Renaming Catholicism In The Early Modern Period
O’Malley’s Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern Era examines terminology used by historians to describe Catholicism in the early modern era, the Reformation to the late seventeenth century. O’Malley summarizes a range of historical scholarship of Catholicism in the period, and the names and labels used to describe Catholicism in the period.
The book goes through various historians and their contribution to the subject, Hubert Jedin being a prime example. He notes the issue with historians have indifferently used words such as “reformation” and “reform” to label the Catholic account of the period. He analyzes the four main names: Confessional Catholicism, Counter Reformation, Tridentine Reformation and Tridentine Age, Catholic Reform. He analyzes each one’s ability to represent the era and its history. O’Malley suggests a different name: “Early Modern Catholicism” - concluding to say that there is much in a name when these words describe historical events. 1 O’Malley indicates that he calls for people to look at the ‘Catholic side’ differently, particularly since it’s not the dominant narrative with historians. …show more content…
It makes well for an overview of the topic. The assessments of the names and historians make sense, and is comprehensive to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each. O’Malley also proposes his own term, Early Modern Catholicism. O'Malley argues his term incorporates the comprehensiveness of all the others without lessening the other periods. The extent that the book goes for expounding on the historical development of this topic is great, and connects to his objective of not only mentioning the historical names, but also to reveal the “Catholic side” to all of it. However, the author should have properly expounded as to why his term was what fits best. His justification, although adequate does not fully detail what it would mean for the historians
The book goes through various historians and their contribution to the subject, Hubert Jedin being a prime example. He notes the issue with historians have indifferently used words such as “reformation” and “reform” to label the Catholic account of the period. He analyzes the four main names: Confessional Catholicism, Counter Reformation, Tridentine Reformation and Tridentine Age, Catholic Reform. He analyzes each one’s ability to represent the era and its history. O’Malley suggests a different name: “Early Modern Catholicism” - concluding to say that there is much in a name when these words describe historical events. 1 O’Malley indicates that he calls for people to look at the ‘Catholic side’ differently, particularly since it’s not the dominant narrative with historians. …show more content…
It makes well for an overview of the topic. The assessments of the names and historians make sense, and is comprehensive to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each. O’Malley also proposes his own term, Early Modern Catholicism. O'Malley argues his term incorporates the comprehensiveness of all the others without lessening the other periods. The extent that the book goes for expounding on the historical development of this topic is great, and connects to his objective of not only mentioning the historical names, but also to reveal the “Catholic side” to all of it. However, the author should have properly expounded as to why his term was what fits best. His justification, although adequate does not fully detail what it would mean for the historians