Printing Press, Protestantism and Dissenterism

[Duvduv]

I have found it extremely interesting how the effects of the printing press and translation of the Bible led to an avalanche of change in religious beliefs for several hundred years, not unlike the effects of the internet today.
If I understand correctly, once the Bible was widely available in vernacular languages there was the possibility of almost endless numbers of teachings about what each group considered true biblical Christianity, and did not stop with the advent of the Church of England.

Apparently the dissenters who were considered radicals felt the CoA hadn't gone far enough to eliminate features of Catholicism which was not considered to be biblical Christianity at all.

What I wonder is why did this process go so much further in England and the United States and move so little in the rest of Europe? Why did the avalanches not occur in France, Germany, Russia, etc. to the same extent, given the effects of the printing press and translation of the Bible?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It is hard to show causation here, that the Printing press lead to rapid 'change' in belief. Throughout the mediaeval period, we saw the emergence of new groups like the Waldensians, Lollards, Hussites, Cathars, Bogomils, etc. and I would include the conventional reform movements like Cluny and the Franciscans. The printing press merely lead to their wide dissemination; and the breakdown of Scholasticism and the top-down Feudal structure of the mediaeval world lead to new ways of thinking. These things feed on each other, and the Printing press itself is not to blame - I mean, it didn't lead to a reformation in Islam for instance, nor markedly in Russian Orthodoxy. The 'Avalanche' of change in religious belief you are referring to, is the Protestant Reformation - whose seeds lie in Wyclif, Hus and distrust in the worldly institution of the Church, thus prioritising Scripture above Tradition, and has its source in the Renaissance spirit of Enquiry and scepticism of the established order for presumed Ancient models. In the Reformers case, they looked past the mediaeval Church, and tried to glimpse the Apostles - but more often than not, saw more the reflection of what they sought the Apostles to be. When different people point this out, you started getting many different opinions. It wasn't caused by Printing, merely perhaps accelerated thereby, just as the Internet merely propogated century old criticisms or fanciful nonsense dressed in the garb of the Present. The change in either case was driven by socio-political culture, with the increase in information merely being a catalyst of already existing trends.

That this is more common in Britain is probably just bias from reading English - afterall, we see Socinians in Poland, Anabaptists and Moravian brethren in Germany, and the extreme example being the Dutch - the old joke being that one Dutchman is a Theologian, 2 a Church, and 3 a Schism. In Britain though, the Established Church never made up its mind, perhaps because Edward VI died young, so always ended up in a pragmatic role. The Empire and its readiness to accept Dissenters did the rest, creating enclaves. The same thing happened in Dutch colonies - come to South Africa and you'll see rural towns with 3 different kinds of Dutch Refomed Church with 2 Apostolic Pentacostals etc. Cuius Regio Eius Religio played its part dampening down elsewhere, same as the Counter-Reformation and Inquisition did in Catholic countries. Remember, Calvin was French and all those Huguenots had to flee, as did the Italian Peter Martyr and the Savoyards, or the Spanish Protestants of Vallodolid. This is merely an accident of how history played out, with its own rabbit hole of causes, rather than a specifically English affair. Paul already showed us the human tendency to splinter, when Corinth already had factions in the 1st century.

 

[Duvduv]

Quid est Veritas, given the interesting clarifications you have made, how do we understand the revolutionary impact the dissemination of the printed vernacular Bible had in England compared to other countries with the growth of so many dissenter groups, first the Anglican Church, and then breakaways from the Anglican Church?
I would like to reply to the comments made in the Forum Exploring Christianity where I cannot reply. If the Catholic Church did in fact approve of a vernacular Bible, the Douay Rheims Bible, why did this not affect the Protestant attitude toward the Church? And who are those who argue that Wycliff was viewed as part of a peasant rebellion rather than simply as a "heretic" in religion?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't really follow what exactly you are asking.

The printing press acted as a catalyst, spreading English Bibles amongst the populace primed by Lollardy into very similar ideas that we later find amongst Dissenters. Anglicanism however, arose as a pragmatic Protestantism from Henry VIII's limited breakaway, to Elizabeth's backtracking from Edward VI's. So I would say the Dissenters are the partial offspring of Lollardy, helped along by the English national Church and its close affiliation with the Crown. The printing press probably just facilitated this process, although not its cause, as Lollardy was already strong in the midlands and Kent long before the printing press.

The Reformation, and also Lollardy, was more than just about Vernaculars. It was about fundamental questions, of priesthood of believers, of Institution, of Sacrament, of Simony and earthly power too. Lollards and dissenters disliked the Bishops and Priests and their secular concerns. These groups have a strong distrust of the Institutional, as a human thing that can be corrupted - thus we see the Inner light of the Friends, or the ilk. CS Lewis said the difference is between Allegorical representation, bringer the Spiritual into a Corporeal union with the Church; vs Symbolic presentation, of separate plains of action. Here is a thread on it I made before, with Lewis' quote:

The difference between Catholics and Protestants according to CS Lewis

As to Wyclif, he was a Master of Oxford. A less peasant position I can scarcely imagine. While figures like John Ball associated the anticlericalism of the Peasant Revolt later with Lollardy (notably via works like Piers Ploughman), the seeds of the Peasant Revolt aren't religious, and Lollardy was based in the middle classes (especially in the wealthier areas with trade links to Flanders). This is a similar profile to other Reformation populations, like the predominantly mercantile Huguenots in France. Protestantism is based on Education, on reading the Bible yourself and so, but not mired in the power structure at top and the predominance of Latin - no wonder it tends to be a middle class phenomenon historically. The lower classes either followed popular preaching from such educated individuals, or stayed true to their traditional saints and noble masters - Protestantism does not find its roots there.