End of article is wanting[edit]

This article is in need of a "summary and legacy" section at the end. This article ends very abruptly and I think its inappropriate for a period of history that had so many reaching effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.134.23 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A lot of work to do here[edit]

Wow, there is a lot of work to do here. The treatment of Trent is very poor. It should be outlined briefly by sessions without such sweeping statements with a POV tone. Since Trent had numerous sessions over the course of several decades, it should be a recurring subheading. There is so much material here that it should be first decided whether to organize it chronologically or thematically. Previously, the structure was a real mess with Trent as a heading following be Reforms as a heading with the "Reforms section being a continuation of the Trent discussion. It is even confusing to describe it!

Anyway, am chipping away at this, if anyone out there is interested, give me a holler!--Vaquero100 00:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

== I've deleted the signed comment suggesting this page be moved. If the move is uncontroversial, just do it. If you expect the move to be controversial, follow the procedure described at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Stebulus 03:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move to Catholic Reformation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus for the move --Philip Baird Shearer 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to propose that this article be moved to "Catholic Reformation." There are several good reasons for this. First, it was a reform in the Church. "Counter Reformation" makes it sound like it was anti-reform, which is clearly not true. Second, "Counter Reformation" also makes it sound like it was only a response to the "Protestant Reformation." This is only partially true. Many of the reforms of the Catholic Reformation are not particularly related to Luther or his successors. These aspects include: the profound spiritual movements of the spanish mystics and the French school of spirituality as well as the development of the seminary syste --Vaquero100 07:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Counter-Reformation → Catholic Reformation — The term "Counter-Reformation" implies that the movement was anti-reform. "Catholic Reformation" is the more accurate term as it describes a reform within the Catholic Church. This has become the academically accepted term. --Vaquero100 05:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Comment Would anyone object if the circular redirect and signed comment were removed from the front page? Maestlin 16:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just removed the signed comment without reading your comments here. --84.153.53.206 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A singular voice of opposition is not enough to justify ceasing the question. --Vaquero100 00:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vaquero100, suggesting a move is a legitimate action and there are procedures for doing so. There are templates for signalling all sorts of problems with articles. But editorial comments about the article, like yours, do not belong in the article itself. They belong on the talk page. Part of Wikipedia's policy is to avoid or at least minimize self-reference in the text of articles. Removing your comment does not mean anyone is putting an end to the question, because the question is properly inquired here, on the talk page. Maestlin 16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuse me if this has already been addressed, but what do recent undergraduate history texts call it? Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Moved from survey section I had never even heard the term "Catholic Reformation" before coming to this talk page. It is quite commonly referred to as the Counter-Reformation even by Catholic scholars. [7] —Mira 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional note: A Google search gives 631,000 results for "Counter-Reformation" and 99,000 for "Catholic Reformation." —Mira 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I don't see the relevance of this page. Maestlin 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the google hits, the term "counter-reformation" is very generic. Searching for "counter-reformation" + "catholic" (so that it at least has some relation to catholicism) drops the hits to 338,000 results. Note The Arts of the Anglican Counter-Reformation. Gimmetrow 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maestin, you have cited the most controversial and least repected of "Catholic theologians." Read again more closely Richard McBrien's article and you will see he is listed as a dissident and his principal work is banned for use with college students. --Vaquero100 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't cite it, someone who didn't sign their comments did. Please review the history of the talk page. The only thing I wrote is "Sorry, I don't see the relevance of this page," referring to the link to some amazon.com review. Maestlin 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the source for the claim that his principle work is banned? (PS the "Additional note" below is not by me either.) Maestlin 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry about that, that was me who forgot to sign. And this is perhaps a better link [8]. The book I linked to uses "Counter-Reformation" in one of its section titles, and actually throughout the whole thing (I own a copy). And, as his article says, McBrien is a professor of theology at Notre Dame, he can't be as horrible as you seem to think he is. —Mira 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More links The Catholic Encyclopedia uses "Counter-Reformation." The official Vatican site uses both.[9][10] —Mira 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Count at least one other supporter for this proposal. Know that he is not a Catholic, but a firm believer that this movement was a response to Humanism before it was a response to Protestantism (a response to Humanism which counted among its tennets a rejection of intercessors, and therefore the Catholic Church). Another thing: why is there no mention of catechism in an article about the Catholic Reformation?

I don't think whether or not this was a reaction to the Reformation is at issue here. We're determining what this event is most usually called, not whether or not we think the name fits. From the Wikipedia naming conventions: (emphasis mine)
  • "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"
  • "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."
  • "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things."
—Mira 05:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know this is late but I support the change. Arthurian Legend (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Counter Reformation vs. Catholic Reformation[edit]

Counter Reformation:
GOAL:
to take back what the Catholic Church lost to Protestantism.
PROBLEM:
Protestants didn't come back to the Catholic Church
WANTED:
One main church

VS

Catholic Reformation:
GOAL:
to reform Catholic Church (hence the name "Catholic reformation")
PROBLEM:
Popes aren't calling meetings because they are scared their authority will be lowered,
Finally decide that they will call Council of Trent because Protestantism is spreading fast!
WANTED:
Reform in Catholic Church


71.138.91.40 03:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)AP STUDENT in HSReply[reply]

I note that https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/catholic-reformation-and-counter-reformation makes the distinction clear:

Scholars use the terms Catholic Reformation and Counter-Reformation to identify the changes in the Roman Catholic Church that occurred in the 1400s and 1500s. The phrase Catholic Reformation generally refers to the efforts at reform that began in the late Middle Ages and continued throughout the Renaissance. Counter-Reformation means the steps the Catholic Church took to oppose the growth of Protestantism in the 1500s.

For example, Erasmus, More, Fisher, Colet would be regarded as Catholic Reformers, but they were certainly not involved in the Counter Reformation period, which is anchored to Trent. (I would even suggest that the Catholic Reformation goes back 100 years before to Jean Gerson, or perhaps to the Council of Basel.) Of course, there is some overlap, in Rome especially: some members of the Oratory of Divine Love and then the Oratory of Philip Neri spanned some sessions of the Council of Trent.

I would be in favour of a separate page on the Catholic Reformation, as it has its own dynamics, issues and personalities, different from the Counter Reformation and more tied to Southern and Northern Humanism, and it goes against the mythology that the Reformers were the first ones treating corruption seriously. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV?[edit]

The widely-used term "Counter-Reformation" usually means not only the spiritual reformation of the Catholic Church, but also the violent trials to destroy the protestant movement. E.g. the Hugenots Wars and the Thirty Years War are usually seen as a part of the Counter-Reformation.

In this article, the war violence of the catholic powers is not mentioned at all. The protestants are named "sects", and their eventual return to catholicism is described as fully peaceful. (In the reality, there were hundreds of thousands of victims.)

The article should be completed in this direction, or marked as non-NPOV. (I myself cannot do it because of my poor English.)

--M.m.h 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm... this comment has been sitting here without a response for four months. I think M.m.h makes a valid point. Unfortunately, this is not an area of expertise for me. M.m.h, if you will attempt to write some text that addresses these issues, I will be glad to copyedit for you and insert it into the article.
--Richard 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will try it to change the first information, so that both the main definitions of the term would be mentioned. --M.m.h 13:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly, I think that linking the term "Counter-Reformation" to the violence due to religious intolerance between both Protestants and Catholics (who were equally guilty of such violence as were royalty who wished to excuse mass-murder under religious justifications) is a distraction. Some actually believe that the Jesuits are sworn enemies of Protestantism willing to do whatever it takes to demolish the Protestant sects. I know about this because someone from my church tried to excuse his admittedly anti-papist prejudice using such "reasoning."

Protestants right after the Reformation were just as guilty of murdering Catholics as Catholics were of murdering Protestants. Back then, folks in Europe were not as educated as they are today. The Gutenberg Press was recently invented, and Martin Luther's protest was just starting to get attention. To slur present-day Catholics by using the past is akin to blaming German babies most recently born for the Holocaust. In other words, it is wholly inaccurate.

--Kulturvultur 04:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numbers game, dude. Picture two groups, one that is relativel≠y small (think less than 1/10 the size of the other at first) and one that is, comparatively, quite large. The big one is bent on imposing the options of destruction or assimilation on the smaller group; the smaller group is more focused on survival. And if that's not working so well, escape to America. (And yes, they go on to commit genocide there...but this is about Catholics and Protestants and what they did to each other). As far as that goes, it's not right for you to say Protestants and Catholics were doing the same exact things to each other. It's not accurate. That's a lie. You'll go back to talking about size disparity as soon as you feel like it does good things for you, but when you're on this topic you want to avoid it all of a sudden. How nice for you.

You are not right. It is not the question to blame somebody, but to describe the term as exactly as possible. At present, only one point of view, or one of several definitions is described. We should at least discern between (1) the counter-reformation as a movement within the catholic church and (2) the counter-reformation as a historical period. --M.m.h 13:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Counter-reformation and the religious wars were not as linked as you think. The Huegnot war and the Thirty years war were initiated for purely political resons. This is seen by the fact that Henry of Navre, the Protestant King of France converted to Catholicism and that a century later Catholic France fought against Catholic HRE in favor of the protestant powers. Cite your references before making absurd suggestions that the religious wars were linked. I can't see any POV issues here. The counter-reformation was the peaceful way to bring Protestants back to Rome; the religious wars were politically motivated wars with a secondary objective of changing the religion of the vanquished. Tourskin (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are mixing the concepts. I do not speak about religious wars only, but about the violent recatholization of some parts of Europe, not only during, but also after the Thirty Years War in Bohemian lands, or a lot of local processes earlier. There was mostly no peaceful return of Protestants back to Rome. And there is a lot of sources about it, almost every book on history of that period, read e.g. http://www.tourmycountry.com/austria/history7.htm (it cannot be linked here): "From around 1600, they launched a campaign called the counterreformation, which consisted of violent prosecutions and the expulsion of protestants (Salzburg expelled protestants in two waves, too)..." (this was the first one in Google, you can find a lot of others).
As I have written above, the concept "counter-reformation" is widely used not for the "peaceful way etc.", but for the whole historical period of (mostly violent) recatholization in Europe. --Mmh (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
" ... violence due to religious intolerance between both Protestants and Catholics (who were equally guilty of such violence as were royalty who wished to excuse mass-murder under religious justifications) is a distraction." - actually the Catholics' allegiance to The Pope rather than to their legitimate rulers, i.e., the then-reigning Protestant kings or queens, the latter whom The Pope had ruled to be 'heretics', made the Catholics technically guilty of high treason, one of the most serious offences in any country - then or now. The prescribed Catholic punishment for heretics was burning at the stake, which meant Catholics were in-effect threatening the life of the King. It was therefore a question of ultimate loyalty.
Such things were important at the time becasue in the case of England, and later Britain, they determined whether you might be likely to be stabbed in the back (literally or figuratively) by your neighbour in time of war, of which England had had many, often with catholic France and Spain (who had bigger armies than England) and also for a time, The Netherlands. This is the main-but-not-usually-stated reason for England's, and later Britain's, involvement in Ireland, also a catholic country, which could be relied upon to ally itself with France or Spain in time of war with England, and which opened up the possibility of a Second Front for a French or Spanish invasion of England or Britain simultaneously across both the English Channel and the Irish Sea with England's or Britain's small army being unlikely to defeat both. At such times as far as a King or Government is concerned the "Defence of the Realm" over-rides all other considerations, whether any one else likes it or not. Just ask France, Belgium, The Netherlands, etc.
People whose own countries and nations are fortunate enough to lack the experience of around a thousands years of almost constant and frequently extremely-bloody warfare with their neighbours should at least make the effort to try and understand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.221 (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm of the opinion the NPOV problem (of omitting the political side) is solved now. Since the German Wikipedia was more balanced I took part of it via translation. I also gained inspiration from their topic choices to briefly summarize some small subsections. But of course review what I did do see if it is good or not. Interestingly, the German Wikipedia page says that definition of the Counter-Reformation is controversial in the lead. Seeing this talk page confirms this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced statement removed[edit]

I have removed the following statement, as it was tagged "citation needed" for several months.

If anyone can find a source to back up this statement, feel free to re-add it. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 18:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expand...[edit]

Can we expand Counter-Reformation#Spiritual Movements. I believe it's necessary for that's short it provides very little information. You only said about that Spirituali, but that there are so many other movements have sprung up, including those seen on the introduction part of the article. -Pika ten10 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Well, I expanded. The Spirituali had according to the Wikipedia article here, Zero influence, so why include them? I could name 100 persons equally unimportant at that time --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Art[edit]

I'm surprised that there's nothing in the article about Counter-Reformation painting or other art forms except music, or the wider cultural project of the Counter-Reformation. There is a separate entry on The Reformation and art which discusses both Protestant and Catholic art, but perhaps there should be a brief summary in this article. I added a reference to the "See also" at the bottom, but that's not a substitute for a proper mention of visual arts, literature, etc, in the article body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if that was an explicit part of the Counter-reformation. Tourskin (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There should be something more here. -- Secisek (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly there should; the Council of Trent made a number of specific pronouncements on both painting and music, which were both seen as part of the CR effort, and these had considerable influence on the development of these arts. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oddity: counter-reformation reformation[edit]

Being a "protestant", I cannot avoid criticise the idiotic term "counter-reformation". OK, a reformation to counter reformations? The best way to counter-reform is to refuse to do anything... Isn't it instead a reformation in parallel, inspired by (the bad sides, mostly) of protestant reformation? This is my criticism, but shouldn't the name of the article be "Roman-Catholic Revival"? Counter-reformation seems to be a bad term, since it gives the false reactionary impression about a constructive and progressive spiritual work. (??) Said: Rursus ☻ 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the term is - as you say - "idiotic"; It should be Catholic Reformation, there are plenty of references here: [11] ClemMcGann (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, Johnbod, it might or might not be idiotic, but since you seem to have serious difficulties expressing yourself in English, you hardly seem the right person to pass judgement on a question of terminology. I also notice that most European languages use a similar term: Controriforma in Italian, Contrarreforma in Spanish, Gegenreformation in German, Contre-Réforme in French. It seems both firmly and widely established.Campolongo (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Counter-Reformation → Catholic Reformation — I see that this has been discussed here before, but it has been a while. In my experience, Catholic Reformation is the scholarly norm; rejecting the earlier understanding (mostly originating among 19th protestant scholastic historians) that the reforms of Trent and the Jesuits were entirely reactionary. I realize that this scholarly consensus is not necessarily reflected in online usage (i.e., g-hits), but most online sources are based on the 19th/early 20th cent. scholarship that has passed into the public domain. Pastordavid (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC) —Pastordavid (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

"In my experience, Catholic Reformation is the scholarly norm." Sources please? Also, while the scholarly norm may have changed, an encyclopedia should reflect more general usage for a wider audience. — AjaxSmack 03:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly. Below is what I could quickly pull off my shelf. I would argue that where a NPOV title is used in contrast to an additional widely used title, that is the purpose of redirects. Pastordavid (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some sources, collapsed for readability
  • Bruce Shelly, Church History in Plain Language 2nd ed.(Word Pub, 1995) 272: "Some historians have intrepreted the Catholic Reformation as a counter-attack against Protestantism; others have described it as a genuine revival of Catholic piety with few thoughts of Protestantism. The truth is the movement was both a Counter Reformation, as Protestants insist, and a Catholic Reformation, as Catholics argue."
  • Alister McGrath, Christian Theology 1st ed (Blackwell, 1994) 62: "Catholic Reformation. The term is often used to refer to the revival within Roman Catholicism ... It is, however, becoming increasingly clear that the Roman Catholic church countered the Reformation partly by reforming itself from within, in order to remove the grounds of criticism. In this sense, the movement was a reformation within the Roman Catholic church as much as it was a reaction against the Protestant Reformation."
  • G. Gassman & S. Hendrix, Fortress Introduction to the Lutheran Confessions (Fortress, 1999) 205: from the glossary; "Counter-Reformation. A term formerly used for sixteenth century Roman Catholic reform as a whole, but now applied to Catholic reform only insofar as it rejected and reacted to the Protestant Reformation."
  • Peter Marshall, "Counter-Reformation" in Encyclopedia of Christianity" ed. John Bowden (Oxford, 2005) 290: "By convention, this process is known as the Counter-Reformation, though some scholars prefer Catholic Reformation, in order to make the point that it was more than just a negative reaction to the threat of Protestantism, and that early shoots of renewal could be detected before anyone had heard of Martin Luther."
The google searches linked in the survey above go to my point. Where as the dates in the googles search for counter reformation are predominently prior to, say, 1980, the dates in the search for Catholic Reformation are all current scholarship. The shift has occured in the scholarly community, leaving a minority using Coutner-Reformation, because it is seen to be an inherently biased and POV term. Pastordavid (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is irresponsible to make such claims without some evidence. Google Books would suggest the contrary. When one limits to works published between 1990 and 2008 one finds 1364 results for "counter reformation" and 642 results for "catholic reformation". I am convinced that "Catholic Reformation" will at some point in the future be the dominant term - but it isn't yet. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry to appear to be irresponsible. I certainly thought that what I provided above was a portion of evidence. The scholars - all published by extremely reputible publishing houses, all speak of Counter Reformation as a term that is increasingly passing out of use, precisely because of the concerns I have outlined. Google books is in many ways helpful, in many ways represents a self-selected portion of what is out there. As I said, what I found of interest in the google book searches is the spread of the dates: in a very unscientific glance at usage, in the first 50 results of each search, 58% of the uses of "Catholic Reformation" come from sources published 1995 or later; 68% of the uses of "Counter Reformation" come from before 1995. I am not arguing (and don't think I have argued) that you will find more sources that use "Catholic Reformation." My argument is, and has been, that "Counter Reformation" is inherently POV, which is reflected in the consistingtly increasing number of scholars abandoning this usage; and that a neutral article title is paramount. Thus, from WP:NPOV: Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. Pastordavid (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Counter-Reformation" is not "an inherently POV term". It means "against the Reformation", which it was, when we understand "Reformation" to refer to the Protestant Reformation, which in common English usage it does. There's nothing POV about that either: "re-formation" is a perfectly descriptive word. The Counter-Reformation may have been a Catholic Reformation, but there is no reason to regard the former term as "POV" and no reason for scholars to cease using it. Srnec (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That one of your cited sources reads: "Counter-Reformation...By convention, this process is known as the Counter-Reformation, though some scholars prefer Catholic Reformation" seems to support the current title for the article. Cf. some scholars prefer the War for Southern Independence for the less accurate and POV American Civil War but Wikipedia opts for the common name. — AjaxSmack 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It certainly does - which one is that? Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peter Marshall, "Counter-Reformation" in Encyclopedia of Christianity quoted in the collpased box above. — AjaxSmack 07:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revision as of 17:55, 26 February 2009 (edit) (undo) 75.165.18.28 (talk)

Removing the unsourced text: "In the end of the Reformation Martian Luther announced, at his death bed, that they were better off under the church."

As it has nothing to do with the article, and a reasonably sourced blog entry denies it: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/01/did-luther-recant-on-his-deathbed.html

FlowRate (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title change definitely needed[edit]

Leaving the title "Counter Reformation" on the pretext that it is "commonly used" is equivalent to naming an article "America" instead of "The United States of America", "Flu" instead of "Influenza", or "Aryan" instead of "Indo-European"...

To start with, the Protestant Reformation is itself a misnomer. A "reform" in any community, society, or organization is something initiated by existing leadership, using existing channels, in accordance with existing rules - e.g. Catholic Reformation this article deals with, Gorbachev's reforms in the USSR, Deng Xiaoping's reforms in China, healthcare reforms made by governments, education reforms etc. But when some lower-ranking members of any organization claim authority and take things into their own hands locally, capture buildings, expulse their superiors etc - this is should be called a mutiny, rebelion, etc. What if someone today enters, say, a City Hall, throws out all the officials and starts issuing "reforms"? Will we consider that guy a "reformer"??? Thus, correct names would be "Protestant Revolt" and "Catholic Reformation". But even though Protestants incorrectly (as discussed above) called their movement a "Reformation", it should not prevent us from accurately describing the events of this article as a "Catholic Reformation", for the second wrong will not make things right.

Wikipedia should be primarily concerned with its titles be as accurate and as descriptive as possible, and not use titles generated by old-days political propaganda, just because they are "popular", especially as it is possible for everyone searching for "Counter Reformation" to be directed to "Catholic Reformation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vox Veritatae (talk • contribs) 10:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There should be two articles: Catholic reformation with the contents of this article, and Counter-Reformation about the time-period called so generally by the historians (see the discussion above and under). The term "reformation" is a generally accepted term of history science (not as only colloquial "flu" etc.). --Mmh (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Counter-Reformation[edit]

The Wikopedia article on the counter-reformation must include a major section on the attacks by Catholics on Protestants. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "counter-reformation" as "... the movement in the Church of Rome which followed on the Prostetant Reformation." This sense of the term is wider than and not synonymous with The Catholic Revival or the Catholic Reform as the first line of the article suggests. The Oxford definition certainly reflects the approach taken in my university course on European history. I fear that the authors in the WikiProject Catholicism are slanting the article towards the views of the Roman Catholic Church. This is a disservice to the entire Wikopedia undertaking. 24.108.224.158 (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were you able to write such a section? I have already written the same argument above, but my English is not good enough to write it. --Mmh (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
during the reformation, everyone attacked everyone, except some radicals. It was only after the Wars of Religion, where the idea of tolerance came about. the counter/catholic-reformation article should focus on the changes in the Catholic Church. one thing I hate about wikipedia, is every time someone sees a bias, they accuse some obvious group, really that is unnecessary. Heretics were executed long before the council of trent, so, yes it occurred during the time period of the counter-reformation. If you view the counter-reformation as the Roman Catholic Church's response to and attempt to stop the Protestant Reformation, then yes it should be all about prosecution of protestants. however, and this is the reason that scholar's call it the Catholic Reformation, it is the Catholic version of the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic-Reformation should be seen as Catholic's saying to themselves, the protestants raise some good points. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Council of Trent Section, it says: "as epistle of st. James states...", is St. james stands for Authorized King James Version for Bible? if so why it is not linked to the specified page? also where is the citation?, which epistle?, the number of chapter and sentence?? thx Wafaashohdy (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Devotional, Observantine, and Legalist traditions[edit]

There are references in the article to devotional, observantine, and legalist traditions, but these are not defined. The links are to either to dictionary definitions of devotion and legalism, or to Franciscans in the case of observantine (an article in which the word "observantine" does not occur). What are these words referring to in the context of this article? If observantine is a synonym for Fransiscan, I don't understand what is the specifically Fransiscan influence on the development of the Jesuits. Underalms (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spain and the Catholic Reformation[edit]

While I realize that this article has decided to limit itself greatly with the consensus holding that the counter-reformation title should be retained, it nonetheless is true that part of the reason catholic reformation is currently favoured is that the movement to change the church didn't merely start at trent but began even before the council of trent. this is no less evident than the changes in piety in spain, where the reformation itself ended up having little effect. To that end I question why the inquisition isn't even mentioned in this article when it is an integral part of the catholic reformation. indeed it wasn't just a political activity but also combined spiritual movements and an increase in popular piety which fought against many of the abuses the reformation reacted against.

Aquahelper (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early calendrical work[edit]

If work on the calendar causes a scientific revolution, then the calendrical work of the Babylonians and Egyptians must have done so in 3,000 B.C. The Maya of Central America did some work on the calendar without starting a scientific revolution. There is a feeble attempt at sarcasm in the article, from James Burke and Kchishol1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.252.226 (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LeRoy Froom reliable?[edit]

It seems to me that LeRoy Froom may not be a reliable source for this article. He is quoted as writing that preterism and futurism were used as ruses by Jesuits to argue with Protestants during this time period. However, Wikipedia lists preterism as developed in the 3rd century, and futurism not developed until the 20th century. The latter (article) does not seem related to theology.

Froom is a Seventh Day Adventist. That religion is listed as believing (among other things) that: "(a) the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon; (b) the pope is the Antichrist; (c) in the last days, Sunday worship will be "the mark of the beast.."

Perhaps a less-biased and more reliable source can be found to replace him? Student7 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Froom is reliable. His WP page quotes several book reviews which state that despite his SDA views, his books are invaluable resources for religious and church historians. Froom documents, with quotes and photos of documents, Jesuit sources that show that Preterism and Futurism were developed for the Counter-Reformation. Preterism does have its seeds in the 3rd century, but it was not fully developed and named Preterism until the 16 century specifically to counter the protestant reformation. The wikilink to Futurism should be changed to Futurism (Christianity). Those who read Froom know that his works are exhaustive and largely unbiased. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs indepth section on why counter-reformation was a flop in England and Sweden[edit]

I'm being flattering to Rome in calling it a flop, the counter-reformation didn't even get to leave a scratch (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.142.56 (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Cuthbert Mayne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.223.177 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Sweden#Religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.223.177 (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Roman Catholic" is standard term among Catholic scholars[edit]

I looked at the reliable sources and find "Roman Catholic" is used without any problems as a standard term. I browsed the titles in some self-identified Catholic scholarly journals to demonstrate this: 1) "Faith and Leadership: The Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church" in Catholic Historical Review. (Autumn 2015); 2) "The Feast Of Corpus Christi In Mikulov, Moravia: Strategies Of Roman Catholic Counter-Reform (1579-86)" in Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2010); 3) "Divided Friends: Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States." in U.S. Catholic Historian (Fall 2013); 4) "The church and the seer: Veronica Lueken, the Bayside movement, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy" in American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 5) "Incompatible with God's Design: A History of the Women's Ordination Movement in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church." Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2013); 6) "The Rise and Fall of Triumph: The History of a Radical Roman Catholic Magazine, 1966-1976." Catholic Historical Review (Spring 2015); 7) "Mary, star of hope: Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the United States from 1854 to 2010, as seen through the lens of Roman Catholic Marian congregational song." American Catholic Studies (Spring 2013); 8) "Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics In English North America, 1610-58: A Comparative Assessment" CCHA Study Sessions (Canadian Catholic Historical Association). 1999; 9) "Gender, Catholicism, and Spirituality: Women and the Roman Catholic Church in Britain and Europe, 1200-1900." American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 10) "Master'S Theses And Doctoral Dissertations On Roman Catholic History In The United States: A Selected Bibliography" U.S. Catholic Historian (Jan 1987). Rjensen (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Catholic terminology, Catholic and Roman Catholic have different meainings. Capital C Catholic churches are those in communion with Rome, accepting the teaching and authority of the Pope and councils: these include the Melkite Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Chaldean Catholics (Church of the East) and so on. The Roman Catholic church is one of these Catholic churches, by far the biggest. Each of these Catholic churches tends to have its own liturgical and language tradition, saints and characteristic spirituality; some go back to the Apostles who founded them (e.g. Peter and Paul at Rome, Thomas in India); others are regarded as separate churches because they split with Rome at some stage then returned subsequently. (However, there are also splinter churches like the Old Catholics who have split but kept the name Catholic, and some movements in other denominations that are Catholic-ish such as the Anglo-Catholics. These tend to use "catholic" with regard to some idea of "universal", rather than as the brand name for churches in communion with Rome.)

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You realize you are replying to a post from some 8 years ago? What you say is theoretically true, but historians are unlikely to make these fine distinctions often when discussing the Counter-Reformation. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Err, doesn't al those citations in the OP prove that in fact some historians do regularly use Roman Catholic? I think there are region and national differences in usage, certainly denominational. In any case, it would depend on what the historian's interest and speciality was, and what they are discussing, wouldn't it? If they were discussing the English Reformation such as Hooker, or the Reformation in Ireland, or Ultraquists after the accommodation with Rome, they may well prefer Roman Catholic to Catholic. But one thing is utterly clear: the "Roman" sometimes carries meaning (as differentiator, as amplifier, etc) and must not be removed thoughtlessly by editors acting on their own idiom. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned references in Counter-Reformation[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Counter-Reformation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "britannica.com":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Counter-Reformation / Catholic Reformation Terminology Explanation[edit]

There should be a section devoted to the title itself. I'm not not suggesting changing the title, only that the historiography of the term 'Counter-Reformation' and the field needs to be explained. It should show that the field originated within German scholarship which considered this 16th century movement to be a reaction to the Protestant Reformers, but that that view is no longer the predominate view amongst scholars of this movement.

For example, the opening paragraph cites a 180 year old text to define the parameters of the field: Der geschichtliche Ablauf der Auswanderung aus dem Zillertal. In: 1837-auswanderer.de. Zillertaler Auswanderer 1837. Abgerufen am 11. Oktober 2016.). This citation gives the original view of the field, but today is anachronistic.

I am going to put something together. I'll post it here, wait a bit to see if there are any comments, then add it to the article.

German historians in the 19th century coined the term 'Counter-Reformation' to describe a reforming movement within the Catholic Church in the 16th. The consensus at that time was that this movement originated as a response to the challenges of the Protestant Reformers (e.g. Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli) in the early decades of the 16t century. Following the writings of the Reformers themselves, this historiography held that the Catholic Church (ca. 1520) was corrupt and badly in need of reform. Luther began opened a path towards reform that attacked abuses and in response the Catholic Church began its own program of reform. The historians called this program the 'Counter-Reformation.'

This historiography remained the consensus within the Anglo-American and German historical academies. Scholars in the 1950s seriously began to question this reading of history. Over the next 20 years, historians, such as John Olin (1969), studying the Catholic Church in the 16th century began to use the term 'Catholic Reformation' in place of 'Counter Reformation'; however, there was no consensus to change the terminology. Between the 1960s and the present day, a number of factors have led to the rejection of the 19th century concept of the 'counter-Reformation'. One important factor has been periodization. Historians of the Catholic Church argued that limiting the beginning of the 'Counter-Reformation' to the start of the years after the Council of Trent (1545-1563) ignored important movements of Catholic reform such as: Conciliarism, the observant movement within religious orders, a renewed focus on the bible, the Brethren of Common Life, reformers such as Erasmus, and new spiritual trends that emphasized a closer personal relationship with God rather than a ritualistic faith.

A second factor contributing to the reappraisal was the reexamination of the concept of 'abuse'. Historians in the second half of the 20th century realized that the abuses that concerned Luther (mandatory fast days, an emphasis on the process of sanctification at the cost of the moment of justification) and Catholic reformers (lax episcopal oversight of dioceses and pluralism) were not the same abuses written about by historians such as Jean Delumeau (the continued and widespread existence of pre-Christian/pagan folk religion and practice).

The debate over terminology was summed up by John O'Malley in Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern Era, published 2000. He examined multiple possible terms to describe the Catholic Church's actions in the years between 1400 and 1600 and examined the faults and benefits of each. Safinski (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could certainly add a section on historiography/terminology, but not too high up. It would need to be much more densely referenced than this - about say 15 inline refs to cover this. I have to say, as someone primarily concerned with art history, little trace of these inconclusive discussions can be traced there - "Counter-Reformation" still works pretty well as a term and concept there, & bringing in trends going back to the 15th century would be most unhelpful. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Footnotes will be forthcoming. Can you clarify some things for me? Do you mean that the discussions I brought up have "little trace" in the art-history context and that 15th century art-trends are unhelpful, or do you mean a larger context? I do academic writing, not wikipedia writing, so the wikipedia citation practices still baffle me. Do I have to cite 19th century German sources, can I use 20th century English sources that discuss 19th century German sources? Safinski (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The latter - see WP:RS & related instructions. For art history, Trent or about then works pretty nicely as a dividing point, & trying to group the period around 1450 and the one from about 1550 under some larger concept doesn't work well and is not done. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grad-school crib sheet[edit]

It's wonderfully clever to package all this up in a single sentence, but to anyone who isn't cramming for the next midterm, after hearing all these terms bandied about in endless permutations and combinations in dull lectures for half a semester, it reads like a grad-school crib sheet.

Key events of the period include: the Council of Trent (1545–63); the excommunication of Elizabeth I (1570), the codification of the uniform Roman Rite Mass (1570), and the Battle of Lepanto (1571), occurring during the pontificate of Pius V; the construction of the Gregorian observatory in Rome, the founding of the Gregorian University, the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, and the Jesuit China mission of Matteo Ricci, all under Pope Gregory XIII (r. 1572–1585); the French Wars of Religion; the Long Turkish War and the execution of Giordano Bruno in 1600, under Pope Clement VIII; the birth of the Lyncean Academy of the Papal States, of which the main figure was Galileo Galilei (later put on trial); the final phases of the Thirty Years' War (1618–48) during the pontificates of Urban VIII and Innocent X; and the formation of the last Holy League by Innocent XI during the Great Turkish War (1683–1699).

Check this micro-fragment out:

the birth of the Lyncean Academy of the Papal States, of which the main figure was Galileo Galilei (later put on trial [under XXX?])

Uniquely not under any particular pontiff, I guess because the birth of the Lyncean Academy, taken together, lacks a clean overlap with the revolving papal door.

In this compacted format, it's very hard for anyone to wade in to edit, to clarify such an omission, whether originally deliberate or otherwise. Not the right register for Wikipedia, IMO. — MaxEnt 17:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is strange, arbitrary and surely otiose?
I have moved it out from the lede, as it is not a summary of the article in any way, and put it into a section "Key events".
But I recommend deleting it entirely (or folding into some other page about key events of the period). It has no citations or links. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead[edit]

I think sentence in the current lead needs improvement: "the Counter-Reformation was a comprehensive effort composed of apologetic and polemical documents and ecclesiastical configuration as decreed by the Council of Trent. " Apart from the odd phrasing, I don't think it summarizes the article: what "ecclesiastical configuration" changed because of Trent? And it makes the Counter-Reformation into ivory tower thing, rather than something that had devotional and theological impact.

One thing about Trent, and the Counter-Reformation, was that it had two threads: one was acting on the same backlog of needed reforms that fed the Reformation, the other was specific responses to the theology of the Reformers (not always contra, but sometimes pro.) I think it would be better to couch the Counter-Reformation in that way. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terminology[edit]

I am adding a Terminology section, and moved some material into it. This what the Reformation article has, and it is a good approach to handle controversial issues which come down to different definitions used by different groups. Rather than the article coming down in favour of one definition, it exposes that some experts say X and some say Y: this gives NPOV by providing balance.

When we look at many of the discussions above, many would have been better handled by a terminology section. The issue is too complex and fraught to be left to the lead, or to be buried near the bottom Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead: corruption[edit]

I have reverted a recent change to the lead.

The cited paper might be used in a paragraph in the body, in some section on architecture, to mention that in the 1560s, Popes improved Rome's sanitation and water system (work started in the 1400s), as Rome had been running out of water and they wanted Rome to be beautiful and glorious. But it is not suitable as a justification for dumbing down the the lead.

That being said, I understand if someone thinks the current word "resurgence" does not give the whole picture. Perhaps "resurgence, reform and reaction" might be a better summary? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories