![]() He was consistent in his approach, and did not sacrifice his theological convictions for ecclesial expediency. It was this solid doctrine that guided his irenicism and acted as a foundation for entering into discussions with Catholics between 15. ![]() Central to this theology was his understanding of the doctrine of justification an understanding that I argue has an integrity of its own and has been imprecisely represented as Vermittlungstheologie. Bucer was an ecclesial diplomat and he was a pragmatic pastor, yet his ecclesial and practical approaches to reforming the church were guided by coherent theological convictions. ![]() These representations have influenced the view that Bucer was a theological light-weight, a Vermittlungstheologe, rightly placed in the shadow of Luther and Calvin. On the 31st the revised version of the Regensburg Book was delivered to the Emperor, together with nine new articles that the Protestants had composed in opposition to some of the articles in the Book that had not been agreed.Martin Bucer has been predominantly portrayed as a diplomat, who attempted to reconcile divergent theological views, sometimes at any costs, or as a pragmatic pastor, who was more concerned with ethics than theology. In 1541 at the Regensburg Colloquy, three leading Protestant theologians (Melanchthon, Bucer, and Pistorius) and three leading Catholic theologians (Eck. On 22 May the colloquy came to a close, the article on justification being its only significant achievement. Ultimately, as always, the colloquy foundered over the question of authority. While the doctrine of justification had not been defined by the church, transubstantiation had been proclaimed by the Fourth Lateran Council. He rejected Granvelle's suggestion that discussion of the word be deferred to the end of the colloquy. He insisted on its insertion and would not countenance any compromise. Here Melanchthon, Bucer, and Pistorius were the spokesmen for the Protestants for the Roman Catholics, Pflug, Eck, and Gropper. Ironically, it was the same Contarini who was willing to be flexible over justification who torpedoed the colloquy by his intransigence over the word transubstantiation. The colloquy soon began to founder, but that was because of differences on other doctrines, such as the infallibility of councils and transubstantiation, not because of shortcomings in the statement on justification. The joy and the hope engendered were to be short-lived. Most of the participants of the colloquies on each side were Erasmian humanists, sharing a concern to reform the church by going behind the middle ages to the sources of the golden age of the church, the Bible and the Early Fathers. The last effort to bring protestants and catholics together -agreed on Justification by grace through faith -disagreed on the Lords. The division between Protestant and Roman Catholic was more substantial - though not so substantial before the Council of Trent (1545-63) as after it. Protestantism eventually resolved into Lutheran versus Reformed but it was not inconceivable that the more moderate elements might have united behind a Protestant confession. With hindsight that can appear an inevitable outcome, but it did not appear to be inevitable at the beginning and even today we cannot say with certainty that is was an inevitable outcome. In the latter part of the sixteenth century Europe divided into rival confessions: Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed. Was it not clear that there could be no common ground? The answer is that it might be clear to us, with the benefit of hindsight, but it was not at all clear at the time. Then it describes the Regensburg Colloquy prior to Article 5, focusing especially on the participants in the debates (Bucer, Melanchthon, Pistorius, Gropper, Eck, Pflug), as well as those who were also present at the Diet (Contarini, Pighius, Calvin). Toward achieving the first, he appointed theologians from both sides to take part in a colloquy: Roman Catholics John Eck, Julius Pflug, and John Gropper. First it considers the colloquies prior to Regensburg. The modern reader may wonder that was the point of these debates. This chapter places Article 5 in its wider context.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |