Rethinking Catholicism in Reformation England. By Lucy E. C. Wooding. Oxford Historical Monographs. Edited by, R. R. Davies et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, 2000. Pp. viii+305. $35.00.
Rethinking Catholicism in Reformation England. By Lucy E. C. Wooding. Oxford Historical Monographs. Edited by, R. R. Davies et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, 2000. Pp. viii+305. $35.00.
复制标题
重新思考宗教改革时期的英国天主教。
DOI：
10.1086/383367
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Questier
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Questier
书评有很多共识，也可能有冲突。”书名中的“重新思考”部分意味着将天主教的演变视为英国宗教改革的核心部分——事实上，就像新教的出现一样——并主张这种演变应该“作为更广泛的宗教发展运动的一部分来研究”（p. 39）。2）. 当然，在一个以新教为中心的16世纪中期宗教改革占据主导地位的领域，任何作者都应该专注于天主教，这无疑是一件好事。的确，伍丁认为，“天主教思想的运作模式往往更多地归功于19世纪的恐惧，而不是16世纪的现实”，这一点也肯定是正确的。2）. 换句话说，19世纪和20世纪的天主教史和宗教改革史学倾向于用自己对天主教的理解取代16世纪的理解。仅凭这一点就足以构成以牛津大学出版社的名义出版这本书的理由。同样值得高兴的是，能找到一位研究16世纪宗教改革的学者，他没有把“天主教”这个标签或多或少地专属于一种对流行文化的拙劣模仿，而这种文化（当时）还不是新教。因此，我觉得这里有很多值得赞同的地方。当然，16世纪“天主教徒”一词的用法是有含意的，就像后来的时代一样。“天主教”与书中另一个主要流行语——“人道主义”的联系，显然引起了问题。如果宗教的“人文主义”方法是导致宗教改革的主要共识力量之一，那么人们不得不问，是什么使约翰·费舍尔或托马斯·莫尔爵士等“人文主义者”在他们的观念和行动上与其他采取不同政治道路的“人文主义者”如此不同。然而，这本书的主题和研究材料完全是神学的，是从印刷的辩论和虔诚的文献中衍生和挑选出来的。例如，伍丁认为，“玛丽都铎教会激进做法的最引人注目的例证之一是其对教皇的态度。”这里有“亨利天主教徒奠定的基础”的连续性；在亨利王朝的“天主教”教会中，“没有教皇权威的地位”。“圣经权威占据了中心地位，”和“这在玛丽安作家的文学作品中延续了下来，教皇的缺席是显而易见的”(p。127)。但是，在关于玛丽安天主教复兴的那一章中，没有任何迹象表明，英国天主教徒对教皇权威的全面程度的任何怀疑，可能受到哈布斯堡王朝与保罗五世的口角的影响或影响。肯定会有学者对用于建立这里讨论的主要参数的方法提出异议，或者至少是争论。当然，伍丁承认，“温和的”和中间的思想模式构成了一种强有力的占有和支配的修辞，没有理由说这些思想模式可能不是那些发展这些思想的人的真正信仰的产物，甚至在他们的思想中，例如，有时不那么温和的加德纳主教。从亨利八世自己的角度来看，他无疑是一位虔诚的、福音派的（广义上的）君主。也许邦纳主教的圣经倾向是真诚的。波尔枢机因其对神圣恩典和相关话题的“左倾”神学建构而臭名昭著，尽管（具有讽刺意味的）他似乎是其中之一（少数？）他们相当重视教皇权威的必要性和益处。尽管有很多……
Book Reviews 939 much consensus as it could conflict.” The “rethinking” part of the book’s title means seeing the evolution of Catholicism as a central part of the English Reformation—just as much, in fact, as the emergence of Protestantism—and advocating that this evolution should be “studied as part of a wider movement of religious development”(p. 2). Now, of course, that any author should concentrate on Catholicism at all in a field dominated by a Protestant-centered account of the mid-sixteenth-century Reformation is unquestionably a good thing. And, indeed, Wooding must also be right to argue that “the working model of Catholic thought has often owed more to nineteenth-century phobias than sixteenth-century realities”(p. 2). In other words, nineteenth-and twentieth-century Catholic histories and historiography of the Reformation have tended to substitute their own understandings of Catholicism for sixteenth-century ones. This alone would constitute grounds for publishing this volume under the imprint of Oxford University Press. It is also good to find a scholar of the sixteenth-century Reformation avoiding the temptation to attach the label “Catholic” more or less exclusively to a parody of popular culture that was not (yet) Protestant. Accordingly, I find much to agree with here. Of course, the sixteenth-century use of the word “Catholic” was loaded, just as it has been in subsequent times. Issues are clearly raised here by what “Catholicism” means in connection with the other major buzzword in the book—“humanist.” If “humanist” approaches to religion are one of the main consensualizing forces leading to religious reform, then one has to ask what made “humanists” such as John Fisher or Sir Thomas More so different in their perceptions and actions from other “humanists” who adopted a different political path. And yet the subject matter and research material for the book is pretty exclusively theological, derived and culled from printed polemical and devotional literature. For example, Wooding argues that “one of the most arresting illustrations of the radical approach of Mary Tudor’s Church is given by its attitude towards the papacy.” Here there was continuity from “the foundations laid by Henrician Catholics”; in the Henrician “Catholic” Church there had been “no place for papal authority.”“Scriptural authority occupied the central ground,” and “this was perpetuated in the literary output of the Marian writers, where the papacy was conspicuous by its absence”(p. 127). But there is no indication in the chapter on the Marian Catholic revival that any doubts among English Catholics about the full extent of papal authority might have been affected or influenced by the Habsburg spat with Paul V. There are bound to be scholars who will take issue with, or at least argue about, the methodology used to establish the main parameters of discussion here. Of course, there is no reason why the “moderate” and middle-ground modes of thought—which, Wooding admits, constitute a powerful rhetoric of appropriation and domination—might not have been the product of genuine belief in the minds of those who developed them, even in the mind, for example, of the sometimes less than moderate Bishop Gardiner. By his own lights, Henry VIII was undoubtedly a godly and evangelical (in the broadest sense of the word) prince. Perhaps Bishop Bonner’s biblicist inclinations were sincere. Cardinal Pole was notorious for his, as it were,“left”-leaning theological constructions of divine grace and related topics, though (ironically) he seems to have been one of those (few?) Marians who put considerable stress on the necessity and benefits of papal authority. In spite of a good deal of …