Why did counter reformation fail

The Convention of Warsaw passed by the Polish Diet in had recognized the different faiths and declared perpetual peace between them. The peasantry, however, who comprised the great mass of the Polish population, remained faithful to the Roman communion. Some of the bishops, especially Stanislaus Hosius, worked effectively to restore the traditional faith, and some of the kings were active to the same end.

The Jesuits were the chief agents in this work, founding many schools in Poland; Canisius did remarkable work. Poland became and remained a stronghold of Catholicism in eastern Europe. The restoration of the Catholic church in Hungary and Bohemia, in which the Jesuits played a large role, belongs properly to a later period than that covered by this book.

It was thus largely through the efforts of the Society of Jesus, supported by rulers who had sometimes been their pupils, that a great deal of eastern Europe was won back to the Roman allegiance. One of the most spectacular and controversial of all the Jesuit achievements was the work of converting the non-Christian peoples in the new worlds being opened by the explorers and merchants of Europe.

The first and most famous of all the Jesuit missionaries was Francis Xavier 52 , one of the original members of the order, who was sent to the Far East at the request of King John III of Portugal.

In he landed at Goa and began his work. Before his death ten years later, he traveled over sixty-two thousand miles. First he worked in India, where he was especially successful with the poorer classes but made little headway among the higher castes. From there he went farther east, working in the Malay Peninsula and in the Moluccas, or Spice Islands. In he went to Japan, which was in a state of great disorder because of the weakness of the mikado, or emperor, dominated by the shogun.

The great nobles were more or less independent, and armed conflict between them was constant. After many setbacks and great hardships, Xavier managed to make some conversions and to begin planting Christianity in Japan. But now his thoughts had moved on to China, and he was eager to go there and continue the work.

He was on his way when he died in , at the age of forty-six, without having received permission to enter the country. His methods have sometimes been severely questioned. In the first place, he strove for mass conversions, on occasion baptizing hundreds of people at a time or giving the sacrament to whole villages. Some have estimated that he baptized altogether several hundred thousand persons, even a million. While these figures may be exaggerated, they convey an accurate impression.

So many conversions in such a short time must surely have been superficial, according to his critics. In order to get such results, he made a great effort to adapt his methods to the people with whom he was dealing. This was in accordance with Loyola's approach to potential followers, and it came to be typical of the Jesuit missionaries.

However, it was also open to criticism on the grounds that it involved concessions to heathen practices that contradicted Christian teachings. In Japan, in order to win people over, Xavier abstained from meat, fish, and alcoholic drink just like the Buddhist priests. He also saw the need of learning the language and understanding the customs of the people whom he was trying to convert and of adapting himself to their ways.

In the short time he had, he was unable to do more than point the way, but others adopted these methods with astonishing results. Whenever he could, he established schools and appointed native-born priests. One of the most remarkable of Xavier's successors was Matteo Ricci In , he entered China where he lived for the remaining twenty-seven years of his life.

The obstacles in his way were formidable, to put it mildly. China had a civilization older than that of the Christian nations of Europe, with deeply rooted religious and philosophical ideas and ways of thought quite different from those of the West. The Chinese were fearful and suspicious of foreigners.

The language was exceedingly difficult, and there were no westerners who knew it well enough to teach it to Ricci. It is a sign of his extraordinary talent and devotion that he was able to surmount all these difficulties to such a degree, in fact, that some of his writings in Chinese were accepted as classics of Chinese literature.

He also helped in the process of making reliable knowledge of China available to the West; for example, he suspected correctly that China and Cathay were the same country. He was able to found communities of Christians in several Chinese cities including even the capital, Peking, where he spent the last decade of his life. Other Jesuits were sent to China, and by the time Ricci died a famous man in China with thousands of friends and acquaintances there were about twenty-five hundred Christians in the country.

In India a beginning had been made by Xavier. Before his coming, the Portuguese had tried to impose Christianity on the natives with no attempt to understand their customs and sensibilities. Christianity had come to be identified in the minds of the Indian population with foreign conquest. Xavier had tried to change all this, but it persisted even after his death. The Jesuit Roberto de Nobili observed and condemned this deplorable state of affairs. Sent out to India in , he followed the methods of Ricci, learning native languages, adopting native ways of life, and condoning the continuance of time-honored practices when he felt they were not irreconcilable with Christianity.

Though there was some opposition within the church to his methods because of what appeared to be concessions to idolatry, he was able to gain the approval of Pope Gregory XV in and continue his work.

In the New World where the natives were often savages, the Jesuits faced a different situation. The Colonial powers Portugal, Spain, and later France had much more effective control in the New World than was possible in such states as China and Japan.

It was also true that, whereas the Jesuits were pioneers of Christianity in the Far East, this was not the case in the Americas. Other priests had preceded them, primarily Franciscans and Dominicans. Christianity was imposed on the natives by force of arms, something which was impossible in Asia. In the eyes of the soldiers, sailors, and officials who dominated the colonies, the missionaries were sometimes regarded primarily as a means of keeping the natives orderly or even assisting in the spread of trade.

However, no real attempt had been made to adapt the church to the specific background and outlook of the people. Here as in Asia, only the Jesuits seemed able or willing to use such an approach. They used the methods of accommodation, which were so successful elsewhere: learning the native languages and becoming thoroughly acquainted with the local culture.

Because of the primitive character of the tribes among whom they worked, they needed great courage and devotion. These qualities were heroically exemplified in many of them; they willingly faced the risks involved, and some laid down their lives for the cause. The earliest Jesuit successes in the New World came in the Spanish possessions, since they did not at first receive adequate support in the Portuguese and French territories.

The Spanish, who had been guilty of gross mistreatment of the natives, had changed their ways, partly under the influence of Las Casas, and adopted a policy of humane treatment and peaceful conversion. This policy included an effort to civilize the natives before attempting to convert them. Special districts were set up for them, from which outsiders were excluded, in order to protect their goods and their wives. These districts, called "reductions," were established at about the end of the century during the reign of Philip III in what are now Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Ecuador, and Argentina.

The Jesuits, under the Spanish crown, were responsible not only for religious instruction but also for government and for military and economic affairs.

The order achieved great successes in civilizing and Christianizing the Indians by using techniques similar to those employed in the East. They studied the native languages, observed the local customs, and carefully distinguished the different types of tribes with whom they had to deal. By adapting their methods to the character and needs of the people among whom they labored, they surpassed the achievements of the missionaries who had preceded them.

It was the fate of the order, partly no doubt because of its successes, to be a source of great controversy and to find bitter enemies within the church as well as outside. In any event, the Society of Jesus has left a permanent mark on the Roman church and thus on the modern world.

As the chosen troops of the papacy, they were the spearhead in the fight against Protestantism. They gave the church a new morale and will to victory against the forces that threatened it. They played an important part in the proceedings of the great council that met at Trent in the middle years of the sixteenth century.

The Council of Trent met over a period of eighteen years , , It met the challenge of the Protestant Reformation by clarifying doctrine and by instituting reforms that improved the quality of the clergy. It also helped the church to hold on to what it had retained, regain much of what it had been in danger of losing, and remain a powerful force in the life of Christendom.

The council failed to reunite the church; reconciliation with the Protestants proved impossible. This is additional proof that abuses in the church may not be considered the major cause of the Protestant Reformation, because even after the abuses had been corrected, the split remained. Before the council met, there were two parties within the Catholic church itself, with different views of the proper attitude to be taken toward Protestantism.

One group, which drew much of its inspiration from Erasmus, may be called the liberals. These men, some of whom held high rank in the church, still hoped for eventual reconciliation. They were aware of the pressing need for reform, and they hoped for a thorough purification of the church as a way to bring back the heretics. Among these liberals, in Italy for instance, there was a good deal of interest in Protestant writings.

The doctrine of justification by faith received serious attention. On the other side was the strict party led by Cardinal Gian Pietro Caraffa. This fiery Neapolitan was the leader of those who were completely opposed to any concessions to the heretics. He felt that the church should stand firmly on its traditional doctrines and suppress heresy by force. He was at the same time convinced of the need for reform, and just as uncompromising an opponent of the abuses in the church as he was of heresy.

Thus the future of the church depended on the outcome of the struggle within its ranks as well as the external conflict. The demand for a general council had been voiced early in the course of the Protestant Revolt. Luther had called for one even before his excommunication, and the Protestants had long been repeating this plea.

There were others, however, who were decidedly less enthusiastic about the idea. The popes and the members of their entourage in the Curia were inclined to be suspicious of the very idea of a general council, remembering the conciliar movement of the previous century, which had challenged papal supremacy in the church in the name of the representative principle.

The prospects of a sweeping reform did not attract those persons who profited by abuses, and this included the highest-ranking men in the hierarchy. Clement VII, pope during the crucial years 34 when the Reformation was spreading and taking root, was particularly opposed to the calling of a council.

There were numerous political factors that could not be left out: the desirability of a general council and the attitudes of King Francis I of France and Emperor Charles V. Charles's position was determined by his relationship to the German Lutherans and to France. At times the emperor strongly advocated a council; at other times he was opposed to it. Francis feared that a council might threaten the privileges of the Gallican church, which he so largely controlled, and that it would favor the interests of his old enemy Charles.

The fact that the popes were regularly involved in diplomatic alliances with one of the combatants against the other was another stumbling block to the convocation of a council that would be truly ecumenical. Thus a condition of peace, or at least truce, between Francis and Charles was regarded as necessary before a council could be called.

It was also necessary that pressure for reform in the church should become overwhelming and that it should become clear to all that no other remedy but a general council would do the job; in other words, self-reform by the Curia was not to be expected. The Sack of Rome of helped to stimulate discussion of reform and of a general council; the great catastrophe was widely blamed on church corruption, many seeing in it the signs of a divine judgment.

Nothing came of all this during the pontificate of Clement VII. His successor, however, came to the papal throne already pledged to the calling of a council, and has the great merit of having actually gotten it started. Although he had publicly advocated a council, it is not clear just how much he favored the idea; it was reported that he actually opposed it. He was, however, under great pressure from the emperor to call a council, and in he yielded by convoking the meeting at Mantua in May However, the meeting did not begin until at Trent after numerous postponements and changes of place.

From the start, the divisions of opinion that had long been evident in the church were manifest in the council. The question of procedure was vital. The emperor, still hoping for reconciliation in Germany between the faiths, favored discussion of reform first, hoping this would help bring back the Protestants. He also favored, at least in Germany, concessions to their views, such as communion "in both kinds" and the marriage of priests.

Charles probably completely failed to understand the basis of the Reformation; even if he had had his way completely, it would not have ended the schism. The party of Cardinal Caraffa saw things quite differently. While recognizing the need for reform, it had no inclination to make any doctrinal concessions. The position of the pope was favored by the proximity of Trent to Italy, which made possible a numerical majority of Italians who backed his position.

The Spanish representatives, on the other hand, upheld the views of their king, the emperor Charles. They believed in the conciliar theory and hoped to have reform placed first on the agenda. These Spanish prelates were hostile to the curia, and the mutual antagonism of the Spanish and Italians hampered the work of the council.

On the question of doctrinal formulation, however, the Spanish and Italian factions saw eye to eye in opposing any concessions. The order of discussion represented another compromise; it was decided that reform and doctrine should be discussed concurrently.

On matters of reform the disagreements were not great, but doctrinal issues often brought great debates. It was a fact of momentous importance that, on all these matters, it was invariably the strict party that won out. Thus there were no concessions made to Protestant doctrines, with the result that the split became more hopeless than ever. The emperor was angered by the intransigence of the council and refused to accept its decrees. In the meetings of 47, important doctrinal decrees were passed.

The Latin Vulgate was accepted as the official text of the Bible, a decision that did not please some Catholic scholars who were aware of the inadequacies of the Vulgate and would have preferred a text more abreast of recent scholarship.

All the books of the Vulgate were declared canonical. This meant that the Roman church accepted certain books of the Old Testament which for the Protestants were apocryphal, because they were not available in Hebrew versions.

The Protestant doctrine that the Bible is the sole rule of faith was countered by the decision of Trent that accepted the tradition of the church as coordinate in authority with the Scriptures as a source of divine revelation. It was also affirmed that the Catholic church alone had the right to expound the Bible officially. The decree on justification asserted the necessity for both faith and good works in the process of salvation. The Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, the bondage of the will, man's utter depravity and helplessness, and the doctrine of predestination were rejected.

On March 3, , the council issued a decree on the sacraments, all seven of which were declared to be true sacraments instituted by Christ. Decrees were passed on three of the sacraments: The Eucharist, penance, and extreme unction. The Eucharist was declared to be the most excellent sacrament.

Though some members favored granting the cup to the laity, it was officially declared that the entire sacrament is present in the bread. The decree also carried a reaffirmation of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The treatment of penance and extreme unction also reaffirmed the traditional positions. At the insistence of the emperor, who had still not completely abandoned hope for solving the German problem by reconciliation, a delegation of Protestants appeared at the council in January They were no more eager to attend than the Fathers were to receive them.

The subsequent discussions with the Protestants had no other effect than to make more clear than ever the hopelessness of the split. The resumption of war in between Charles and the French caused the suspension of the council, which did not meet again for ten years. Its last sessions 63 were marked by bitter conflict between the Italian members, who represented the pope, and the Spanish, who were anti-curial and wanted to reduce papal power. Tension was so great that for a period of ten months starting in September no business could be carried on.

A spiritual commitment applied to all tasks, which was a good example to lay people. Greater importance put on communion, which enabled the faith to be cultivated and spread. Popes were more open to constructive change and recognised the corruption of the old church. More churches were built. The power of the popes was unquestioned after Trent — this was good if they were pro-reform.

In , a Christian could travel from one end of Europe to another without fear of persecution; by , every form of Christianity was illegal somewhere in Europe.

The division penetrated to families and neighborhooods. Catholics whose children married in non-sacramental Protestant weddings considered their own grandchildren to be bastards. Time was reckoned differently in different parts of Europe: Catholics and Protestants lived in different time zones. How did this happen?

How did a Reformation committed to the gospel, catholicity, and unity shatter the Western church and European civilization? The Catholic church itself was one of the main culprits. Luther complained that his arguments were never engaged or debated.

When he appeared before Catholic authorities, they simply demanded that he recant. Luther was excommunicated within a few short years of the 95 Theses, without receiving a serious much less a sympathetic hearing. During the early decades of the sixteenth century, reformers within the Catholic church were squeezed out or silenced. God makes and remakes the world by dividing and reuniting. He created by separating light and darkness, waters above and below, land and sea.

He created Eve by splitting Adam in two. Every prophet sent to Israel came with a sword. Splits happen, and when God begins to renew His church, we can expect division. Yet this cannot be an excuse for Reformation divisions, or a cause of complacency. Some divisions are necessary; some are legitimate but temporary; some are mutilations of the body of Christ.

The story of Reformation fragmentation is a complicated one, but we can isolate one central thread: Luther and Zwingli divided over the issue of the real presence at the Colloquy of Marburg in Once they divided, their followers perpetuated the division.

Each side, of course, was convinced it was defending the true Reformation and that the opposing side had compromised or distorted the gospel. So convinced, they maintained separated traditions in order to protect the purity of the gospel.