To recover, from what can only be described as total deprivation of sleep, I have dived straight into my next essay: Was the Catholic Reformation a 'counter-reformation' or an extension of the reforms of the Middle Ages?
My first thought is that it is neither. Using the term counter-reformation seems to suggest that the reforms of the Church in the sixteenth century were only in reaction due to 'provocation' by the Protestant Reformation. This may seem obvious to some, but in reality the definition is quite nuanced. By arguing that the Catholic Reformation was only a 'reaction', implies that reform would not have taken place had Luther not spoken out against the abuse of indulgences. It argues that the Church embarked on a journey of reformation solely in response to Protestant criticism.
On the other hand, it is difficult to argue that it was an extension of the reforms. To say so, suggests that the achievements of the Council of Trent were parallel in the doctrinal teachings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin etc. I am not saying that Protestants and Catholics vary so greatly in their teachings that there are no similarities between the two (although some may disagree). What I am saying, is that the differences are apparent enough for the concept of an 'extension', or the continuation of Luther's reforms, to be disregarded.
The difference may seem subtle but the effect on how one views the Catholic Reformation is significant.
In other news, the flat's fortress of cress is growing strong:
... And I am still fighting the losing battle of learning New Testament Greek *sigh*