Although there is little reason to suppose that Reformed Christianity had any significant defenders in the Spain of Calderón, aome critics argue that one of his primary purposes in writing the Autos was to refute Protestant heresy, using the uni- quely Catholic doctrina of tranaubstantiation in the Euchariat as a point of departure.' One of the clearest voices in thia reBpect is that of Sister M. Francis MeGarry who wrote in 1937
As the spirit of Protefltantism invaded more and more the countries of Europe, the Eucharistic eharacter of the Autos beeame more and more pronounced. The Auto Sacramental in the strict meaning of the word aa underatood by Calderón did not exist in earlier times because in Spain there was no need of defending the dogma of the Real Presente until this belief gas denied and attaeked by the Bo-called Reformers.
Later in the same Btudy she states that “the people of Spain ... used the sacramental play as a means of showing
"General well-known studies bear this point out. See for example'Marce1ino Menéndez Pelayo, Hietorio de los heterodoxos españoled (Madrid, 2963), iv. For a more recent atudy, see John E. LanghnxaL, Luther's Gfiort in Spain (Lawionce, 1969). • V. Francia McGariy, 7'he Aiteporieol and 3feiophorieal language iii the Autos Socromeiitales of Calderbn fWaflhington D.G., 1967), p. l6. Angel VaI- buena Prat also speake of”loa motivoa bâaicos en la dieputa entre cat6licos y pro• testantea de au tiempo" found in the Autos, but like McGarry ho nevar really ex- plores the idea. See hiB pPologuea in P. Calderdn de la Barea, Autoe S ‹ emmentalec, ed. Angel Valbuena Prat (Madrid, 1942), p. xxix. and in P. Calderfin de la Barca, Otirns completae, ed. Angel Valbuena Prat (Madrid, 195a), jn, 14— l6."
their indignation against the errors of the ao-called Reformera and the diahonor they paid the Eucharist.”In recent years Sia- ter McGarry’a theaia, which is ahared by other scholars, has fallen into disfavor. Marcel Bataillon argues that in the early Autoa "la explicación antiprotestante tropieza con graves obje- ciones,” among which he includes the absence of corroborative testimony from contemporary observers and ”la rareza de las alu- siones a la herejía” in the Autos themselvea. Bruce Wardropper supports this opinion, aífirniing that "loa autoa no Burgieron como respuesta a la reforma protestante ni como arma de combate de la Contrarreforma.” 5 He then defers comment on Calderón’a AutOB to A. A. Park.era whose able analyses illuminate the Thomistic premiaes of the Autos as well as their liturgical function in the festival of Corpus,' but nowhere does he speak of their re1ation- ahip to the Reformation.
To inerease our understanding of Calderón’s relationship to the Reformation, my primaiy goal in thia atudy is to analyze his understanding of Protestant doctrine, the nature of his refuta- tiona of the same and hia awareness of individual Reformers and their teachinga. Although my principal aim is a eomparative, theological analysiB, I will zupply in pasaing ample evidence which demonatrates that refuting Protestantism was eertainly one of Calderón's purposes, but unlike Siater MeGarry, I will not claim the Eucharistic character of the Autos beeame more pro- nouneed as Protestatism grew (though this may in fact be true), nor will I aeeept M. Bataillon’s challenge to search out ”teBti- monios de los contemporáneos. Rather, I will base my rernarks on the frequent and apecific references Calderón makes to the Reformation in the Autos themselves.
"Mamel Bataillon, "Enseyo de expIicaci6n del 'Auto Sacramental,”’ in Cal- derón: Antología de la crítica, ed. M. DuEfin and R. González Echevarría (Madrid, 1976), H, 468. • Bruce Wardropper, Introducción al teotm religioso del siglo de oro (Madrid, 1967), p. 336. " Wardropper, p. 335. ' A. A. Parker, Z'fie Allegorieal Drom• •f Calderón (Oxford, 1B43), pp. 60—66. • Batnilton, p. 458. • My views do not necesaarily vary from those of Bataillon and Wardropper since theso writera are specifically concerned with the century preceding Calderón. Nonethelesa, aince they never olarify that Calderón’a motiven may have differed from thoee of his predeceseore, we at leaat diaagree by implication."
But before discuasing Calderón'a views on Protestantism, we must firat examine his concept of apostasy ir general. Although the allegorical characters Herejía and Apostaafa appear fre- quently in Calderón'a AHtOB, I know of no case where they solely repreaent Heformed Chriatianity; rather, in Calderón’s lexicon, "heresy” and ”apostasy” (which I and seemingly Calderón use in- terchangeably) refer to all non-Catholic doctrine. For example, in No hay instante ein mifogro, Fe identifiea Apostasfa not only as ”un falso apóatata” but ”aun toda la apostaría,” thua indicating that apostasy assumeB many guiaes.'° In several of the Autoa Calderón refere to the Greek origin of the word ”heresy” as ”con- trariedad de opinioneB,” an idea that Herejía develope in Lo pro- tectación de la fe:
"Soy, aunque gima y llore, aquella truncada hidra aobre quien mortal veneno en copa dorada brinda la herejía a loa mortales. (p. 740)"
The image of the hydra, the multifaced mon9ter present in vari- ous forms throughout Church history, could also characterize Apoatastn in Psiquie y Cupido where he is the father of three he- retical daughters: Gentilidad (paganism), Judalsmo and the un- named but clearly described Reformers. When forced to identify himself he saya:
"Yo lo diré, pues que ya en vano encubrirme intento. Yo, Mundo, rey poderoso; yo, gentil, ilustre Imperio; yo, gallarda idolatria; yo, gran Judafemo hebreo; yo, confusa Sinagoga, Soy (rórnpase mi secreto) la Apostasfa; en el Norte mi patria y mi silla tengo. (p, 349)'1"
P. Calderón de la Barca, O6ros completoe, ed. Àngel Valbuena Prat (Ma- drid, 1952) In, 1343. All quotatioris from the Autoa are taken from this edition; hereatter, documentation trom the Autoa tliemselves will be included in the text with the page number Ind the name of the Auto. " The n0tion that the Devil lives in the North ia a common motit in medieval literature and is based on Is. 15:I?— 14. lu thia particular quotation Calder6n ia
Calderón's understanding of apostasy harka back to the Christian definition of evil itself which ía not conaidered a force independent of good, but rather the absence of good. That is to say, evil does not exist as an independent power battling against good, but entera the world bec£iuse men through their free will do not chooae good and thus allow evil a place. In strict terms, it would be more accurate to speak of good and non-good than good and evil; if we apply this concept to dogma, it is possible to argue that there is no auch thing aa independent anti-truth but only non- truth, that anything leBa than true religion is in fact hereBy. In this senBe, Apoatasfa is a cover Íerm for paganism, Judaism, Is- lam or any other non-Catholic religion, and not merely the aban- donment of truth once embraced. Furthermore, in Calderón’s concept of apostasy, temporal relationshipB lose all significance, and for this reason Calderón can consider Judaism and paganism to be formB of apostasy, although both predate Catholicism. Given such a broad definition of apoataay, I have tried to limit my examples from the Autos to only the most obvious referentes to the Reformation. A more liberal interpretation could perhaps strengthen my argumento.
Although today's historians often concentrate on the sociopo- litieal forceB underlying the Reformation, for both Calderón and the Reformera, the basic reaaons for sehism were doctrinal and not political, and for this reason it was not Luther’s famous ninety-five theses rebuking corruption which caused the irrepa- rable breaeh, but rather his radical reinterpretation of sacramen- tal religion formulated in The Babyloriian Copiiutfy three years later." The pretensions of the Roman Catholic Church as the one and only true church depend not so much upon her doctrinal poaitiona, which a non-Catholic could in theory imitate to the letter, as upon the claima that only her clergy, by virtue of apos-
"undoubtedly referring to the Reformers, but he may have had the verse in laaiah in mind alao. " Hnna J. Hillerbrand divides the Reformation into three basic movements: the spiritual, or a concern for daily religious life through prayer, meditation, etc.; the theological, which is concerned with doctrinal clarification, and the political, where he ehowa how the other two movements contributed to political procesBes. The concerns of the Autoa fall mainly into the eecond category. 8ee Hans J. Hil- lerbrand, The World •f *he Reformation (New York, 1973), pp. 30—31."
tolic succession, are authorized to administer the Sacraments, which are in turn necessary channels of God’s grace to man and therefore indispensable for salvation.1* The Reformers attacked Catholicism at its very heart by claiming that God’a saving grace may be obtained through other channels, and thua undercut aae- ramentaliam, sacerdotalism and ultimately the necessity of a sin- gle, visible church.
As a son of post-Trent Catholiciam, Calderón waB well aware of the central thrust of Protestant arguments, and precisely for that reason his refutations of ProtestantiaTit UBUally appeal to the exclusive validity of the CatholiC B£tcraments. For example, in la protestaei6n de la fe he portrays the Church as a beautiful building supported by seven columns representing the seven Sa- craments, and haB Herejía describe hia demonio mission as an ef- fort to steal ”las auxiliares riquesas, / que a la católica curia / envía la Providencia.” Herejía later declares:
"Arrancaré de Bu centro laB 8iete column B bellas, porque todo el edificio desplomand0 £t1 Buelo venga. (p. 733)"
Calderón then attributes these worda to the "Rey del Norte / donde hoy coronada reina / de Lutero reformada / religión” (pp. 733—34). Thus the real threat of Protestantism iB not found in its disputations about corruption or minor doctrinal mattora, but rather in its attaek on Catholiciam’s vital center: the necesaity of the SacramentB themselves.
Although Lutherans and Anglicans preserved much of the sacramental syatem, generally Bpeaking, the ProteBt£tnt alterna- tive to the Sacraments is salvation by faith, that is to aay the grace of God’s revelation of himself is automatically dispensed to the believing ainner who truats in God regardless of any sacra-
"The central importance of the Sacramento in Datholic doctrine was afflrmed ae dogma in the Council of Trent, largely in responae to Euther’a attacka on the Catholic aaeramental ayetem. Moreover, It haa frequently been observed that Galderón draws heavily from Trent in his doctrinal expositione. The Catholic po- aition on the Sacramento ia well enplained, both In its contemporary and historical dimenaione, in Sociomentum Wundi, el. It ail Rahner, S. J. (New York, 1970), v, 379—81. In addition, Father Rahner'a work ie an ezcetlent firat BOVvce of biblio- graphical information on Catholic doctrine generally"
mental intervention. Apostasfa says as much in Rf verdadero Dios Pan.
"Pero yo aquf Alma sólo la cref del mundo, deste trofeo a ninguno atribuiré la victoria, sino a ella, que un alma divina y bella vence mucho con la fe; creer4 yo que vencerla Alma y no más. (p. 1250)"
Calderón direetly refutes thia notion by claiming that aince faith is a gift of God, it is impossible to have true faith in anything but the truth. Coneequently, the Protestant belief in salvation tbrough means other than the Sacramento is not faith at aI1. We find a dramatic illustration of this eoncept in Poiquis y Cupido, where Apostaafa elaims there ia no need to search for God in the Saeraments:
"Yo le traigo [a Dios] en el pecho, que si no es éste, no hay otro Dios de amor ni yo le creo debajo de otros disfraces. (p. 348)"
But when ApostaBfa tries to persuade Fe to support hia position, Fe answers, "Primero / i:ne daré niuerte.” In Calder6n’s mind it is through faith that God’s grace in the Sacraments is revealed; once we accept the notion that the Sacraments are necessary channels of God’s grace, it is impossible for faith, aa a gift of God, to bypaas them somehow. Fe's anawer alao recalls St. Jamea's fa- mous dictum that faith without worka ia dead (James 2:14— 26); Catholic commentaries frequently interpret such worka to be man's voluntary acceptance of the Sacraments. Calder6n rein- forces his point that faith is more than belief by having Apostaala demand that hia own free will, Albedrto, persuade Fe to support his cauBe. Albedrlo answers: "Es en vano cuanto intento / si ella quiere reaiatirme; / que yo inclino maa no fuerzo” (p. 349). The message ia clear: although man acceptg God’a gift of himBelf, faith ia not a product of human will, nor can it be equated to sincere belief. As a product of will, Protestant belief, no matter how siri- cere, ennnot be called faith because the object of that belief is false. Paith is granted to those who believe the truth, and only aueh belief can receive God'a gift of faith.'4 What Protestants be- lieve to be true is false; therefore they cannot have faith, and it is nonsense for them to elaim salvation through faith for they have no faith. The underlying tautology in thia argument—truth is what is defined to be true—will never convinee a skeptic, nor would it convince a Protestant who would mere! y define truth dif- ferently from the outset.
Associated with Ca1derón’g denial of Protestant faith is his in- sigtence that the Reformers based their arguments on reason. In Psiqiiiz y Ciipido Apostaata's opening speech includes:
"Caballo deBboCado, el Eapfrítu Santo me ha Ilamado en la Sabiduría a mí, que soy 1a docta Apostaría. Loa piélagos del Norte, mi imperio aon, allf tengo mi corte, y entre las variaa leyea, que políticos guardan tantoa reyes, como hoy contiene el mundo, Bupremo Emperador, yo solo fundo en razón mi rasón, pues los abismoa de todoa venzo con mia silogismos. (pp, 34G—47)"
In reality, the Reformation rebelled against the humanistic focus of Renaissance Catholicism much as did the Counterreforma- tion. Indeed, one nuthority claima that, although Protestantism broke the political domination of the Roman Church, it was at the same time "the last upsurging of the religion of the Middle
"'• That faith is a gift of God which cornea only to those who asaent to God’s revelation is a constant of both biblical and traditional Church teachings. See Sacramento or Wiuidi, ii, 314— 17. '• That the apprehension of sacramental truth defies the 8enaes is a frequent theme in the Autos. A good and lengthy exarriple of Galder6n’8 ideaa in this re- gard ia found in Amar y 8er amado y diuiiia filotea where four of the senses per- ceive only bread in the Eucharist; only Ofdo knows differently for it responds to the word of faith as taught by St. Paul in Roman8 10:17. See Galderdn de la Barra, Obras completar, TTT, 1791—93."
Ages.” 1• Nonetheless, Calderón must maintain that the Reform- ers argued on the basia of reaaon and human understanding for as we Baw earlier he could not accept that their position was based on faith. As Apostasta atates in M iglesia sitiada:
"Pero yo vivo obstinado, porque es mi grave tormento error del entendimiento y no estoy desengañado. (p. 56)"
Although the Reformers redefined the function of the sacra- ments, practices involving confirmation, penance, blessing the sick and other Buch traditions survived to a varying degree in all Protestant bodies. Nonetheless, Calderdn recognizes the validity only of Protestant baptism. We read in £o protestacidri de la [e:
"el hereje es un nervio cancelado, que se aparta porque el cuerpo no inficione; pero no porque no haya recibido en el Bautismo el Sacramento. (p. 746)"
Calderón accepts Protestant baptiam for two reasona. On the one hand, Roman Catholicism his alwH9B allowed that anyone, not necessarily a priest, can baptize under extreme circumstancea. On the other, the major Reformers, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and the Anglieana, agreed essentially with the Catholie view of bap- tism. Only the so-called left wing of the Reformation, particu- larly the Anabaptists, departed radically from the Catholic posi- tion in claiming that baptism W8B & matter of ehoice and should therefore be performed only for adulta aware of its significance, but this ia a problem Calderón never examinen. Occasionally Calderón correctly identifiea a particular Protes- tant doctrine only to misattribute it to a specific Reformer." One such case concerns the sacramentB Luther retained. lujo iglesia
"• Bonald H. Bainton, f’6e Reformation f the Sixteerith Cfentury (Boston, 1962), pp. 3- 6 and 50-51. " Perhaps Ca1dei6n’a apparent confusion on this matter can be attributed to the general tendency thmughout the Spain of hia time to use ”Protestante” and ”Luterano” interchangeably. See Longhurst, p. 3fl."
sitiada Herejía iB accuaed of being neither Moor nor Christian:
"Vi que a la Iglesia tu Dios los sacramentos promete! ella dice que son siete y tú dices que son doa. Peor eres que el demonio, pues así tu lengua miente, y eonfieaas solamente el BautiBrno y Matrimonio. (p. 51)"
The heretic so accused is clearly Luther for it waa he who reduced the sacraments from seven to two, but the two he retained were BaptiBm 8nd Holy Communion, not Baptiam and Matrimony. He maintained that the true sacraments must be based on the cen- tral fact of Christianity: the Bacrifice and recurrection of Jesua Christ. Jesus himself in the Words of Institution identifies Holy Communion with his atonement, and St. Paul explains that in Baptism the Christian is buried to sin and resurrected to a new life (Rom. 6:3— 6). But at no time did Luther consider Matrimony a sacrament as Calderón implies in the preceding quotation.
Calderón’s eontention in Le igfesio srttada that Matrimony was one of the saeraments Luther retained is doubly eurious aince in No eisma de Anglaterra he suggests that Luther encouraged Henry VIII's divorce, and thia after eorrectly identifying Luther's major Btatement on the sacramental religion, T’/te Babylonian Captiuity mentioned ear1ier.'• In reality, Luther rigidly sup- ported Jesus' condemnation of divorce and remarriage (Mt. 5:31— 32); indeed, one of the most embarrasaing episodeB of Luther’s life was his recommendation to Phillip of Hesse that bigamy, because of Old Testament precedents, was preferable to divorce as a aolu- tion to his marital problema.'• The focal point of the saeramental conflict is the nature of the Eucharist itself, and indeed many scholars would accept VaI- buena Prat's affirmation that ”la presencia real definida exacta- mente en Trento ea el punto central del drama eucarístico.”°° Calderón apparently believed that all Reformers denied the doc-
"'• P. Calder6n de la Barca, Obras completar, ed. Ángel Valbuena Prat (Ma- drid, 1966), i, 145, 161 and 172. “ Ronald H. Bainton, I-fere I istarid (Nashville, 1950), pp. 73—75. " Valbueria Prat, Prólogo, Galder6n, Ohms completas, III, 16."
trine of Real PreBence, the notion that the body and blood of Christ are ”truly and really present” in the elemeiits of Holy Communion. Init mayor dr los días Apostasía accepts the bread and wine only aa symbols, claiming that the Host iB nOt the ”re- facción del Cuerpo, pero del Almn" (p. 1660). Int/ gran mercado del mundo Calderón presente Herejfa as a aeller of books by ”grandes ingenios, herejes saeramentai’iOS ... Calvino y Lu- tero” (pp. 238—39). Wlieri asked what these authors say herejía reaponds:
"Este nfirma que todo cuerpo ocupar debe lugar, y que no es posible aquello de que eaté el Guerpo de Dios en el blanco Pan, supueeto que en él no ocupa lugar. (p. 239)"
About the other he adds:
"Eate dice que juatos preceptos deban comer caime humana, por aer terrible y cruento manjar para el hombre. (p. 239)"
In point of fact, both Luther’s and Calvin’s position on the doc- trine of Real Presence is more complicated than Calder6n allowa. Both denied the doctrine of transubBtantiation, but nei- ther doubted heal Presence, nor did they question the notion that The Lord’s Supper waB in fact a channel of grace from and com- munion with God. Luther did, however, challenge the doctrine of sacrifice in the Mass on three counta: first, he felt no man could command God and thereby ”reeacrifice” Christ. Second, he ar- gued that the efficacy of Communion depended on the faith of the communicant and not on the authority of the celebrant; that ia to say he denied the validity of the sacrament in and of itself ex opere operato.” And finally lxe interpreted literally the biblical notion that Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary was at once universal and eternally sufficient with no need for repetitions in the Mass (Heb. 9:26—28).'• But this same Luther adamantly rejected a purely
"Bainton, The Reformotion, p. 47. •• Jaroalav Pelikan, Lamer the Expositor: Jiitmduetion to the Ififi:e-"
aymbolic interpretation of Christ'a words, ”Thig is my body,” and iriaisted repeatedly that ChriBt'a body and blood were literally present in the elemento of communion, though not through tran- Bubstantiation.' 3 Indeed, it was hia stubborn defenBe of the doctrine of Real Presence which impeded agreement between Lutherans and Zwingliana in the early years of the Reformation.^ Furthermore, Luther denied there could be anything cannibalistie in the Eucharist, as implied in the above quotation, since Chriat'a body was obviously not human flesh." Nor is Calderón right in acCuSiilg CalVin Of abandoning the doctrine of Real Presence, for Calvin’a teachings on the matter coincide almost to the letter with Luther’s.•á Calderón shows no awareness of Lutheran or Calvinist beliefa affirming Heal Presente, but then agnin, perhaps for Calderón, any tampering at all with the Catholic position aniounted to denial. Oddly, Calderón faila to mention Reformers like the Anabaptista and Zwinglians who held positiona similar to those fie attaeka; we tan only conclude that although Calderón was aware of certain heretical doctrinés in the northern countries, he did not know which belonged to whom.
Although the Reformers never agreed on the nature of the Eu- charist, they all took iasue with the Catholic practice of allowing communicants to reeeive the bread only, n praetice which aur- vived deapite the Council of Trent’s approval of communing in both elements in some areas." In the Loa preceding fi/ cubo de la Almudena, Herejía atates the Proteatant poaition, claiming that since Celo is only allowed to partake of the bread,
"Luego ya es fuerza que quedes defraudado en la mitad del valor, cuando te niegues la Sangre en el Vino. (pp. 662—£13)"
"Betieaf iYrititi s (Sfl. Louia, 1969), pp. 337- 64. Ae a oompanlon volume to £u/fier’e Vorka, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, 64 vote. (Tt. Louie, 1955— 1978), I›ror, pciygn'»p rp ie an excellent guide to many of LutheP’B major doctrinal atatementa, ” Pelihan, pp, lfl —SB. “ Bainton, 'the Reformatioy, p. 42. '• Pelikan, p. 1d7. ^ Wilhelm Nieael, 7’he f’fieofogJ o{ Caluin (Philadelphia, t966), fixtensively doeumented, Prof. Nieael’s atudy, in addition tn being n con,pendium Or Cnlvin’s theology, i9 an excellent guide to the Reformor’a writing " ”Trent, Gouncil of,” New Catliolic üricyelopedia, 1987 ed."
In defense, Iglesia reiteratea the Catholic poaition that since the Host is "Cuerpo vivo ... en él ea fuerza que lleve / Sangre viva al mismo tiempo” (p. 563). One might expect Calder6n to view heresy us libertinage and Proteatanta as ainful revellers. In reality, the opposite holds true; Protestants are usually portrayed as men plunged into the most awful gloom of those bereft of the Sacraments and their salvi- fic grace. Calderón repeatedly defends the popular festivities ae- companying Corpus Christi just as Herejfa and Apostasla attack them for being irreverent. In the Loa preceding La aacante ge- neral Apostasf a aaks:
"Apostaría: Todos: Apostasta: ¿No es ese Grande Misterio, que celelebráia y aplaudir, viva representación de la Pasión de DioB? Si. ¿Pues cómo la celebráis con música, me decid, cuando debierais hacerlo con llorar y con gemir? (p. 470)"
Fe answers that in the Sacraments there is reason for joy, that the steep and rocky road of Old TeBtament law has been replaced por más clara senda y llana” in the era of grace. In a similar passage in En proteotaeidn de la [e, Herejfa objeeta to the light de- mands of Catholic Penance required of the repentant Cristina de Suecia: ”iCómo aufres verla absuelta / con Penitencia tan blanda?” (p. 745). The intent is clear: without the sacramental auxiliariea, Protestante are eondemned to the wrath of G0d’s jus- tice, Without recourse to his merciful grace. Or in the words of Caridad in Amar y ser amado y Divina Filotea to Apoatasfa who has again denied sacramental grace: ”{Oh herejla torpe y ciega, / que aún a mt, con aer piedad, / a aer justicia me fuersag!” (p. 1786). The awful gloom Calderón saw in Protestantism may also have been inspired by the antimusical currents in certain refor- mist groups such as the Puritans who smashed organs and repu- diated the mugieal liturgy of the Roman and Lutheran Churches as non-biblical."
In addition to the questions concerning the sacraments and the authority to administer them, one of the distinguishing char- acteristics of the Reformers was their belief in the Bible as preem- inent above all other sources of religious truth, a tenent borne out in Luther’s motto, Sole scripture. Most Reformers did not aban- don Church tradition in its entirety, and indeed several incor- porated many of the early statements of belief, the Nicean Creed for example, into the Protestant liturgy. However, in casea of conflict, they gave greater credance to Scripture. In No hey ins- taste sin milagro, Apostaala, after being upbraided as ”torpe- mente ciego” and ”bérbaramente bruto” for questioning the Sacraments, replies, ”No to soy tanto, que ya / que me arguyes con un texto, / no te responda con otro” (p, 1343), to which Fe replies:
"Ahora te he conocido, que quien con dañado intento de sacraa autoridades valerse preBume, es cierto ser de aquellos torajidos que npóstatas de mi gremio, como ladronee de casa, capace6 de sus secretoB, estudian para ignorarlos m6a que otros para haberlos. He de oírte, porque no preaumas, que de ofrte dejo por el temor de tua dogmas. (p. 1343)"
Not only does this remarkable passage set the ground rules for a debate we will examine later; it reveala several of Calderón’s atti- tudes towards the Reformers. First, we are told that Protestante do not study Seripture to learn and agaent to God’s truth, but rather to ignore that truth present in the Church. Second, Calderón denies that the Reformers were sincere, even if that meant being sincerely wrong; what they do is "con dañado in- tento”—an attitude which aurvived in some Catholie sectors at least until Vatican II. Viewed against the backdrop of the Coun- terreformation, Calderón’s position is not narrow, but quite un- deratandable. Reason unblemished by evil intention supposedly led inevitably to Catholicism. Dissenters were therefore misin- formed, incapable of reaaon or deliberately wrong. Since Calvin and Luther obviously knew Catholic doctrine as well as the best Catholics, and there was litl:le reason to question their rational powers, only the third posatbility remained.
In another interesting reference to the use of Scripture among the Reformers, Herejla in im iglesia sitiada says of the New Testa- ment:
"InB eacriptos convenientes de los sagrados doctores . pmducen flores comn de variaa simientea. (p. 47)"
Although Fe responds with a firm ”Mientes,” Calderón may have been defending the Catholic belief that St. Peter's injunction againat ”private interpretation” of Seripture (2 Peter 1:9—21) was directed specifically towai•ds people who, like the Reformers, at- tempted scriptural exegenia untempered by Chureh tradition and the pronouncements of God’s authorised leadership, namely the Popea and Church councils. Catholic apologiats point out that while on the one hand the Protestants claim the Bible ia a auffi- cient source of doctrine, on the other that supposed aufficiency has never provided sufficient baais for union, for the many Protestant secta have indeed proliferated like "flores / como de varias si- mientes.”
Another significant challenge to Catholiciam from certain sec- tors of the Reforination concerned the continuing presence of apir- itual or charismatie gifts in the Church. Uaing the Bible aa a point of departure, Apostasfa in No hay inctante ain milagro, poaeB the problem aa follows:
"Crietodíjo por Marcos en su Evangelio que a los que au Fe edmitieaen aeguirtan los portentos de que lanzarían demonios, de que en idiomas diversos nuevas lenguas hablartan, que las serpientes vendiendo, no les dañaría beber los más nocivos venenos; y, en fin, que dartnn salud aus mHDOs Bobre el enfermo. (p. 1343)"
Apostaafa then cites examples, mainly from the Acts of the Apos- tles, of each miracle, and in so doing underlines a basic argument of the Reformers: that the Reformation merely attempted to re- turn to primitive Christianity, to restore the uncorrupted biblical church. Apostasfa then risks:
"Pues siendo así, que estos dotes gozaron los que creyeron, ¿qué se hicieron sus prodigioa? ¿Adónde están suB portentos? Dioa a la Fe prometió milagros, hoy no loa vemoB; luego no hay hoy Fe (en tua fielea, ae entiende), no hey hoy fi’e; luego no hice yo mal en dejar de andar en Bn seguimiento. (p. 1343)"
As noted in our discussion on Scripture, Apoatasf a in this scene i,s clearly identified with the Reformation, yet despite the paren- thetical aside, "en tua fielea, Be entiende,” Calderón does not allow the Protestant to finish his argument, namely that the presence of the charismatic gifts in Reformist sects and their aupposed ab- sence in Catholicism demonstrated God’s approval of the former and diaapproval of the latter.
None of the mainline Protestant bodies used the arguments advanced by Apoataata, and for that reason the moat likely tar- gets of Calderón’s rebuttal would be the radical left-wing of the Reformation, the biblical literalista like the Anabaptists whose position on the charismatic gifta embarrassed both Calvin and Luther alike. Since the left-wingers wrote relatively little, disas- sociated themselves from political movements and avoided form- ing large organizations, we know surprisingly little about them and even less about Calderón’s contact with them.
More interesting is the nature of Calderón’a rebuttal. Apostasfa’a charge iB ili reality unfoiinded sinee Catholicism never repudiated the Spiritual Gifts, and indeed many Catholic saints were canonised for performing mirncles like those mentioned by St. Mark. But Calderón makea no attempt to list such occurences to Apostaata, perhapB because he knew some Protea- tants would make the carne elaimB. Instead, he again baBes hia rebuttal on the exclusive validity of the Catholic aacraments, claiming that the gifts in question do indeed occur regularly in true sacramental religion. To illustrate his point, Calderón has Mary Magdalene testify that since ”en los pechos de cualquiera / son esp/ritus inmundos / las culpaa,” the Sacrament of Penance can east our devils. Similarly, Dimas claima that Penitencia made him immune to poiaons since ”los ofensas / son en los pechos de todos / venenos” (p. l35íí). Constantine claima that hia leproay of original sin was cured by Baptism, and later Confirmación ex- plains how St. Augustine learned to speak in new tonguea:
"Y en prueba de que le habla alcanzado, retraetando erradas ciencias, se confirmó en la Verdad, cuya Confirmación muestra, que habla nuevas lenguas; pues ¿qué mús hablar lenguas nuevas, que decir aygr ermreB falsos y hoy verdades ciertas? (p. 1355)"
And finally, Saul of Tarsus describen how Communion was the antidote to snake bites since he, prior to his eonversion, ”llevó víboras y letraB” in his breaBt, but now ”víboras y letras hoy / arroja al fuego” (p. 1356). The several threads of the Auto finally converge in the Sacrament of Communion, Apostasfa recognizea hia error, and, in a gesture unusual in the Autor, he apprÓaches the Lord’s table and is forgiven. We muBt not overlook the im- portant fact of Calderón's argument: although he could have reaf- firmed the Church’s belief in mirncles, he chose to base hia refuta- tion on the Sacraments.
Aside from the Protestant rebellion against aacerdotaliBm and sacramentalism, no single iBsue affected the Reformation more than the question of free will vs. predestination. Perhaps as old as Christianity itself, the prfiblem has roots in the writings of St. ‘ Paul and was first studied seriously by St. Augustine. On the one hand the Church claima that man ia free to make limited choices which aífect his salvation, while on the other it teaches that for salvation man depende totally on the grace of an all knowing (can man act eontrary to God'a knowledge?) and all-pow- erful God (if all power resides in God, how can man be free to act on his own?). The logical incompatibility of both propositions is eonsidered a myBtery, and for that reason the Church allows its theologians great latitude in trying to reaolve the confiict. Ca1derón’a several dramatic analyBea of the problem most fre- quently reflect an ongoing debate within Catholicism and are not uBually concerned with the Reformers cho sided firmly with the advocates of predestination. For that reason I will limit my ob- servations on the matter to a particular Auto, Lo pnotestación de la fe, which deals specifically with Lutheran’s difficulties in un- derstanding the problem before converting to CatholiciBm.°° In Lo protestaeión de la fe, Cristina de Suecia becomes con- vinced that her inherited Lutheran belief cannot explain the prob- lem of free will and predestination. She seeks instruction in St. Auguatine’s works which, perhaps not coincidentally, led aome of the Reformers to support predegtination. She feels unhappy
"cuando el genio mfo inclinándome a este fin, encuentra con AguatTn en lo del libre albedrío, adonde en vano porfto aaber la definición de la predestinación; pues aunque aquf la defina, " . de la voluntad divina es por Gracia una elección,” Y aqui: ". que en conocimiento e9tú Dios de la futura beatitud de la criattira racional.” En vano intento convencer tin argumento, que a mí misma mo hago yo. Si Dios me predestin6,"
"Galder6n’e treatment of The problem of free will and predeetination has been extensively analyzed, although with surprisingly different conclusions, by such able scholars aa Eugenio Pruto8, A. A. Parker and Balbino Marcos Villa- nueva. See Eugenio Frutoz, La fifosofi de C!olderdti en cue autoe eaeratneittales (Zaragosa, 2952); A. A. Parker, particularly chapter lv; and Balbino Marcos villanu • , g. a., in « cética de los jeouitas en lo8 Autos Sorromeritales (Bilbao, 1973), pp. 143—64."
"¿cómo estoy tan mal hallado en la Fe en que fui criada? ic6mo ha de tomar de mf aatiafacci6n de que err6, si de mi parte guardé loa ritos en que naef? “Llamó DiOB a los que quiso con clemencia gratuita.” JGracia es? Luego bien ae infiere que en ol mérito no eaté, y que a quien quiere la dé, porque quiere y cuando quieye; y acá, en Bu piedad espere que dármela a ml querrfi; con que dejáiidole allá, Bin que yo con DioB arguya, que use de ella, pueB es auya, paso a pensar: ¿qué aerñ sentir un auxilio cuando Dioa le envía? |Oh, ai yo fuera tan feliz que mereciera, mi discurso ilurninando, ver algún raago, mostrando cómo instruye y cómo advierte! Pero ¿qué letargo fuerte me da, cuando ver querrfa de qué auerte Dios envfa un auxilio? (p. 736)"
In the preceding passage Calderón offerB support for both sides of the debate and in the proceas prepares the ground for his forth- coming refutation of' the Protestant concept of predestination. He clearly states that salvation depends not on man's merit but on God’a grace, but at the same time he mentions that man must recognise and accept the auxiliaries through which God imparts grace. In other words, man is totally dependent on God’s grace for aalvation; that is to aay, by no act of his own doea man some- how “earn” salvation. Nonetheless, man’s free agency is not to- tally absent from the picture, for man must avail himself of the auxiliaries. Calder6n avoids the stickier problem of thoBe who never know of the auxiliarieB and the unresolvable matter of God’s knowing what decision man will make before he makes it. Predictably, Cristina finds those auxiliaries in the Sacraments and then declared herself,
"religiosamente libre, y libremente espontánea, a las llaves de la iglesia sujeta hoy, como vaaalla de su Imperio, la que ayer era Reina de su Patria. (p. 745)"
To which Sabiduría reaponds:
"Ya con esa abjuración, que entre la oliva y la espada has hecho, la paz te toque, pues la justicia se envoina. (p. 745)"
In other words, apart from the Sacraments there is no real free- dom; free agency has meaníng only if one of the options ia salva- tron. Since man of his own efforta cannot merit savation, hia free agency acquires substance only when he chooses to receive the Sacramento. Without the Sacramento man ia damned, and Calderón implies that the Proteatanta, whose religion Cristina has abandoned, have no choice but that damnation demanded by justice. In a word, they are predestined to spiritual death. Both Luther and Calvin felt that God's elect lxad been chosen, as St, Paul aays, since before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:3— 12), and clearly both believed certain of the neformers rere among the chosen. Calderón does not argue with Paul; he merely claima that without the Sacramento, there are no elect.
In conclusion, several points ahould now be clear. First, al- though refuting ProtestantiBm was not Calderón’a primary goal in the Autos, his frequent referencea to Protestant doctrines and tO individual Reformers give considerable support to the anti-Protestant thesis deBcribed earlier; those who maintain oth- erwiae ignore overwhelming textual evidence to the eontrary, some of whieh has been cited in this study. Second, Calderón was familiar with the major arguments of the Reformers although it is difficult to determine how much he knew. For example, hia faílure to recognize Luther’s careful distinction between Real Presence and transubstantiation does not neceasarily indicate ig- norance or miainformation. A Gatholic apologist, Calderón was not about to give Proteatantism a "fair hearing” by telling all he knew in the public square. As in hia treatment of Satan a8 a dra- rnatic figure, Calderón allows his hereties to apeak but not con- vince.*’ Third, Galder6n fails to identify the Reformation ae a se- ríea of religious movements—Lutheran, Calvinist, Zwinglian, Anglican, Anabaptist, etc. —and in the process ends up blaming Luther and Calvin for almost everything; although aware of major doetrínal currenta in Protestantism, he knew less of the di- visions among the Reformera themselvea. And finally, his rebut- tals, ex.cept in the caae of biblical sufficiency, always appeal to the excluaive validity of the Catholic aacraments, even when other arguments (Gatholic miracles, for example) would have been more convineing. Even in refuting heresy the Autos Sacramen- tales remain faitMul to their name.
"Yale University "A. A. Paxltez, ”'I'he Deyi) in the Drama of Galdezón,” in Cr*/iro/ 5sso'yz on the Tkeot8r o( Cofderdc, ejá. Bwce Waydzopper (New york, 1966), pp. 3-5."