St. Bartholemew’s day Massacre

St. Bartholemew’s Day Massacre

Jeremiah 8:12

Were they ashamed when they committed abomination?
No, they were not at all ashamed;
they did not know how to blush.

The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre (Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy in French) in 1572 was a targeted group of assassinations, followed by a wave of Roman Catholic mob violence, both directed against the Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants), during the French Wars of Religion. Traditionally believed to have been instigated by Catherine de’ Medici, the mother of King Charles IX, the massacre took place six days after the wedding of the king’s sister to the Protestant Henry III of Navarre (the future Henry IV of France). This marriage was an occasion for which many of the most wealthy and prominent Huguenots had gathered in largely Catholic Paris.

The massacre began two days after the attempted assassination of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, the military and political leader of the Huguenots. Starting on 23 August 1572 (the eve of the feast of Bartholomew the Apostle) with murders on orders of the king of a group of Huguenot leaders including Coligny, the massacres spread throughout Paris. Lasting several weeks, the massacre extended to other urban centres and the countryside. Modern estimates for the number of dead vary widely between 5,000 and 30,000 in total.

The massacre also marked a turning point in the French Wars of Religion. The Huguenot political movement was crippled by the loss of many of its prominent aristocratic leaders, as well as many re-conversions by the rank and file, and those who remained were increasingly radicalized. Though by no means unique, it “was the worst of the century’s religious massacres.” Throughout Europe, it “printed on Protestant minds the indelible conviction that Catholicism was a bloody and treacherous religion”.

If you’re tempted today to go along to get along, take a moment remember the 12,000 or so Dutch Reformed martyrs, who died under Phlip II, and the 30,000-50,000 French Reformed martyrs, who died during the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, who only wanted to confess the Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and who wanted only to worship God in the way that he has commanded and for that were put to death confessing Jesus the only High Priest and Head of the Church and the Word of God as the only norm of the church.

Great Moments in Papal History

I don’t think Catholics understand what they’re defending, when they defend the papacy. Along those lines, I’ll be posting this series, “Great Moments in Papal History,” to show the character of those in office, whose legitimacy must be maintained in order to also maintain a “succession” in this “office.”

This is from Norman Davies, “Europe” (pg 417):

The Papal Schism, which lasted from 1378 to 1417, followed hard on the popes’ return from Avignon. There had been anti-popes before, of course; but the spectacle of two men, both elected by the same College of Cardinals and each preaching war and anathema against his rival, proved a grave scandal. The two original claimants, Urban VI and Clement VII, could hardly be described as holy men. The former turned out to be a deranged sadist who read his breviary in the Vatican garden whilst supervising the torture of his cardinals. The latter, Robert of Geneva, had once ordered the appalling bloodbath at Cesena.* In 1409, when both the Urbanite and the Clementine parties declined to attend a council designed to reconcile them, the College elected a third. The Schism was not ended until the Council of Constance dismissed all three existing pontiffs and unaniously acclaimed Cardinal Odo Colonna as Martin V (1417-31) in their place.

* [this] little comune revolted again in 1377 during the War of the Eight Saints. This time it was recaptured by Breton troops of Giovanni Acuto (the English-born condottiere John Hawkwood) under the command of Robert, Cardinal of Geneva, (later antipope Clement VII): the latter, acting as the legate of Pope Gregory XI, directed the savage murder of between 2,500 and 5,000 civilians, an atrocity by the rules of war at the time that earned the label the “Cesena Bloodbath” and the cardinal the “butcher of Cesena”.

The Reformation and “The One True Church”

But one of the great catholic doctrines which the Reformers declared as loudly and clearly as they could was that of the communion of saints: that all who receive Christ by faith, simply by simple faith, are holy in Him in the eyes of God, and members of Him: saints. They are one holy, catholic church; mystical as a whole, but visible wherever people are gathered in charity around the Word.

The Reformers drew out the full implications of the doctrine of the communion of saints for all of Christian life; it has as much to do with their thought on politics as it has to do with their thought on spiritual matters. So in a way, the Reformation, which preached the truth of what it means to be a saint in that communion of saints, can be regarded as the “eve”, the gate, of the truth of All Saints Day.

For evangelicals, the Reformation was the moment in which the church came to the clearest self-understanding of any time in its history; but its self-understanding includes all that history: Reformation is not a dividing line, it is a clarity and scope of vision, and part of what seen clearly from that vantage point, is “all saints”; the true form of the church of Jesus Christ throughout all times, and in all places. In other words, the catholic Church.

Peter Escalante, “Basilica,” October 31, 2008
http://thebasilica.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/welcome-to-basilica/

A timeline of the early papacy

150 ad: the church at Rome is ruled by a plurality of presbyters who quarrel about status and honor. (Shepherd of Hermas). “They had a certain jealousy of one another over questions of preeminence and about some kind of distinction. But they are all fools to be jealous of one another regarding preeminence.”

Also note in Hermas: “Clement’s” “job” is to “send books abroad.” — Peter Lampe does not think this Clement is the same individual from 1 Clement, but the time frame is appropriate.

235: Hippolytus and Pontianus are exiled from Rome by the emperor “because of street fighting between their followers” (Collins citing Cerrato, Oxford 2002).

258: Cyprian (Carthage/west) and Firmilian (Caesarea/east) both go apoplectic when Stephen tries to exercise authority outside of Rome.

306: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins)

308: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins again).

325: Council of Nicea: Alexandria has authority over Egypt and Libya, just as “a similar custom exists with the Bishop of Rome.” The Bishop of Jerusalem is to be honored.

381: Constantinople: Because it is new Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome. (This indicates Rome’s “honour” is due to its being the capital.)

431: Cyril, “stole” the council (Moffett 174, citing “Book of Heraclides) and “the followers of Cyril went about in the city girt and armed with clubs … with yells of barbarians, snorting fiercely, raging with extravagant arrogance against those whom they knew to be opposed to their doings…”

451: Chalcedon, 28th canon, passed by the council at the 16th session, “The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of Older Rome, since that is an imperial city; moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of New Rome …” (Rejected by the pope. But what were these “devout bishops” thinking?).

Schatz, summarizing: In any case it is clear that Roman primacy was not a given from the outset ; it underwent a long process of development whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century. The question is then: can we reasonably say of this historically developed papacy that it was instituted by Christ and therefore must always continue to exist?

His response is that the institution of the Church “must be understood in such a way that an awareness of what is essential and enduring … develops only as a result of historical challenges and experiences.”

That is there was no notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime. There was no notion that Jesus expected Peter to have “successors,” nor that Matthew expected a successor to Peter (Schatz, pg 1).

Only after there was no longer a political power in the west to challenge papal claims, did the “awareness” of the “essential and enduring” nature of the papacy take hold.

“An Examination of Roman Catholicism”

Lane Keister over at Green Baggins has posted “An Examination of Roman Catholicism,” in which he lists a few items of Catholic doctrine, a response from the Reformed Confessions, and then some scripture verses. The purpose is “to have a handy chart for easily comparing the Reformed faith with official Roman Catholic teaching on a number of doctrines”.

Comparing some of these individual doctrines is helpful, but the real heart and soul of the divide lies in the subject of “authority”.

With that in mind, here are a couple of topics that I believe need to be explored:

1. Everything at this thread: the compatibility of authority structures of Trent with the “developed” authority structure put forth at Vatican II. This leads to a discussion of whether only “the precise words” of the councils should be taken into account, or whether the “conscious faith” of the attendees matters. The two are in grave conflict.

2. The history of the early papacy. Documents as recent as Vatican I (see Session 4 Chapter 2) and the papal encyclical Satis Cognitum essentially posited the papacy as haven been “immediately given” (“He also determined that the authority instituted in perpetuity for the salvation of all should be inherited by His successors, in whom the same permanent authority of Peter himself should continue.”)

It is this link to “successors” that has been essentially found to be “not there,” as there was no monarchical bishop in Rome up until about the year 175. The following works of the past 50 years have put a great deal of historical presure on Rome (and also describe this “not there-ness”) with a great deal of detail:

Oscar Cullman: Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr
Google book does not seem to be available.

D.W. O’Connor: Peter in Rome: Literary, Archaeological, and Liturgical EvidenceGoogle Book does not seem to be available.
Peter Lampe: From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries
There’s a fair preview in the Google Book. See especially chapter 41.

I’ve posted a review of Lampe’s work here.

As a result of such work, I believe that Rome has recently admitted to “development” of the papacy for the very first time.

This document was issued in conjunction with a symposium following the papal encyclical “Ut Unum Sint,” which Pope John Paul “in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.”

This is a groundbreaking admission; so far I am not aware of Reformed efforts to address this “new situation,” but I believe it is ripe to be exploited.

For more information, see here and here.

3. Closely following on this, the Ratzinger-approved document “Responses to Questions on the Doctrine of the Church” denies that good Reformed Reverends such as yourselves do not enjoy “do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders” and thus your churches “cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense.”

One of the defenses of this “Succession of the Sacrament of Orders” is John 20:22: “he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” In context, however, Carson holds that women are in the room with the disciples, and that this episode authorizes all to forgive sins by preaching the gospel. But Rome has drawn the “authority” line at the place of “a succession of orders,” and it is here that Reformed research would bear a great deal of fruit.

4. The Council of Ephesus (the third council, 431 ad).

Samuel Hugh Moffett, writing in “A History of Christianity in Asia,” describes this council:

“On Easter Sunday in 429, Cyril publicly denounced Nestorius for heresy. With fine disregard for anything Nestorius had actually said, he accused him of denying the deity of Christ. It was a direct and incendiary appeal to the emotions of the orthodox, rather than to precise theological definition or scriptual exegesis, and, as he expected, an ecclesiastical uproar followed. Cyril showered Nestorius with twelve bristling anathemas…As tempers mounted, a Third Ecumenical Council was summoned to meet in Ephesus in 431 … [it was] the most violent and least equitable of all the great councils. It is an embarassment and blot on the history of the church. … Nestorius … arrived late and was asking the council to wait for him and his bishops. Cyril, who had brought fifty of his own bishops with him, arrogantly opened the council anyway, over the protests of the imperial commissioner and about seventy other bishops. … “They acted … as if it was a war they were conducting, and the followers of [Cyril] … went about in the city girt and armed with clubs … with the yells of barbarians, snorting fiercely … raging with extravagant arrogance against those whom they knew to be opposed to their doings, carrying bells about the city and lighting fires. They blocked up the streets so that everyone was obliged to fee and hide, while they acted as masters of the situation, lying about, drunk and besotted and shouting obsceneties… (Moffet 174).

The anathemas of this council were directed at Nestorius; they ratified 12 “anathemas” that, as Moffett relates, had nothing to do with Nestorius’s actual teachings.

This is a travesty of church authority, and yet as Moffett and others have written, this schism was far greater extent than either the 1054 split with the EO’s or the Protestant Reformation. In this split, (effected by Cyril’s armed thugs and a council that bore false witness against Nestorius), the entire eastern portion of the church (farther east than Jerusalem) was cast off and later left to die at the hands of Islam. Yet this church was far larger in numbers and scope than the churches surrounding the Mediterranean see. For more information, see:

Philip Jenkins: The Lost History of Christianity

Mar Bawai Soro: The Church of the East: Apostolic and Orthodox

I believe firm and steady pressure from the Reformed community on these topics will be able to force many concessions both from popular Roman Catholic apologists as well as from “official Rome” itself. And I believe that conservative Reformed scholars and pastors, armed with such knowledge, can really put the Reformation (and the need for it) back into perspective.

A word about method

At another place where I am a frequent commenter, the host, Jason Stellman, suggests that we should ask the following question:

Should we Protestants, whether Lutheran or Calvinistic, be playing the antiquity game in the first place? Or should we be more consistetly Sola Scriptura?

I absolutely believe that Protestants should be in the business of church history. We need an army of well-informed 21st century Phillip Schaffs and J. B. Lightfoots out there, compiling documents and histories, working through the various theologies of the various fathers, and writing biographies.

Citing an email from Steven Wedgeworth, “… historical criticism is much needed, as so much of [Roman Catholicism] depends on a mythical ‘early church.’  Protestants were the original church historians (Neander, Schaff), yet we have somehow fallen away from that over the last fifty years.  We need critical historians, how are also able to appreciate the past, in all its messiness, embracing it as their own.”

Protestants have the ability to be most honest in this because there need not be a pre-commitment to defend such dogmatic notions as the early belief in a papacy, or the viability of the Marian dogmas.

A word about method: regarding the study of the early church, Jaroslav Pelikan, who before his death was perhaps one of the world’s foremost Luther scholars, and who converted to Orthodoxy in the last years of his life, wrote a masterful five volume “History  of the Development of Doctrine.” In that work, he says:

Upon closer examination, however, the problem of tradition and history is seen to be more complex. Even the most doctrinaire traditionalist must be concerned with such questions as the authenticity of works ascribed to an ecclesiastical writer or of decrees attributed to a council; he must trace the origin and transmission of quotations that appear in the documents of the church; he must investigate the social settings of his texts, to understand the very meaning of the words. All of these are historical assignments, some of them with far more subtle implications than the need of simply checking dates or verifying texts. (Vol. 1 pg 8).

But in looking at “origins” and “transmissions” of quotations, there IS a need to look at “social settings” and “meanings of words”. You can’t just throw out a quote and say, “aha!” In order to understand “the quote,” you have to understand the situation in which it was written, and indeed, to verify that it was valid.

Before we look at documents like the letters of Clement and Ignatius and Cyprian, there is a process of history and textual criticism that must take place. The early church (following its Jewish predecessors) was meticulous about preserving both oral teaching and written texts, but there was also a tendency, especially in later times, to embellish things.

And by “embellish things,” I’m talking about such things as Eusebius. It’s true he was the first historian of the church, and we are indebted to him for a lot of our information about the early church. But he was also a kind of suck-up to the emperor — Paul Maier called Eusebius’s history a “panegyric” (pg 335 of the 2007 edition of his work) — and his work has been found to be unreliable in places. For example, he had the Apostle John wearing a bishop’s mitre. Does anyone believe that ever was the case?

We cannot take such things as that uncritically. Not if Christians want to take church history to the world and the scholastic academy and say, “believe our word.”