Thus far we've considered some early reform movements within the Church, the Renaissance, and the rise of Christian humanism as precursors to the Protestant Reformation, because all of these movements, as varied as they were, were used in the providence of God to prepare the way for the Reformation. However, the last precursor I want us to consider now was not a movement. But rather we could say that it was a failure to move, a failure to reform on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. And it was this failure, or we could say this refusal to reform by the Church, that resulted in what I'm calling in this lesson the ruinous state of the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Reformation. And I am using the word ruinous deliberately here because I think that it is a fitting word to describe what the Roman Catholic Church was truly like in the years preceding the Reformation era. This word ruinous, according to Webster's New World Dictionary, means falling or having fallen into ruin, dilapidated or decayed. all of these definitions could be applied to the Roman Catholic Church at that time. Because after centuries of error, corruption, and abuse, the Church had experienced spiritual ruin, spiritual neglect, and spiritual decay. And I don't think that any serious, impartial student of Western history could deny that the Roman Catholic Church in that day was in crisis. Now you may disagree as to the reasons for the crisis, but it is undeniable that the Roman Catholic Church at this period of history was in crisis. Now of course by making these statements I am not suggesting, let me repeat this, I am not suggesting that there was no truth left in the Roman Catholic Church at that time, because there certainly was truth left in the Roman Catholic Church. Many of her creedal statements, many of her beliefs, were orthodox. Neither am I suggesting that there were no true Christians in the Church during that period, because as you know, many of the Reformers were members of the Church, and within the Church, when they were spiritually awakened. And it was their desire to remain in the church and to labor for her spiritual good until they were ultimately compelled to leave her. So we need to remember, when we look at the church at this period, it was not completely apostate. Now, in time, I think the church would apostatize. But it was not completely apostate at this time. There were genuine believers within the church in that particular day. But what I am saying is that it was this ruinous state of the Roman Catholic Church in that day that caused the hearts of many true Christians within the church to be grieved. And it was their desire and their commitment to see the church that they loved reformed according to the Scriptures. And what I'd like to do in this lesson is to share a description of this ruinous state of the Church with you, just so you can get a clearer picture in your mind of what those who desired reform were actually facing. And then after I give you this description, I want to ask you a very important question. which I will mention towards the end of this lesson. So let's consider a description of this state. And brethren, there are many Protestant resources that I could use to give you a portrait of what the Roman Catholic Church was like before the Reformation. However, I think a better and hopefully less biased approach is to read you a part of an article on the Reformation published in the online edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. This edition is available through the website, and you might want to write this down if you're interested in doing some searching regarding the theology, the practices of the Roman Catholic Church, is www.newadvent.org. And this online edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia is based on the original Catholic Encyclopedia published by the Robert Appleton Company in the year 1907. Now for those of you who want to follow the spirit of the Renaissance and the Reformation and go to primary sources, let me recommend a couple of works for you to read on your own. These will give you some descriptions of the Church in that particular day. I would refer you, of course, to the works of Erasmus, which we mentioned thus far. I would also refer you to Martin Luther's treatise entitled The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, where Luther basically sets forth his condemnation of the Church. and how it has essentially been taken over by Babylon the Great, or has become Babylon the Great, and has apostatized. I also refer you to a work by John Calvin, and this work has recently been published under the title, Reforming the Church. Unfortunately, I think it is possibly out of print right now. You'd have to order it through Amazon, or one of the online By the way, there are a generous number of copies of this still available for you to order. It is taken from a document that Calvin actually wrote in 1539 entitled, The Necessity of Reforming the Church. Some of you who know the history of Geneva know that There was a Roman Catholic Cardinal who wrote to the citizens and the ruling council of Geneva shortly after the Reformation began, and they urged Geneva to return to the Church, and John Calvin wrote a response back to that letter from the Roman Catholic Cardinal. And it was printed under the title, The Necessity of Reforming the Church. And in that work, John Calvin basically sets forth why the Reformation was necessary. How the Roman Catholic Church had so obscured the true worship of God, that nothing less than a radical Reformation could restore it. So those are some primary sources. And if you want some other recommendations, I can give them to you. But I want to focus our attention, because we do have a limited amount of time, and I wanted to find something that hopefully would help us get a handle on this, on this article from the online edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. And as we might expect from a Catholic resource, this article is very critical of the Reformers and of the Reformation. And this will become very obvious as I read this document. So I want you to be prepared to hear some Roman Catholic criticisms of the movement that you and I love. However, what I'd like for you to listen for is their own description of their own church prior to the Reformation, as well as some admissions that these contemporary Roman Catholics are willing or being forced to make regarding the causes of the Reformation. Because I believe that their description and their admissions will help to make the case that the Roman Catholic Church in that day was truly in a ruinous state. So I'm going to read this article in your hearing at this time. And again, this is being taped, so don't feel that you have to try to jot down every single statement that I make, because I want you to listen to the flow and to the arguments of the article more than I want you to write down every single day and every single development. Again, this is an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The article is entitled The Reformation, and I'm reading from the first page of that article, beginning under the heading, The Causes of the Reformation. And by the way, while I'm reading this, you can raise your hand and ask a question if you'd like. And it reads as follows. The causes of the great religious revolt of the 16th century must be sought as far back as the 14th. Now, I can't hesitate but comment on the phraseology. Not the great reformation of the 16th century, but what? The great religious revolt of the 16th century must be sought, or the causes must be sought, as far back as the 14th. And then we're going to hear some praise for the Roman Catholic Church here for a few paragraphs. The doctrine of the Church, it is true, have remained pure. Saintly lives were yet frequent in all parts of Europe, and the numerous medieval institutions of the Church continued in their course uninterruptedly. Whatever unhappy conditions existed were largely due to civil and profane influences, or to the exercise of authority by ecclesiastics in civil spheres. They did not obtain everywhere with equal intensity, nor did they always occur simultaneously in the same country. Ecclesiastical and religious life exhibited in many places vigor and variety. Works of education and charity abounded. Religious art in all of its forms had a living force. Of course, that's a Renaissance emphasis, isn't it? The arts? Domestic missionaries were many and influential. Pious and edifying literature was common and appreciated. Gradually, however, and largely owing to the variously hostile spirit of the civil powers, fostered and heightened by several elements of the new order. There grew up in many parts of Europe political and social conditions which hampered the reforming activities of the Church. Now, I could not help but put a little arrow over to the margin of my copy of this article and say, what reforming activities of the Church? But, unfortunately, I'm not aware of any, and I don't have a Roman Catholic here to tell me what they were, but I will take this at face value. Social conditions which hampered the free reforming activities of the Church and favored the bold and unscrupulous who seized a unique opportunity to let loose all the forces of heresy and schism, so long held in check by the harmonious action of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. So here we're getting a pretty rosy picture of what life was like going back as far as the 14th century. then it's setting the stage for the defense of the Church further before the Reformation. Since the barbarian invasions of the Church, or the barbarian invasions, the Church had affected a complete transformation, and a complete revival of the races of Western Europe, and a glorious development of religious and of intellectual life. The papacy had become the powerful center of Christian nations, and as such had for centuries in union with the clergy displayed a most beneficent activity. With the ecclesiastical organization fully developed, it came to pass that the activities of the governing ecclesiastical bodies were no longer confined to the ecclesiastical domain, that affected almost every sphere of popular life. Now, this is an interesting statement. Remember our study of the plentitude of powers, how the Church is not just in control of ecclesiastical matters, but also of political matters as well? Well, notice this statement. With the ecclesiastical organization fully developed, it came to pass that the activities of the governing ecclesiastical bodies were no more confined to the ecclesiastical domain that affected almost every sphere of popular life. So basically what they're saying, folks, is that there was a good Bible church functioning, and that the church was enjoying so much influence that the influence was going well beyond the ecclesiastical domain, but it was also entering into every sphere of life, which of course is what the Roman Catholic Church prefers, to be involved in every sphere of life. And now we begin. It says, Regrettably, or gradually, a regrettable worldliness manifested itself in many high ecclesiastics. Their chief object to guide men to their eternal goal claimed too seldom their attention, and worldly activities became in many two cases the chief interest. Political power, material possessions, privileged position in public life, defense of ancient historical rights, earthly interests of various kinds, were only too often the chief aim of many of the higher clergy. Pastoral solitude, the specifically religious and ecclesiastical aim, fell largely into the background, notwithstanding various spirited and successful attempts to rectify these evils. Closely connected with the above were various abuses in the lives of the clergy and the people. In the papal curia, that's the papal court, the organizations that helped the Pope to carry out the governing of the Church. In the papal curia, political interests and a worldly life were often prominent. Many bishops and abbots, especially in countries where they were also territorial princes, bore themselves as secular rulers rather than as servants of the Church. Many members of cathedral chapters and other benefic ecclesiastics were chiefly concerned with their income and how to increase it. especially by uniting several pre-bends. A pre-bend is a certain amount of money set aside to support the priest. They would unite several pre-bends in the hands of one person. What's that? Okay. In the hands of one person who thus enjoyed a larger income and greater power. Luxury prevailed widely among the higher clergy, and the lower clergy was often oppressed. The scientific and aesthetic training of the clergy left much to be desired, the moral standard of many being very low." And they say, in the practice of celibacy, not every word was heard. Not less serious was the condition of many monasteries of men and of women, which were often homes for unmarried daughters of the nobility. The former prestige of the clergy had thus suffered greatly, and its members in many places regarded with scorn. As to the Christian people itself, in numerous districts, ignorance, superstition, religious indifference, and immorality were rife. Nevertheless, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, vigorous efforts to revive life were made in most lands. And side by side with this moral decay appeared numerous examples of sincere and upright Christian life. Such efforts, however, were too often confined to limited circles. From the 14th century, the demand for reform of head and members had been voiced with ever-increasing energy by serious and discerning men. Now this is an important admission. They're saying, since the 14th century, concerned and discerning men have been crying for reformation of the head and of the members. But the cry was taken up all too infrequently, and the same cry, unfortunately, was taken up also by many who had no real desire for religious renewal, wishing merely to reform others, but not themselves, and seeking their own interests. I wonder who they're talking about there. This call for reformation of head and members, discussed in many writings and in conversation with insistence on existing and often exaggerated abuses, tended necessarily to lower the clergy still more in the eyes of the people, especially as the councils of the 15th century, though largely occupied with attempts at reformation, did not exceed in accomplishing it extensively or permanently." Now, when I read that, to be honest with you, I almost had to laugh. Because when they talk about the reforming councils of the 15th century, one of the reforming councils of the 15th century was the Council of Constance. You may remember from our study of John Hus. John Hus was invited to the Council of Constance. He was burned at the stake. So that gives you an idea of some of the reforming activities. of the Church during the 15th century. Yes, Rob? I think also in the Council of Constance, what they might be referring to is the attempt to place Pope Martin underneath the authority of the Council, which failed, but I suppose there could be a truth in that sense. In the sense of what you and I were talking about this afternoon, most people don't know what we were talking about. We were talking about how the Roman Catholic Church would define reform and how we would define reform. See, in their mind, they're trying to bring about reform if they're trying to further the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. They're trying to bring about reform if they can bring about greater unity, if they can bring together these two warring factions. who are following two different posts. If they can make a decision that will satisfy everybody and bring everybody back into the fold, so to speak, that's reform. But that's not reform in the sense that we understand it. So yeah, in a sense they may say these are reforming councils. But from our perspective, they're not reforming in the sense of addressing any of the problems, they're just reforming in the sense of trying to shore up the losses in terms of people and reputation that they're suffering. But a good comment here. The authority of the Holy See had also been seriously impaired. Now everybody knows what the Holy See is, right? The Holy See is the Pope, the papacy. The authority of the Holy See had also been seriously impaired, partly through the fault of some of its occupants. Interesting admission. And partly through that of the secular princes. The Pope's removal to Avignon And some of you don't know this, I'll mention this very quickly, but at one time, the Pope in Rome and the French Emperor got into a debate, and was so unhappy that a fraction of French cardinals selected their own Pope, and they placed him in France, in Avignon, And, unfortunately, that caused great schism within the Church, because there was now a Pope in France, and there was a Pope in Rome. That's referred to in history as the Abionian captivity, or the Roman Catholics would refer to that as the Babylonian captivity. A little different, meaning the loser had, yes, Yes, there have been times when there have been multiple claimants to the papacy. The Avignon situation was a horrible blemish. on the face of the Church and on the reputation of the papacy in that day. That internal warring and fighting was not looked upon very favorably by people within the Church and outside of the Church. But the Pope's removal to Avignon in the 4th century, it says, was a big problem, since the universal character of the papacy was thus obscured in the minds of the Christian people. Then it goes on to talk about another quarrel between Louis the Barbarian and the Franciscan Spirituals. I won't go into a lot of detail about that. You'd need to know some history. But basically what it means is one secular emperor got support from people within the Church, the Franciscan Spirituals, and they captured Rome and they placed their own Pope in Rome. And that was a very embarrassing situation to the Roman Catholic Church as well. He's indicated a decline in papal power. The severest blow was dealt by the disastrous papal schism, which familiarized Western Christians with the idea that war might be made with all spiritual and material weapons against one whom many other Christians regarded as the only lawful pope. After the restoration of unity, The attempted reforms of the Papal Curia were not thorough. Another interesting admission. The reforms were not thorough. Humanism and the ideas of the Renaissance were zealously cultivated in Rome, and unfortunately the heathen tendencies of this movement, the Renaissance, so opposed to Christian moral law, affected too profoundly the life of many higher ecclesiastics, so that worldly ideas, luxury, and immorality rapidly gained ground at the center of ecclesiastical life. When ecclesiastical authority grew weak at the fountainhead, it necessarily decayed elsewhere. Notice that language. When it became weak at the fountainhead, it decayed elsewhere. There were also serious administrative abuses in the Papal Curia. The ever-increasing centralization of ecclesiastical administration brought it about that far too many ecclesiastical offices in all parts of Christendom were conferred at Rome, while in the granting of them the personal interests of the petitioner rather than the spiritual needs of the faithful were all too often considered. The various kinds of reservation had also become a grievous abuse. Dissatisfaction was felt widely among the clergy at the many taxes imposed by the Curia on the incumbents of ecclesiastical offices. By the fourteenth century, these taxes called forth loud complaints. In proportion, as the papal authority lost the respect of many, resentment grew against the Curia and the papacy. the reform councils of the 15th century, instead of improving the situation, weaken still more the highest ecclesiastical authority by reason of their anti-papal tendencies and measures. In princes and governments, there has meanwhile developed a national consciousness purely temporal and to a great extent hostile to the Church, the evil powers interfered more frequently in Ecclesiastical matters, and the direct influence exercised by laymen on the domestic administration of the Church rapidly increased. There is that horrible lay movement. In the course of the 14th and 15th centuries arose the modern concept of the state. During the preceding period, many matters of a secular or mixed nature have been regulated or managed by the Church in keeping with the historical development of European society. With the growing self-consciousness of the state, the secular government sought to control all matters that fell within their confidence, which of course, although in large means justifiable, was new and offensive. So in other words, the state is becoming self-conscious and beginning to exercise its rights and powers, and the church is saying, this is new and offensive. And thus led to frequent collisions between church and state. The church, moreover, owing to the close historical connection between the ecclesiastical and secular orders, encroached on the ecclesiastical domain. During the course of the Western schism, opposing popes sought the support of the civil powers and thus gave the civil powers abundant occasion to interfere in purely ecclesiastical affairs. Again, to strengthen their authority in the face of anti-papal tendencies, the popes of the 15th century made at various times certain concessions to the civil authorities so that the latter came to regard ecclesiastical affairs as within their domain. See, there's a battle going on here, isn't there? A battle between the claims of the Church and the claims of the state. And what this article is saying is, unfortunately, in their mind, the Church is losing ground as the states become self-conscious. Yes? Yeah, I sort of saw this as an admission to the steps in doing the dealings with the governments to rewrite the rules. Right. They're basically admitting that some of the folks were basically willing to extend favor and to work closely with the state authorities to get whatever things they needed passed and accepted. Yes. It goes on to say, for the future, the church was to be superordinate, not to be superordinate, but subordinate to the civil power and was increasingly menaced by complete subjection. I don't know if you've been following this, but this is a really interesting statement. What they're basically saying is, in the past, the church had had complete power over ecclesiastical and state issues. Now, with the state wanting a bigger piece of the pie, and insisting that the church only have a limited place, the mindset of the church is that they don't want to be hindered by the interference of the state. That the church knows its place, and the state should know its place. And it's a menace whenever the church is not able to keep the state within its proper bounds, or if the state wants to exceed its appropriate bounds. Accordingly, as national self-consciousness developed in the various countries of Europe, the sense of unity and interdependence of the Christian family of nations grew weaker. Jealousy between nations increased, selfishness reigned, and gained ground. The rift between politics and Christian morality and religion grew wider, and discontent and perilous revolutionary tendencies spread rapidly among the people. Love of wealth was, meanwhile, given a great incentive by the discovery of the New World, the rapid development of commerce, and the great prosperity of the cities. In public life, a many-sided and intense activity revealed itself, foreshadowing a new era and inclining the popular mind to changes to the hitherto undivided province of religion. The Renaissance and humanism partly introduced and greatly fostered these conditions. Love of luxury was soon associated with the revival of art and the literature of Greco-Roman paganism. This is what we've been talking about in our last several lessons. The religious idea was to a great extent lost sight of. Higher intellectual culture, previously confined in a great measure to the clergy, was now common among the laity, assumed a secular character, and in only too many cases fostered actively and practically a pagan spirit, pagan morality, and views. A crude materialism obtained among the higher classes of society and in the educated world, characterized by a gross love of pleasure, a desire for gain, and for a life diametrically opposed to Christian morality. Only a faint interest in the supernatural The new art of printing made it possible to disseminate widely the works of pagan authors and of their humanistic imitators, immoral poems and romances, biting satires on ecclesiastical persons. I wonder what they're referring to there. The works of Erasmus. Yes, absolutely, and others. Revolutionary works and songs were circulated in all directions and brought immense harm. As humanism grew, it waged violent war against the scholasticism of the time. The traditional theological method had greatly degenerated. Notice this admission. The theological method had greatly degenerated owing to the finicky, hair-splitting manner of treating theological questions. And a solid and thorough treatment of theology had unhappily disappeared in many schools and writings. The humanists cultivated new methods and based theology on the Bible. How dare they? Based theology on the Bible and the study of the Fathers, an essentially good movement which might have renewed the study of theology if properly developed. But the violence of the humanists, their exaggerated attacks on scholasticism, the frequent obscurity of their teaching aroused strong opposition from the representative scholastics. The New Movement, however, had won the sympathy of the lay world and of the section of the clergy devoted to humanism. The danger was only too imminent that the reform would not be combined with theological methods, but would reach the content of ecclesiastical dogma, and would find widespread support in humanistic service." Now, this is the concluding paragraph, and I want you to listen carefully, then we'll make some comments. The Sora was thus ready for the growth of revolutionary movements in the religious sphere. Many grave warnings were indeed uttered, indicating that approaching danger and urging a fundamental reform of the actual evil conditions. Now, that's an important admission here. They're saying that, in essence, many warnings had already been uttered. And they're indicating here that there were many who were already urging fundamental reform of the evils. But, of course, it didn't happen. Much had been affected in this direction by the reform movement in various religious orders. Again, my comment is, what were these reform movements? I'm unaware of too many, and by the apostolic efforts of zealous individuals, but a general renewal of ecclesiastical life and a uniform improvement of evil conditions, beginning with Rome itself, the center of the Church, were not promptly undertaken." Did you hear that statement? That is so important. Let me state it again, but a general renewal of ecclesiastical life and a uniform improvement of evil conditions, beginning with Rome itself, the center of the Church, were not promptly undertaken. And soon it needed only an external impulse to precipitate a revolution. To precipitate a revolution. So what you just heard is a Roman Catholic perspective. on the Reformation and its causes. And we shouldn't be surprised that this article places much of the blame for the Church's problems at that time on other things. In fact, I've just summarized some of the things that they say are the causes of many of these problems. On civil and profane influences, on the hostile spirit of certain civil powers, on bold and unscrupulous men who spread heresy and schism, on disregard for papal powers, on the heathen tendencies of the Renaissance and humanism, on exaggerated attacks against the Church, etc., etc., etc. And there's a sense in which I would expect the Church to mention these things as the causes of their problems, because these are easy and convenient things to blame, aren't they? These are all the reasons the Church is saying why we weren't what we should have been during this age. But let's also note what this article does acknowledge about the Roman Catholic Church before the Reformation, because this article does give us an accurate portrait of what the Church was like. And again, I'll just summarize some of the things that they said in this article that you maybe didn't pick up on as I was reading through it. Namely, there was widespread abuse of authority. Widespread. Not isolated. Widespread abuse of authority. Worldliness. Beginning at the top. Thirst for political power. Greed. Materialism. Disregard for needed spiritual reforms. They admitted that the trumpet had sounded various times before, right? People, discerning people, concerned for the good of the Church, had mentioned these things before. Administrative abuses, favoritism, selling of religious favors, and the list goes on and on and on. I didn't pick out all the things that were mentioned in this article, but there were others that maybe you noticed as I read through this as well. And brethren, given the fact that these conditions did exist, given the fact that many contemporary Roman Catholics today are willing to acknowledge that these conditions and problems did exist, then I pose to you the question this afternoon. Was the Reformation, or as this article refers to it, the great religious revolt, of the 16th century really necessary? Yes, Jim. That hand went up very quickly. I was going to say, I keep thinking about what they said about basically the corruption at the top. Right. And the religious, the ecclesiastical opposites. Yes. If the Roman Catholic Church basically is defined by its leadership, then how can it reform itself? It likes all those things. How can it change itself if it's already liquid and already 3D? You make some outstanding points. Anybody else want to comment on this before we continue? Yes, Mike. Because you think positively of the Church as best you can, they had people that were waving flags, and they chose to ignore it. And if that goes on for several centuries, there are unnecessary consequences of that, and that is going to be Reformation or Revolt, however you define it. Absolutely. You make a great point. I mean, if people have been sounding the alarm, there were several times in that article, and I apologize, I know it's hot in here, and probably my reading of it was not as clear and maybe as dramatic as it needed to be to make the point, but they mentioned several times in the article that they were aware of the fact that reform needed to take place. That discerning people, learned people, were saying that it needed to happen. And they admit that they attempted on various occasions to bring about reform, whatever those attempts were, and yet they were unsuccessful. So yeah, Mike, you bring up a good point. After a while, can you fault people for coming to the conclusion that maybe the Church does not have the ability under its current hierarchy and the current government of bringing about reform within itself? I mean, I hate to use a business analogy, but couldn't a business have so many problems, and most of the problems being at the top, that that business is unable to bring about the necessary changes that are needed for that business to go forward? And I hate to use that kind of secular quote-unquote analogy, but there are parallels. between that and what was going on in the church at that day. Jeff, you want to make a comment? I was going to say, when you talk about a business analogy, it's like a tantrum. Right. They aren't going to change. They'll look at it properly. They've lost a lot of money. They're so happy being corrupt. And there were people within the structure that said, hey, things aren't going right. Right. It's not going to change. I was going to say, you don't even have to look at the reformers to go answer the question and what their theological views are. If you look at what the people at that time thought, such as the rise of what was known as popular pie, the rosary beads, all the personal things that people actually against church doctrine began to practice with the church as a person. The people themselves had already felt that the church was no longer able to serve them. Right. People who were actually survivors of, you know, the Tuaig and Sikhisms and the Noble Wars, etc. They were looking, just like we do today in this morning's service, our religion brings us some sort of comfort. If you can't get tangible comfort in your religion, you start to put other means in place to experience that comfort. And the people were already doing that. Right. So those of you who are listening on tape, The point that Rob just made is we have to consider the people and what they're thinking. They see a church that is overwhelmed with its own problems, that is not serving their spiritual needs in any regard, and so it would only be reasonable for them to begin to look elsewhere and to be involved in movements that would reinvigorate religious practice in their lives and in their societies. Do you have a comment, Tammy? Well, I was just remembering what you said about the Catholic view of reform and just in their own desire for Your own definition of reform, you bring out the very reforms that people were clamoring for. Only desire, in many instances, or just snapping out the opposition. That's right. You make a good point. That's right. In many cases, when the Church is speaking, even in this article, of the vigorous reform activities, what they're really making reference to is attempts by the Church to maintain control or to face opposition, or to essentially continue the same historic practices that they've been practicing for years, many of which got them in the situation that they were in to begin with. So it's an absolute reluctance to look at themselves critically. I think the article is basically saying is we were dragged into this movement. We were doing a good job. We were dragged into this movement. We reformed when it seemed absolutely essential that we had opposition or that we were losing stature or the reputation of the church was being hindered. But we were not thorough in those reforms. It wasn't an ongoing thorough reform. It was a temporary reform to address those kinds of issues, and then we essentially continued to do what we've always done. And unfortunately, we weren't able to stem the tide. This horrible renaissance in humanism affected so many unscrupulous people that it just got so big that we just couldn't handle it. But the fault isn't so much The theology of the church, the politics of the church, the hierarchy of the church, it's other factors. And again, we have to, as Rob was saying a few moments ago, we have to try to put ourselves in the place of those who lived in that day, and the place of those who desperately desire to see reform in the church. Imagine what they're thinking as they hear the responses in their day. In fact, I would submit to you that these contemporary Roman Catholics that we read today are far more willing to make admissions of wrong today, hundreds of years later, after now they've had to face some of the issues, than those who are Roman Catholics in the Roman Catholic hierarchy in that day. They're probably completely unwilling to make any admissions. So what do you do when you have a church that's ruled by a hierarchy that has all these problems that will not take any serious attempt to reform itself? and has shown an inability to bring about any kind of reform if they were ever sincere about it. I can't say that they were never sincere about addressing some of these things. Maybe there were individuals and even smaller movements that were concerned about this. I don't want to, you know, condemn them all. But when you see all these things going on, and it seems to indicate that the church is completely unwilling and incapable of bringing about reform within itself. What do you do? Well, if it's the only one around, you can't leave. Well, if it's the only one around, you can't leave. Well, certainly in the minds of some, they certainly thought that, didn't they? This is the historic church. I can't turn my back on the historic church. To be honest with you, I think that was the thinking of Martin Luther for quite some time. The church was our mother. The church gave birth to us, and that's what they thought. We were born through baptism in the church, the church was our mother, our mother fed us, our mother nurtured us. How could you turn your back on your mother? And who could do that? Yes, Mike. I think often, if you look at history, if a person is involved in some kind of reformation, they are going to do it optimistically, and they will try to stay within the confines of the organization that they're in. The Puritans tried to reform the Church of England. And then you finally, eventually, have the separatists who say, oh, no, that's enough. We're not going to continue to try to do something more than leaving. So the early reformers tried I mean, they tried to purify what they were in. That's why he believed this, because it hasn't proved that we have to yet, in the time that it would. Yeah, and some of the Reformers, as you said, they tried to stay and reform the Church as they loved, as long as they possibly could, to the last conceivable moment. In fact, in studying the life of Luther, I don't think that Luther would have ever left the church had it not become in the best interest of his own well-being to do so. Luther wasn't calling people to leave the Roman Catholic Church in droves. No, he wasn't. But eventually, it came to the place where he had to leave. And it came to the place where Luther realized that reforms weren't going to happen. You know, there was a time, and we'll talk more about Luther in the weeks ahead, Lord willing. You know, there was a time when Luther believed that if he could just get audience with the Pope, the Pope would immediately recognize the truth of what Luther was saying, and would understand where Luther was coming from. You know that? He was that believing. He was that believing that if he could just gain access to the right people, if he could just make his arguments clear enough, that there would be sympathy for him. But Luther found out there was no sympathy for him at all. So you know, I do ask this question because sometimes we will face Roman Catholics who will try to make a strong case that the Reformation was an overreaction, or the Reformation was unnecessary. That the Church would have corrected itself. That these problems were self-correcting. that the church had the ability, if the people just gave them an opportunity, to bring about the changes that people were demanding in terms of reform. Or is it true? Yes, let's see. The real short-sightedness in what the article is talking about, too, because they begin, well, the problem started in the 14th century. Right. We have to go back quite a bit earlier than that. Yes. You're right. So, you know, there is a little bias there. I told everybody beforehand that this was a Roman Catholic article. It's critical of the Reformation as a whole. I can understand, you know, to go back to what you were saying a few minutes ago, Rob, I can understand the legitimacy of that argument that some would make, that, you know, the Church needed to be given opportunity to correct itself. But the fact is, I think history shows that it had numerous opportunities to correct itself. And I think eventually the reformers got to the place where they said, look, there is no way that the church, the way it currently is, can change. And God is going to have to bring about reformation. We can't depend on the papacy to do it. In fact, the papacy is so preoccupied with building and making war and selling indulgences that it doesn't even see the problem. And those who are lower clergy are benefiting so much from the way that the church is, why would they want to bring about change? So when you have a situation like that, where no one has a vested interest of doing anything, that does force people to then begin to discuss ways that they can force reformation in the church. It's painful, and it's sad, but it's absolutely necessary to see. Well, in the Roman Catholic Church, obviously, by its posse, we're saying there are some things we will not change, even if it does have disastrous results. Even if it doesn't seem to be in the best interest of everybody involved. Because the primary interest is the interest of the Church. Yes, Jesse, do you have a comment? I was going to say, it seems like the early reformers tend to look at the role we have in the church as, like, God said nothing, and others, like, be cherished, this is all that we have, and also be their leaders as if they were Christians. And any time you view someone in authority, even if they're not doing right as Christian, you kind of expect things to be self-correcting. You expect people to wake up and start talking to us again. Now let's remember that during this time, there also is a Greek New Testament, and there is the rediscovery of Biblical truth. So, I mean, that's a factor too. But we do have to consider that the ruined state of the church was a major factor. It was a major factor. It was a factor that inspired many to go back to the original sources. It was a factor that many people were driven to correct. And so it is, I said it wasn't a movement, but it is a precursor to the Reformation. Because the Reformation would not have happened the way that it did if these conditions did not exist within the Church. And as we read some of the writings of the Reformers, this is the thing that they mention so often. The Church, the state of the Church, the abuses of the Church. What about the common people? What about the faithful of the Church? Who's addressing their needs? What's being done? And that was the driving epitaph behind much of what they did. Any last questions or comments? Well, I debated in my own mind about the way to present this, and I didn't know if reading this article would be the best way, but I wanted to try to read an article from a different source other than a Protestant source. I wanted to read an article that summarized a lot of the things that we've already talked about in Renaissance Humanism. And an article to help you see what some of the real problems within the church was. And the bottom line is, was the Reformation really necessary? Roman Catholics would say no. But I think based on the evidence that we've seen, we can understand why the Reformers said absolutely. The Reformation is, in fact, absolutely necessary. And some of them were willing to give their lives for it. Because they just were not aware of any of these rigorous Reform movements that were going on that could inspire hope within them. They felt the Reformation was necessary. And we'll consider the birth of the Reformation and the involvement of Martin Luther, Lord willing, in our next session together.