[Prev Page][Contents][Next Page]

The Reformation

Issues: Papal Authority

Easily the most volatile and most readily-understood reform was the issue of papal authority. Whatever doctrinal differences existed among the various reformers, they were united in declaring that the pope was nothing more than an ordinary man—at most merely a priest, at worst a manifestation of the Antichrist. Since most modern readers envision the medieval popes as being all-powerful, this sudden reversal needs a bit of explanation.

We have already read about the justifications for papal authority (Knox, The Development of the Papacy), so there's no need to repeat that material here. The reformers criticized the justifications in every particular. They rejected the interpretation of the Biblical passages, arguing that they were all symbolic and not literal. They rejected, too, the so-called apostolic succession—the tradition that Peter had passed on his special status to Clement and so down through an unbroken succession of popes. For, the reformers argued, not only was there no documentary evidence of such a succession, it was also possible to show that the generations of popes had suffered any number of interruptions and irregularities.

Most serious, however, was simply that the reformers pointed to the papacy as a root cause of corruption and doctrinal error. The papacy was not merely an unjustified institution, it was a positive evil that needed to be expunged. This was the argument that resonated most with ordinary Christians. They didn't deal with popes, of course, but they did deal with monks and priests and bishops, and these locals derived their authority from papal authority. It was impossible to consider reforming monks or bishops without considering reforming the papacy itself.

Finally, it's worth remembering that "Rome" for many reformers meant not only the pope but the whole apparatus of Church government. It was the wealth and power of the cardinals. It was the corruption and decadence of officials at every level within the city itself. It was the interference by the papacy in the affairs of nations. And it was the failure of the papacy to produce any significant reform efforts from within. All these and more contributed to the portrayal of papal Rome as the Whore of Babylon.

As in many other aspects of the Reformation, here we have elements that could appeal to a wide variety of temperments and to every level of society. There were theological arguments for the intellectual, lurid imagery for the illiterate, political arguments for the oppressed, economic arguments for the exploited, and a visceral tone that appealed to the resentful anywhere. Only in the matter of reading the Bible was there any issue that allowed such clear and narrow focus as did the criticism of the papacy. The pope specifically, and Rome and papal government more generally, were made easily and early into a symbol of everything the reformers were criticizing. The papacy eventually became the central litmus test of Catholicism versus Protestantism. The one side held papal authority to be valid, while the other side rejected it utterly.