The early renaissance contains many figures who, important in the history of ideas, have received scant attention save by specialists. Sadly, this means many of their insights have been lost, their wisdom ignored. While they were working upon a way to view the world in a more catholic, united fashion, the spirit of the Reformation is all about dividing and making conflicts in places where no such conflict is necessary. Difference of opinion and experience do not have to create division, nor do they have to be indicative of indifference. Pluralism can be, and should be, founded upon the truth — a truth which, however, transcends human reason and therefore is capable of being embraced and understood in apparently contradictory practices and beliefs. The more we grasp for truth, the more we find out we do not know, the more we appreciate we do not understand, and the more we see why the arrogance of those who think they know the fullness of truth is as sad as it is laughable.
Let us look at three major figures who I believe best represents the greatness of the renaissance, and whose ideas, if explored further, I think would be of great benefit to humanity.
First, there is Nicholas of Cusa. On the one hand, he was a capable canon lawyer and theologian. In ecclesiastical debates, he defended the rights of the papacy, pointing out that what many in his day thought were abuses were not, in themselves, justification for schism. Indeed, he pointed out that the mutability of practices might not end up with practices one likes, but they become the practices which are needed at the time and place they are established. However, as a philosopher, he was quite universalistic. He believed that religions should work together, come together for the sake of peace; indeed, he was willing to accept world religions were, at different times, inspired by God, meaning he promoted more than mere natural theology as a way to bring religions into dialogue with each other. Through history and human frailty, the insights were corrupted, and falsehood did indeed cause much harm, but he believed the insights contained within the religious traditions could still be used to help bring them together into accord (and that in this accord, they pointed to the truths contained in the Catholic faith). But he also believed that diversity was necessary, even in religious unity, so that the differences between the religious traditions could be taken into consideration and used to establish different rites, each not only meeting the needs of the people, but also allowing them to develop, according to their own talents, rites which could inspire each other in their mutual worship of God. Finally, Nicholas believed that education could only go so far, that real wisdom transcended what one could learn from study. It is not that he denied the value of education; it had its place (he called it learned ignorance), but he thought it important to remind people that even an “idiot” could produce worthy insights if they were allowed to ponder the truths which they innately possessed.
If Nicholas of Cusa helped awaken the renaissance to the true catholic nature of religious wisdom, Marsilio Ficino was chosen to bring this insight further by being the one who would translate the complete works of Plato, and many of the Platonists, into Latin. He would be able to show, through a real world example, what Nicholas pointed to in theory: God’s wisdom helped inspire the sages of humanity and if one looked through the records of these sages, one could learn religious truths helpful for humanity in any era of world history. Ficino helped establish the notion of a universal, perennial philosophy (he did not call it such) which could be, and should be, embraced; its insights were divine and so could be followed by people of the Christian faith. Moreover, he helped reshape Europe through the inspiration he found through such research. He established the need for reform, not only on the nature of philosophical and theological truth, but in the realm of aesthetics. Artists had been mistreated and ignored; he promoted them, explaining why they should be seen as more than mere carpenters. In music, he helped inspire a revolution (some suggest his work might have helped form the foundation for modern opera). His notion of Platonic love helped develop new anthropological insights, the fruit of which can arguably be modern personalism. Finally, his exploration of ancient religious thought led him to write upon the immortality of the soul, and his writings led the Catholic Church to explicitly declare the immortality of the soul at the Fifth Lateran Council.
Finally, one can mention Agostino Steuco. Here we have a Vatican Librarian who took on the Protestant Reformation based upon the wisdom of the renaissance. What he saw lacking in the Reformation was a respect for religion (an insight which proved to hold some truth, as we would later find Protestant theologians declare Christianity not to be a religion). The Reformation was too negative, too contrary to the human spirit. For Steuco, the end result of the revolt could only be a universal hostility to the universal truth found in the religions of the world (he considered his defense of Catholicism as a defense of religion itself). Steuco presents to us one of the things which divides Catholicism from Protestantism, that is, the way one approaches humanity. For most Protestant traditions, everything human is deplorable and to be rejected outright. For the Catholic, what we need to do is find what we can embrace in what others say and lift it up, to help show how it fits in the fullness of truth. One sees something to overturn and silence, the other sees something which needs to be lifted up through grace. This divide continues, even in modern times. Barth’s conflict with the analogia entis (even if he were to become more nuanced about it later) presents to us the Protestant rejection of the world. This rejection, wherever it is found remains a problem; sadly, it is a sensibility which many Protestant converts to Catholicism hold on to, and this explains why they continue to look at the church with a Puritanism which divides the Church, causing grave conflict and harm to the People of God.
If one wants to reexamine Christian theology through the exploration of historical documents, one cannot ignore the renaissance. Certainly the Church Fathers deserve prominence; scholastics brought a theological rigor which continues with us today. But for so many, this is the end, and the renaissance is ignored. There is a vast richness of thought which has been ignored, a richness which is needed, not only because of the aesthetic richness found in this era, but also because of its promotion of humanity, a promotion which is necessary in a world influenced by Protestant hostility to the world. When we go back before the reformation, we can see what incarnational thought can really bring — a rich tradition which can promote humanity and the world instead of reject it. It is a tradition so needed today so that Christianity does not have to be viewed as being, as so many think, a faith founded upon a rejection of the world.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In