Rebecca Quardakus  

Delph, Ronald K. “Polishing The Papal Image In The Counter-Reformation: The Case Of Agostino Steuco.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 23 (1992): 35-47  

Delph argues that the humanist Agostino Steuco fought against the Reformation because he believed without the papal monarchy both religion and society would fall apart.  Delph states “Regardless of how uncivilized any age or people had been, Steuco observed, people always possessed this innate knowledge of and impulse to worship some divine majesty.  The instinct to worship God was, he declared, characteristic of the human mind and reason.” (43).  Delph believes that the reason humanists of the sixteenth century were against the Reformation was because they believed that human nature called for a supreme ruling force.  They believed that without the Papal monarchy the church would fall to ruins and society would collapse.  Steuco argues that “If the pope were stripped of his temporal empire, religion would lack any means of restraining the aggression of secular rulers and people.” (38). Humans need religious traditions, rites, and processions in order to maintain their religion.  They need to be continually reminded of their religion by these things or else they will fall away from faith.  Delph argues that Steuco was convinced that without “elaborate ceremonies and the opulent upkeep of the churches, altars, and saints’ shrines that localized the sacred” (40) that people would not be attracted to religion.  Steuco believed that society was dependent upon religion and without the papal monarchy religion would fall apart as well as society.  

This is a well written article showing a detailed humanist view of the papal monarchy from Agostino Steuco’s perspective.  Delph effectively supports his argument with numerous quotes from Steuco.  This article will be helpful in the final project because the argument is clearly stated with many examples supporting the argument and examples of why the opposing argument is not justifiable.

Hendrix, Scott H. “Luther’s Impact on the Sixteenth Century.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985): 3-14 

There exist many opinions on how effective Luther’s impact was on the sixteenth century, and whether or not he was successful.  Hendrix points out that Gerald Strauss looked at varying aspects of the Reformation including that if “the central purpose (of Protestantism) to make people—all people—think, feel, and act as Christians, to imbue them with a Christian mind-set, motivational drive, and way of life, it failed.” (3), but when one takes Luther’s own expectations for the impact the Reformation would have on the sixteenth century; one might view Luther as a success.  Luther’s plans for the Reformation did not include creating better Christians but rather to rid the church of forms of piety, masses, vigils and prayers for the dead, and in these respects he was a success.  Also, Luther did not expect the Reformation to take place and transform the entire Christian population right away, so he did not fail in that aspect either. Luther argued against medieval society by reversing the link between inner purpose and outward action.  “Good works did not make the person good, but a person, made good through faith, produced good works, just as naturally as a good tree produced good fruit.” (7). Throughout this article Hendrix argues that Luther was a success and was not trying to achieve the accomplishments that Strauss said he failed in.  

This article is helpful in explaining the impact of Luther and the Reformation on the sixteenth century.  It shows the different ways Luther had immediate impact on society, and it shows the different ways he did not have an impact on society.  Luther’s views of the corruptness of the Catholic Church are revealed, as well as his thoughts on the true teachings of the Bible.  This article will be a useful source for the final project.  Although it focuses on the fact that he was successful it also shows the opposing views and opinions of the impact that Luther had on the sixteenth century.

Kress, Robert “The Roman Catholic Reception of the Augsburg Confession” Sixteenth Century Journal 11 (1980): 115-127  

The Catholic Church was torn apart by the Protestant Reformation.  According to Kress, it was not possible for the Catholic Church as a whole to undergo a reformation. “The division seems to have been destiny’s child.” (118).  Although the split was inevitable, Kress points out that the Catholic Church is still looking for a unified Christian church including Protestants and Catholics.  This leads to the Roman Catholic reception of the Augsburg Confession.  In order for the Lutherans and Catholics to be reunited, the Lutherans insisted the Catholics must accept the Augsburg Confession.  Kress shows that the Catholic Church wanted to accept the Augsburg Confession but there were a few articles that they could not bring themselves to agree with.  The Catholics would not accept ‘original sin’ because that would prove that Mary was not perfect.  Kress stresses the differences between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church .  He argues that the “theology of the Augsburg Confession need not be unacceptable to Catholics.” (123) and that “the principle of the Augsburg Confession clearly accepts a visibly unified, perpetually existing, “office-ly” articulated church, in which absolute uniformity is not required, but a legitimate pluralism is accepted.” (120). According to Kress the Catholic and Lutheran churches’ principles should allow them to unite as one Christian Church.  

The well-written article gives many reasons why the Lutheran and Catholic churches could reunite without making too many compromises.  Kress also gives the most important reasons the Catholic and Lutheran churches split.  These reasons have held up throughout time and the churches still have not and will not reunite.  This article will be helpful to the final project because it portrays how the Catholic Church reacted to the Reformation.  It shows in exactly which theological areas the two religions disagree and why they disagree.  Overall this article proves some interesting points and provides a good amount of information on the Reformation, the Augsburg Confession and the Catholics response.

McGinness, Frederick J. “Preaching Ideals and Practice in Counter-Reformation Rome .” Sixteenth Century Journal 11 (1980): 115-127  

“She [ Rome ] was unquestionably the example for all the world to behold and imitate.” (127). The methods and changes of preaching during the Counter-Reformation helped to re-enforce the importance of sacred oratory.  McGinness disagrees with Erasmus when Erasmus stated “what the preacher said mattered little as long as he filled his sermons with resounding Ciceronic periods and mythological allusions.” (113). McGinness agrees with O’Malley’s work which shows that preacher was more complex.  Preaching needed to include the gospel and the means to get to heaven.  Preaching changed in Rome in the Counter-Reformation and spread throughout the rest of the Catholic Church.  Preachers started using eloquent vernacular, and they had sequence to their sermons.  McGinness points out that Rome was setting the example that preachers needed to use sacred oratory in order for the common man to obtain the knowledge and do the work necessary to get into heaven.  

McGinness discusses various preaching tactics, which ones were accepted, which ones were rejected and which were the most popular and successful.  He demonstrates that Rome set the standard for Catholic preaching ideals in the Counter-Reformation and why the preacher’s made the changes that they did.  McGinness views the Pre-Reformation preachers as clumsy, and he attributes the credit for better Catholic Preachers to Rome .  This article will be helpful in the final project because it explains the ways that Catholic preaching changed after the Reformation, why they changed, and how they were effective.