Reformation - positive or negative?

[variant]

Partially. On the other hand, the rise of the nation states and the waning of the power that the Church held under, say, an Innocent III were all developments that both proceeded and even fueled the Reformation. Certainly the breaking of any type of Christian theocracy in the East proceeded the Reformation too, and is 'thanks' to the defeat of Byzantium by the Islamic theocracy. Neither Reformation nor Enlightenment figured into breaking that system. And to the extent that the Russian Revolution which finished off any semblance of theocracy for the rest of the EO Catholics, the Enlightenment thinking that led to Marxist-Leninism-Stalinism proved to be a very dark kind of light indeed.

Well in Russia you got the enlightenment without the reformation as the orthodox church and the Czar still reigned at the time world war 1 started, which shifted them directly from a government proper for the dark ages into the industrial age, and ended in a cataclysm.

To the extent that Catholic theocracies existed in Europe at the time of the Reformation, they were displaced by Protestant theocracies as a rule. It took a lot of conflict, a lot of spilled blood, and eventually the success of the American Revolution (against Anglican 'theocracy') as an alternative before a new model came into being

What happened was that Catholic and Protestant theocracies/theocratic grounded states fought each other during the reformation, and eventually they were all overthrown by the enlightenment that it helped stoke, through the increased value in literacy and reason that happened in Europe at the time that questioned the kings divine right to rule.

I would say that your divine right to rule ideal looks a lot less stable when everyone is having wars over other points of theology.

 

[Gracchus]

There are no Catholic or EO theocracies in existence in the world today.

Excuse me? Did the Vatican suddenly vanish while I blinked?

 

[SolomonVII]

Excuse me? Did the Vatican suddenly vanish while I blinked?

Even the Vatican has granted a building permit to a mosque. It is a very small city within a city measured in hardly more than a square kilometer of real estate.

This is the kind of measurements that a university or a business park might have. It is hardly a serious example of a looming theocracy.

 

[Gracchus]

There are no Catholic or EO theocracies in existence in the world today.

Even the Vatican has granted a building permit to a mosque. It is a very small city within a city measured in hardly more than a square kilometer of real estate.

This is the kind of measurements that a university or a business park might have. It is hardly a serious example of a looming theocracy.

I don't see anything about "looming" in your post. And if it isn't a theocracy, what is it?

And let's not pretend that the Vatican doesn't claim authority over Roman Catholics everywhere.

 

[SolomonVII]

yea, okay whatever.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Hi, I'm Kalevalatar, I'm Lutheran and "positive". *giggles*

If I try to leave the "religious/doctrinal" aspect out of it, for my country in the far north periphery of Europe, the Reformation was a step forward, definitely. The Catholic Church, or more precisely, its clergy, were like the ultimate big, fat, selfish, greedy capitalistic at its absolutely worst. The Reformation turned it upside down; now the parish priests were in the service of their congregation, not the other way around, when the members of the congregation were nothing but tax wealth to the Catholic priests & church. With the switch from the unintelligible mongrel Latin to people's vernacular, Finland got her very own written language and indeed, the very basis of our modern Top of the World Class freedoms, lifestyle, and existence: literacy, education, democracy.

I'd say, just compere the southern European Catholic states with the northern European Lutheran states, and you'll see the difference clear enough, I rest my case and case closed. Maybe the Reformation today, 2010, seems barely more than ancient history, but let's not pretend that historically -- i.e. just a couple of decades back -- the Reformation had nothing to do with the fact that the Lutheran Nordic nations with their strong Lutheran and state church tradition are #1s, the leading nations in the world today pretty much in every single respect.

 

[Chesterton]

If I try to leave the "religious/doctrinal" aspect out of it, for my country in the far north periphery of Europe, the Reformation was a step forward, definitely. The Catholic Church, or more precisely, its clergy, were like the ultimate big, fat, selfish, greedy capitalistic at its absolutely worst. The Reformation turned it upside down; now the parish priests were in the service of their congregation, not the other way around, when the members of the congregation were nothing but tax wealth to the Catholic priests & church. With the switch from the unintelligible mongrel Latin to people's vernacular, Finland got her very own written language and indeed, the very basis of our modern Top of the World Class freedoms, lifestyle, and existence: literacy, education, democracy.

I'd say, just compere the southern European Catholic states with the northern European Lutheran states, and you'll see the difference clear enough, I rest my case and case closed. Maybe the Reformation today, 2010, seems barely more than ancient history, but let's not pretend that historically -- i.e. just a couple of decades back -- the Reformation had nothing to do with the fact that the Lutheran Nordic nations with their strong Lutheran and state church tradition are #1s, the leading nations in the world today pretty much in every single respect.

The Lutheran Metal Mass was invented in Finland, right? Great job.

 

[Kalevalatar]

The Lutheran Metal Mass was invented in Finland, right? Great job.

That is today's "vernacular" to the new generation, I suppose. They do take great care that the metal riff is not just a gimmick but always a theologically sound service. Bear in mind, though, that in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, we have nothing resembling the US Main Street (protestant) style of "feel good" pop-concert style of services with dancing and mega screens and clapping of hands and sing-along Hallelujahs. Between the Metal Mass and our traditional "high church" service, which has changed very little since the Reformation and which still counts for 99% of the ELCF services, there's nothing. So I guess you could say the Metal Mass is the most radical thing introduced to us since the days of Mikael Agricola and Martin Luther.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Yeah, thanks to the reformation and the enlightenment.

I'm not aware of any EO theocracies having existed prior to the enlightenment either. Unless maybe you want to use the term "theocracy" in an incredibly broad sense to include any state that isn't explicitly secular.

 

[tanzanos]

The reformation had both positive and negative results. This is noticeably lacking as a choice in your poll!

 

[variant]

I'm not aware of any EO theocracies having existed prior to the enlightenment either. Unless maybe you want to use the term "theocracy" in an incredibly broad sense to include any state that isn't explicitly secular.

Theocracy as a term beaks down into a meaning of government by religion.

I was including all the monarchies of Europe where the king claimed a divine right to rule and there was an official state religion whereby the people were ruled by that official state religion.


The enlightenment and reformation did away with all that.

 

[Chesterton]

Theocracy as a term beaks down into a meaning of government by religion.

I was including all the monarchies of Europe where the king claimed a divine right to rule and there was an official state religion whereby the people were ruled by that official state religion.


The enlightenment and reformation did away with all that.

By your definition, a Christian theocracy would be an impossible thing because unlike Islam Christianity doesn't prescribe rules by which to govern people. The Puritans may have tried that, but that was post-Reformation and "Enlightenment", and it didn't last long.

 

[variant]

By your definition, a Christian theocracy would be an impossible thing because unlike Islam Christianity doesn't prescribe rules by which to govern people. The Puritans may have tried that, but that was post-Reformation and "Enlightenment", and it didn't last long.

Or, I just described exactly the type of theocracy that existed prior to the reformation.

The protestants and catholic countries of Europe didn't fight wars for nothing.

It MEANT something when a country decreed what sort of Christianity it's followers would be adhering to.

 

[Christos Anesti]

The definition of "theocracy" appears to have altered over time. It happens a lot with words like that I guess. The first recorded English use was in 1622, with the meaning "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as in Biblical Israel before the rise of kings); the meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" is recorded from 1825. As the term theocracy started gaining more negative connotations liberals found it useful to expand the definition to include basically any non-secular or pre-modern state. Democratic Athens would be a theocracy under this definition because it had a state cult. The pre-Christian Roman Empire would be a theocracy, Christian Rome would be a theocracy because it had an official religion, the Cherokee probably had a "theocracy" too for that matter ..etc..


The original use of the term would not apply to Byzantium or Tsarist Russia. The Tsar nor the Eastern Roman Emperors were ever understood to be Bishops let alone spiritual heads of the Church. They were recognized as God appointed leaders of the Empire. They were not some sort of absolute Pope or anything of that nature.

 

[variant]

The definition of "theocracy" appears to have altered over time. It happens a lot with words like that I guess. The first recorded English use was in 1622, with the meaning "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as in Biblical Israel before the rise of kings); the meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" is recorded from 1825. As the term theocracy started gaining more negative connotations liberals found it useful to expand the definition to include basically any non-secular or pre-modern state. Democratic Athens would be a theocracy under this definition because it had a state cult. The pre-Christian Roman Empire would be a theocracy, Christian Rome would be a theocracy because it had an official religion, the Cherokee probably had a "theocracy" too for that matter ..etc..


The original use of the term would not apply to Byzantium or Tsarist Russia. The Tsar nor the Eastern Roman Emperors were ever understood to be Bishops let alone spiritual heads of the Church. They were recognized as God appointed leaders of the Empire. They were not some sort of absolute Pope or anything of that nature.

A state needn't be a complete theocracy to show elements of theocracy.

Essentially if there is no freedom of religion then there are elements of theocracy included. Any state where I am not allowed to be an open Atheist, where it would be illegal is probably still exhibiting elements of rule by religion and thus theocracy.

The reformation and enlightenment helped to usher out religion as a direct ruler of our political bodies and thus is a grand positive for anyone who doesn't want the state to determine how and what we believe.

I know you pine for the days of autocracy dominated by religious intermingling with the state, but your in the severe minority.

 

[Christos Anesti]

who doesn't want the state to determine how and what we believe.

Thats what the plutocrats have the media and the schools for. The Tsar or Byzantine Emperor didn't need to brainwash the people through propaganda. They didn't even have the means to do it for that matter. Thats more an artifact of modern democracy, communism, and fascism. If you think people are somehow less controlled then they were in the past I think you are greatly mistaken. At least what control existed under a monarch was honest and in the open. Now people are clueless as to who actually controls the nation in the first place. Thats right.. it's Joe Six Pack because he voted in the last election

 

[tanzanos]

Thats what the plutocrats have the media and the schools for. The Tsar or Byzantine Emperor didn't need to brainwash the people through propaganda. They didn't even have the means to do it for that matter. Thats more an artifact of modern democracy, communism, and fascism. If you think people are somehow less controlled then they were in the past I think you are greatly mistaken. At least what control existed under a monarch was honest and in the open. Now people are clueless as to who actually controls the nation in the first place. Thats right.. it's Joe Six Pack because he voted in the last election

During Tsarist Russia; The majority of the population had no legal rights, were impoverished, and mostly illiterate. While the Tsar and his aristocrats enjoyed immeasurable wealth. A peasant in Russia was no more than a beast of burden. These conditions were the main reason the monarchy was rudely abolished! The sad thing is that the people did not enjoy the support nor the protection of the church! The church's sole purpose was to uphold religious dogma and support the monarchy for the Monarch (Tsar) was believed to be ordained by God and thus was deemed to be the defender of the faith.

Communist uprisings (throughout Europe) during those times was the direct result of oppression and exploitation of the masses by the few socially privileged classes.

Social revolutions do not happen by chance!

 

[Christos Anesti]

During Tsarist Russia; The majority of the population had no legal rights, were impoverished, and mostly illiterate. While the Tsar and his aristocrats enjoyed immeasurable wealth. A peasant in Russia was no more than a beast of burden. These conditions were the main reason the monarchy was rudely abolished! The sad thing is that the people did not enjoy the support nor the protection of the church! The church's sole purpose was to uphold religious dogma and support the monarchy for the Monarch (Tsar) was believed to be ordained by God and thus was deemed to be the defender of the faith.

The communist history books say so. Must be true.

Social revolutions do not happen by chance!

I agree. The Revolution in Russia was well funded and excellent at propagandizing the people.Certain poblems in the Russia nation made the people more receptive to it. It was a very successful criminal conspiracy. Didn't turn out to well for the Russian people though.

 

[tanzanos]

The communist history books say so. Must be true.

No, the history books in the boarding school I attended in England say so!

Have you ever heard of the Bloody Sunday massacre in St. Petersburg?

Demonstrators march to the Winter Palace

Bloody Sunday massacre in St. Petersburg

 

[Christos Anesti]

You found something bad that took place in Tsarist Russia. I never claimed it was heaven on earth or that all the Tsars lived up to their high calling. Do you really want to compare the atrocities of Tsarist Russia with those of even the United States (with its relatively short but bloody history) or the Communists? Heck you can even throw in the whole 1,000 plus year history of Byzantium into the mix too and you still couldn't overshadow the atrocities of modern democracys and the communists. We are currently living in a dark age like no other in history.