Roots of the Reformation VIII: Reformation or Reformations

reliquary bust of Charlemagne

I was asked why I keep referring to the Protestant Reformations—note the plural.  I think “the Reformation” is often misunderstood  because we do not nuance the term correctly and in a historical context.  There was no single Reformation.  Indeed the Church has known a series of Reformations—some of which happened within the unity of the Church and some of which happened in such a way as to separate groups within the Church from one another and divide the Church.  And that was not the end of it—within some of the Churches formed by the divisions, there were further Reformations.  Perhaps we can look at the history and see this.  

First of all, let’s remember the axiom: ecclesia semper reformans, semper reformanda—the Church, always reforming; always in need of reform.  History has borne that out.  Human nature being what it is, the Chuch—which after all is a collection of humans with all the faults and failures of the residue of original sin—keeps slipping from the ideal is Founder set for it and, like the individuals who comprise it, needs to do penance and amend its ways. 

When I teach the history of the Church, the earliest reformation of the Church, or at least the Church in the West, that I treat is the Reform of Charlemagne.  I suspect that one might be able to look back to Gregory the Great (c.600) and argue for a Reform, though personally I don’t see that being a time of Reform but more of a pristine idealism in a Church had had yet to be corrupted.  On the other hand I am probably naïve; human nature being what it is the Church has probably needed Reform from the time of the Apostles.    Some might speak of “Constantine’s Reformation”—after all he did call the Council of Nicea and he reshaped the Church to fit into the Roman world, but I guess I come out of the Niebuhr school that judges Constantine’s influence on the Church to have been deforming rather than reforming.  That will be an interesting series of blog entries—the Constantinian heritage.  Hmmm  have to think about that.

In any event, we will start with the Carolingian Reformation—which was part of the Carolingian Renaissance—renaissances and reformations often travel together through the pages of history books.  Charlemagne was faced with a problem.  He had a vast empire which today would cover France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, most of Germany, the northeastern corner of Spain, parts of Austria, and Italy as far south as Rome.  There were, in this Empire, huge variances in language, culture, and religion.  When I say there were differences of religion, most of the region had been Christianized but there were significant differences in liturgy (worship practices and rites), monastic practices, and church discipline.  While the pope had the title of Patriarch of the West, in actual fact he had no power and there was no central authority.  Each bishop was elected in his diocese and was pretty much independent.  Charlemagne wanted to unify his empire and so he decreed that there would be one language for all official business-Latin, the language of ancient Rome.  And as for religion—he decided that Roman practices should be used throughout his empire.  The Roman liturgical books were made standard.  Now, in the ninth century liturgical books contained the texts of prayers, not the rubrics.  Matters such as the number of candles on the altar, the color of vestments, when to bow or genuflect—that still varied from city to city according to the local custom.  Charlemagne imposed a uniform calendar (again, allowing for additions of local usage) and the text of the prayers. Thus, for example, the Roman Canon (today’s Eucharistic Prayer I) became the standard consecratory prayer used throughout the empire.  Similarly the structure of the Mass and the various collects for Sundays and major feasts were determined for all the empire, which meant practically speaking, for all Western Europe.  The Roman martyrs and saints began to be venerated throughout Europe, while the memory of local saints were still honored in their home region.     

Charlemagne also imposed the Roman Rule for Monks—that is the Rule of Saint Benedict—on all the monasteries of his empire.  There were innumerable monasteries of nuns and monks in the ninth century and again, in various matters such as the arrangement of the monastic garb or what foods were eaten at which season, local custom remained, but in the essentials of monastic organization and discipline, Charlemagne established a uniformity. Every monastery had an abbot.  Every monastery fasted from “the ides of September until Easter Day” as Benedict prescribed.  The round of daily services—Matins, Vespers, Compline, etc. was followed as it was in Rome.  Charlemagne also mandated that all the monasteries, at least of men, should have a school as education was very important to his program.  Of course, other than future monks few attended these schools but it did preserve learning and culture.  By the way, the nuns’ monasteries often had schools every bit as good as the monks’ and though they were primarily for the education of future nuns they did provide an opportunity for women to learn not only how to read and write, but Latin, music, art, astronomy, mathematics and other disciplines.  

In many ways it was Charlemagne’s Reform that created a “Roman” Catholic Church although it would not be called that for several centuries.  Charlemagne did his best in the Reform of the Church, but there were many issues left pending.  Economically the Church was deeply immersed in the feudal system and its offices and incomes would be exploited by kings and nobles alike—bishoprics and abbacies were too often filled with men (or in the case of abbacies, with women as well as men) whose only qualification was their parentage or patronage.   Monasticism was limited to the upper classes and the ordinary peasantry was relegated to a life that was more superstitious piety than Christian discipleship.  The primitive Church’s idealism regarding pacificism was forgotten as the demands of political situations required warfare.  Nevertheless, Charlemagne’s efforts should not be dismissed.  While he did not do all the Church needed for reform, given the resources with which he had to work, he made an honest effort and it was not without its benefits, most notably in regards to education.  

History in the Making: Is Cardinal Burke on target?

In a recent interview, Cardinal Burke, an American serving in the Roman Curia, said that Catholics are losing their faith because of masses celebrated without due reverence.  I think he has a point.  What we would probably disagree with is what one means by “due reverence.”  His Eminence has shown a preference for the pre-conciliar mass while he does not object to the Missal of Paul VI, the Novus Ordo, when celebrated appropriately.  There is much disagreement today about how the mass of Paul VI is to be celebrated.  We can look at that in some future entry, but yesterday I attended the Installation of a friend of mine as rector in an Episcopal Church where a fair number of parishioners are former Roman Catholics.  At the dinner afterwards I asked a couple at my table why they had left the Catholic Church. 

“Mostly we left because we have found the Church not to be family-friendly.  Our experience was that the homilies or sermons were not speaking to the world of people with families. They were more theology lectures. We weren’t getting guidance for the real problems of real people; we were just getting a lot of “theology” and it was pretty esoteric stuff.  I don’t need to hear about Aristotle and substances—I need to hear about how Jesus expects me to be a father to my children: what I need to say and do to bring them to a good and holy life.  And I need to hear this from people who have their feet on the ground.  I have to deal with real problems—why my kids shouldn’t expect to get everything they want just because we are fairly wealthy people.  My daughter wanted a $1400.00 prom dress and when I told her that wasn’t going to happen in a world where most people go to bed hungry, she through a fit and said she didn’t care about the poor.  I realized then that we never heard about the poor in our Catholic parish and I decided we needed to go to a Church where they talk about “the least of my brothers.”

This couple called another friend of theirs over and he said:  “Frankly I find the priests in the Catholic Church too effeminate.  I can’t stomach the fussiness of what the mass has become—the priests where I used to go to mass drape lace all over everything including themselves.  When we lived out in the Midwest, the church was pretty simple.  Mass was a straight-forward affair—the focus was on the scripture and the Holy Communion.  But here it seems as if it is about ceremony.  I know there are Episcopalian Churches like that too, but here at Christ Church we are what is called “low church.”  I mean it is all very reverent—you saw that in the service today—but they don’t gild the lilies.   When I am home in Indiana I still go to the Catholic Church, but out here I am just not comfortable with it."       

My friend, the new Rector, told me that about twenty percent of his congregation are former Roman Catholics or Catholics who come to services there will still remaining technically Catholics.  He himself is a cradle-born Episcopalian; his wife is still Methodist though she usually attends the Episcopal Church.  He said in addition to Catholics, perhaps another twenty percent of his parish is made up of those who once belonged to another Protestant denomination and two people whom he knows who were raised Jewish.  His parish has about 650 members which is a fairly large parish in the Episcopal Church.  They have two services on Sundays, the early service draws about a hundred and alternates Sundays between Morning Prayer and Eucharist. The second service is always the Eucharist and draws between two hundred and fifty and three hundred.  These figures show that a considerably higher percentage of his parishioners attend church regularly than Catholics, but it also shows that approximately 140 former Catholics are now Episcopalians.  The Rector says they are among his most active and committed members.  “Us cradle-Episcopalians are much more likely to have a long sleep-in on Sundays, or to chose brunch over the Eucharist—but not my Catholic parishioners—they are there every Sunday.”  Something to think about.    The image today is Cardinal (then Archbishop) Burke leaving mass in his cappa magna.