state is taken, pretty much for granted. But every now and then we still hear grumblings from RC’s that the world would somehow be better off if the church and state were still joined. The current moral decline is often cited as a direct by-product of this separation. The death of the west is blamed entirely on the Reformation by some of these, citing this ensuing separation as the last cause of it.

My question is simple:

Are they right? And, if they are, what would the world look like if the Reformation had never happened the way it did and instead, the church (as it had always done previously) just reformed itself in a way which did not result in the fragmentation of the church and the modification of the Augustinian two kingdoms concept?

NO, THEY ARE WRONG!

If we had not had a reformation - the world would still be living the the dark ages and most of us would still be lost and undone without God. No the world would not be better off - if there had never been a reformation.

What the world needs it for the reformation to continue and go forward - preaching the good news of the Gospel to every man, woman, boy and girl on planet earth - including those lost and undone in Roman Catholicism. The problem was that much of the reformation stopped and many of the good works started by it have backslidden into liberalism and modernism. This by and large has allowed Roman Catholicsm to continue to exist.

If Roman Catholicism ever were to truly reform itself back to the Bible standard that God have us for His church - the church of God - the body of Christ - the Roman Catholic religion would cease to exist.

[kommandermatt]

Something that was bouncing around in my head this weekend as I read Johnson’s history of Christianity, please forgive me the choppy nature of the post, I didn’t have time to polish it up much:

1.In the Middle ages, “society” was conceived as having two “arms”, the ecclesiastical and the secular.

Quibble: Three arms: Noble, ecclesiastical, and common.

Another approach was that of the Western Church in the late middle ages. In the Carolingian period the Church was “under the protection” of the Emperor, and Charlemagne actually adjudicated a church discipline issue when he endorsed Pope Leo III and effectively reversed his deposition of 799.

This is factually incorrect. Leo was not in any way formally deposed, but rather was violently assaulted in the street by friends and relatives of his predecessor, Adrian I. Charlemagne restored order and put Leo's attackers on trial, but he did not decide who was in fact the Pope.

3.In a sense, the Reformation can be seen as a product of all this coming to a head, at least from a secular perspective. As important as pocketbook issues were, the real issue was still over who had what rights where. Along with Luther’s idea of the priesthood of all believers came the idea that secular authority required no endorsement from the church, and though the language was of yokes and burdens, the fact was that the church was, for all intents and purposes bilking the people of Northern Europe (often with the collusion of their rulers).

True to a point, but it would be helpful to keep in mind that Luther was quite happy to use religious authority to help keep the peasants in their place, as his tract "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants" makes rather clear.

Furthermore, Luther was definitely not the only reformer, and they didn't all share his views. Calvin's Geneva was a total theocracy; a complete victory for the union of Church and State.

With Henry VIII (to cite an example) the church was unwilling to grant him an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. It would be nice if we could just say that they were being entirely consistent and were motivated solely by religious and pious motives but a great deal of it had to do with continental politics and Catherine’s being the daughter of the King of Aragon (for all intents and purposes, the King of Spain). At any rate, the church drew a line in the sand in this ongoing debate between the itself and the state and unlike in times past, and for a great number of reasons, the King of England felt not only justified in but fully capable of separating his country from the established church, effectively establishing his own.

Again, this is a triumph for the union of Church and State, not its seperation.

4.The current situation is one where, especially in America, the strict separation between church and state is taken, pretty much for granted. But every now and then we still hear grumblings from RC’s that the world would somehow be better off if the church and state were still joined. The current moral decline is often cited as a direct by-product of this separation. The death of the west is blamed entirely on the Reformation by some of these, citing this ensuing separation as the last cause of it.

I've never heard of American Catholics advocating the reunion of Church and State in any practical form. European Catholics occaisionally hearken back to the good old days, but Church seperation allowed the Catholic Church survive in an America that was incredibly hostile to it for most of its history. Americans who wish to see the Church and State rejoined are almost exclusively Protestant in my experience.

My question is simple:

Are they right? And, if they are, what would the world look like if the Reformation had never happened the way it did and instead, the church (as it had always done previously) just reformed itself in a way which did not result in the fragmentation of the church and the modification of the Augustinian two kingdoms concept?

It would have most likely have grown into what it is now anyway. Church and State seperated in primarily Protestant America and Catholic France almost simultaneously. The reformation might have helped move it along, but since Church/State seperation happened in both a Catholic country and a Protestant Country at almost the exact same time, and since both Protestants and Catholics alike fought for and against seperation, I would say that Augustine's two kingdoms was going to be modified period.

[Anoetos]

Thanks for your thoughtful answer, Matt. I posted the questions because I really wanted tog et people's takes on it.

It looks like you and Jude3B have something in common.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Anoetos]

Are they right?

They are right, if God is wrong. God made a covenant with Israel, which was broken time and time again, which had to be replaced. It was a covenant of law, by which external rules were applied, without sufficient internal motivation. It could not justify in God’s sight, it could only increase a sense of unworthiness. That is the failed model that the Roman ‘church’ doggedly and perversely follows under the name of Christianity. If its members bemoan the absence of the old days, when ‘Peter’s second sword’ meant compulsory confession and Mass attendance for all, that is not too surprising. Today it may seem somewhat masochistic to be a Catholic, when there are the options to forego Roman rituals in Protestantism or any of a wide range of less complex faiths, or to do without religion at all.

And, if they are, what would the world look like if the Reformation had never happened the way it did and instead, the church (as it had always done previously) just reformed itself in a way which did not result in the fragmentation of the church and the modification of the Augustinian two kingdoms concept?

Had the world stayed as it was in 900 AD, the medieval church could have done likewise. No doubt its then leaders never imagined the social and scientific changes that were to take place, culminating in the upheavals of the second millennium. Certainly, the behaviour of later popes, clerics and religious showed that there was no real expectation of approaching doom, even when it stared them in the face. But as European prosperity grew, the need for an intelligent, educated population also grew, and the staggering ignorance and superstition of the Dark and Middle Ages, at a level that had probably not been seen even in the ancient civilisations of Egypt, Babylon and Greece, was out of place.

Certainly, no Catholic should imagine that a return to full association of his or her organisation with civil states would herald a return to morality. At the Reformation there were as many protests against the various scandals of priests, friars, monks, bishops and, in particular, popes as there were basic theological objections. One wonders where the RCC would be today in the morality league table but for the controlling influence of the media and indeed the internet. What can fairly certainly be said is that if Romanism was given back full control, there would be no gospel truth heard anywhere, and that, I think, is the real aim of those who would like a return to medievalism.

[kommandermatt]

[QUOTE=Kenite]

They are right, if God is wrong. God made a covenant with Israel, which was broken time and time again, which had to be replaced. It was a covenant of law, by which external rules were applied, without sufficient internal motivation. It could not justify in God’s sight, it could only increase a sense of unworthiness.

First of all, I know we all love pronouns, but I object to that "they." I know you mean Catholics by it, but Catholics are certainly not the only, or even necessairily the majority of those who would like to see a reunion of Church and State.

Second, how, precisely, did the new Covenant established by Christ abolish any and all links between Church and State? Also, how do you view Calvin's Geneva and Puritan Plymouth?

That is the failed model that the Roman ‘church’ doggedly and perversely follows under the name of Christianity.

My, aren't you a sweetheart.

If its members bemoan the absence of the old days, when ‘Peter’s second sword’ meant compulsory confession and Mass attendance for all, that is not too surprising. Today it may seem somewhat masochistic to be a Catholic, when there are the options to forego Roman rituals in Protestantism or any of a wide range of less complex faiths, or to do without religion at all.

Yes, it can be rough following Christ instead of yourself. I prefer it to the intellectual masochism of an irrational and wilful ignorance though.

Had the world stayed as it was in 900 AD, the medieval church could have done likewise. No doubt its then leaders never imagined the social and scientific changes that were to take place, culminating in the upheavals of the second millennium. Certainly, the behaviour of later popes, clerics and religious showed that there was no real expectation of approaching doom, even when it stared them in the face.

Ah yes, impending doom. If it was staring them in the face then, it must have some very tired eyes, because the Catholic Church has yet to meet it. In fact, clocking in now at 1 billion faithful spread across every continent on earth, (for those of us keeping track, that's one sixth of the earth's population, making it the largest single denomination on earth) Popery is doin' swell.

But as European prosperity grew, the need for an intelligent, educated population also grew,

Or, as Europe's populace became more educated, due largely to the education provided by Roman Catholic Universities and Monestaries, in conjunction with purely secular advances such as the printing press, European prosperity also grew.

and the staggering ignorance and superstition of the Dark and Middle Ages, at a level that had probably not been seen even in the ancient civilisations of Egypt, Babylon and Greece, was out of place.

Canard. Medieval Europe was no more and no less educated than the vast majority of human societies that had preceeded it.

One wonders where the RCC would be today in the morality league table but for the controlling influence of the media and indeed the internet.

Way to take a general truth and apply it selectively. Any human group or individual is highly liable to corruption if they have no accountablility. Utterly non-unique, and frankly, insulting. (Which I'm sure was your goal.) The powerful and firm morality of Catholic Popes and Bishops, as well as ordinary clergy and laity, has been proven time and time again, regardless of whether or not it was convenient or public. Pope Pius XII saved hundreds of thousands of Jews from the maw of the Holocaust by buying their lives from the Nazis with priceless works of art; the Roman Catholic cultural patrimony. The murder of Bishop Juan Gerardi in Guatemala is another example, as are the lives of any number of Saints.

What can fairly certainly be said is that if Romanism was given back full control, there would be no gospel truth heard anywhere, and that, I think, is the real aim of those who would like a return to medievalism.

That can only be fairly said by the ignorant. In all other cases it is solely the domain of liars and demagogues.

[keith]

OK, here is another angle on this subject. Here in England there was a Reformation but one which left the Church-State relationship pretty much intact. Henry VIII in effect nationalised the Church. We still have a State Church established by law, with its senior bishops sitting in the House of Lords and the Head of State as its Supreme Governor. In the context of what the founding fathers of America wanted to change this is what they left behind, not medieval papacy. The Prime Minister selects the Archbishop and senior clergy from shortlists prepared by the Church. Separation of Church and State is surely at least as much about not letting politicians and monarchs pick the clergy as it is about not wanting church leaders to meddle in politics.

If anything churches in America seem to be more alive and well than their European counterparts which are in Church-State alliances. I really do not see what is so appealing about wanting to restore or build such a relationship.
At the same time we see the England is one of the most secular, irreligious countries in the world. This is despite having a church that is the spiritual equivalent of the National Health Service.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=keith]

OK, here is another angle on this subject. Here in England there was a Reformation but one which left the Church-State relationship pretty much intact. Henry VIII in effect nationalised the Church.

He simply changed private ownership from a corrupt 'pope' to his own corrupt self. Later, the CofE became more democratic, but not enough, as the rapid growth of non-conformism showed.

If anything churches in America seem to be more alive and well than their European counterparts which are in Church-State alliances.

Most European churches are not in any observable alliance, and those that are have much weakened relationships compared to those in the past.

American religion is deeply hypocritical, and most people elsewhere in the West far prefer plain paganism to American religion. The USA is a special case, because of its special history.

At the same time we see the England is one of the most secular, irreligious countries in the world.

No more than France, Holland, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and other smaller states. The old Catholic countries like Spain and Italy are becoming similar. It is just a question of growing up.

[keith]

[QUOTE=Kenite]

American religion is deeply hypocritical, and most people elsewhere in the West far prefer plain paganism to American religion. The USA is a special case, because of its special history.

No more than France, Holland, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and other smaller states. The old Catholic countries like Spain and Italy are becoming similar. It is just a question of growing up.

Hmm. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'growing up' in this context. Did you have in mind an intellectual rejection of the claims of Christianity? Or perhaps a move towards a more materialistic pleasure orientated society?

On the point about contemporary church-state relations they may not be obvious but for example, in the UK Parliament opens with Christian prayers every day (try doing that in America) schools are obliged by law to teach religious education giving special emphasis to the christian tradition. The Church of England has many specific privileges - chaplains in prisons, hospitals and a legal obligation to provide a place of worship in every parish.

The irony of all this, oh yes and the church is one of the biggest landowners in Britain too, owning great chunks of London and other major cities. Yes the irony is that the only visible signs of church growth are amongst black-led and other ethnic congregations who have no power or privilege whatsoever.

There are lots of factors explaining the decline of christianity in Europe but surely this has to be taken into account as one of them. The Church is seen to be part of the established system and that alienates a lot of people. In countries as diverse as Norway (Lutheran) and Greece (Orthodox) the clergy are civil servants ie on the government payroll. Why? In Norway the law stipulates a minimum number of practising Lutherans in the Government Cabinet! In the UK the Head of State and the Prime Minister must be Protestants (again by law).This is a long way from how it all began. In Germany the state taxes its citizens at source and gives money to both Catholic and Protestant Churches. Again I ask why? What business is that of the State?

I would very much like to see greater separation of church and state here in the UK btw and might start a thread on the topic if there is any interest.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=keith]

Hmm.

I never know why people bother to type that. I can only guess.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'growing up' in this context. Did you have in mind an intellectual rejection of the claims of Christianity? Or perhaps a move towards a more materialistic pleasure orientated society?

Neither. Can you think of another possibility?

On the point about contemporary church-state relations they may not be obvious but for example, in the UK Parliament opens with Christian prayers every day (try doing that in America)

You will be worth debating with when you deal properly with the salient points made against yours.

[keith]

Ok, you have my attention. Yes I take your point that there is a decline of adherence to churches right across Europe in both countries with official church-state ties (such as UK, Germany) and those with no formal links eg Sweden or France. Clearly the church-state link is only part of a wider story. This could be interpreted as a victory for secularism but on closer inspection I suspect the evidence is a little more ambiguous. For example, in the UK less than 10% of the population attend a church but nearer 80% self identify as christian when asked in surveys. There is a case for saying that although many people feel disconnected from traditional 'mainstream' churches (Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran etc) that does not of itself prove they have lost interest in christianity. Religious beliefs of all kinds continue to thrive in the private sphere. As has been said by others there are many who believe but do not wish to belong.

By the way, I was intrigued by you drawing attention to the 'Hmmm' thing - I do this a lot in everyday life - it goes with my job. If it is in any way irksome I shall try hard to refrain.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=keith]

By the way, I was intrigued by you drawing attention to the 'Hmmm' thing - I do this a lot in everyday life - it goes with my job. If it is in any way irksome I shall try hard to refrain.

Don't do that. It would be awful if you lost your job because of us.

[Anoetos]

Note: History locates at least thre major economic booms in the history of Europe, only one of which had anything to do with Monasticism and it needs also to be mentioned that credit for the institution of general public education would have to go the Protestantism.

[keith]

[QUOTE=Kenite]

Don't do that. It would be awful if you lost your job because of us.

[Kenite]

Note: History locates at least thre major economic booms in the history of Europe, only one of which had anything to do with Monasticism and it needs also to be mentioned that credit for the institution of general public education would have to go the Protestantism.

Below is the list of scientific discoveries made between Constantine and the Reformation.






.