protestant birth

[Debi1967]

No problem!

Constance

Thanks you are gem.....

 

[constance]

a lump of coal, maybe.

'sides, it gives me time to formulate my evil prtestant theses.

Constance

 

[Debi1967]

a lump of coal, maybe.

'sides, it gives me time to formulate my evil prtestant theses.

Constance

ROFL.....Now you are too to do that ......

Besides I am getting the big guns ready this time

 

[constance]

Dude. Thou shalt not kill. Now, which commandment is that....lessee...which list do you use, again?

 

[Debi1967]

Dude. Thou shalt not kill. Now, which commandment is that....lessee...which list do you use, again?

UMMM
ARTICLE 5
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not kill.54


You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55

​

I just looked it is exactly the fifth and then I thought about well the maming aspect and it says I can't get away with that either ...... drats .... what a bummer all these rules we live by as Christians

Just kidding .....

 

[Axion]

Further to the discussion on bible books. The church made its decision in the 4th century that the Bible consisted of the Full 73 books handed down, and confirmed at the Councils of Rome, Hippo and carthage.

From that date on the bible contained the full listing of books including the deuterocanonicals. Luther was the first to dare to interfere with this, although even he didn't dare to remove the 7 deuterocanonical books entirely. That was left to a later generation of protestants.

As for mentions of the Hebrew bible consisting of 22 or 24 books. The fact is that the Old testament is divided into 46 books (39 in some protestant versions). So if you are following that guide, you have a lot more chopping to do! Or else you can try as some do, various methods of amalgamating the 46 0r 39 books to come up with the number 22 or 24. But that is a pointless exercise.

As far as the brief quotes from a few medieval figures. First the quotes are given without any context, so it is impossible to see what point the writers were making. 2nd even if a few of them did think certain books of lesser authority, that would be their individual opinion - just as some individuals today doubt the authenticity of the book of Deuteronomy or of Hebrews.

 

[constance]

Regarding 22/24 - that is because Jews amalgamate several books into one scroll. I agree that the exercise is pointless.

As far as my giving the quotes without context - of course I did - to give larger quotes would make my post terribly cumbersome. Where I could I cited the situation. If you'd like more information on one particular quote that you are interested in, I am sure I can find you an online source in context. As for them being "a few" - these are by far not "the only" - if you are bored and would like to see more, let me know.

While everyone was welcome to their opinion, those in teaching positions were not supposed to be expressing dissident opinions to "written or unwritten" teachings. These quotes prove the arguement that the Canon was not brought into doctrine until Trent.

The RC Church removed 3 Esdras at Trent. Why? It was in the Vulgate. Why if the Church made its decision in the 4th century, before the Vulgate was created, is 3 Esdras not in the current RC Canon?

Constance

 

[Axion]

Germany? Germany wasn't a country until the late 19th century. Can you please cite your source as to this economic devastation? Was it any different than any other Northern European area, or that of England?

Germany was a country long before the 19th Century. Germany was the most powerful country in Europe throughout most of the Middle Ages until the time of Luther. At this tiime it was not known just as "germany" but as the "Holy Roman Empire of the German People". The Emperor in Luther's time was Charles the Fifth.

The empire was divided roughly North-South by the reformation, and broke up into states like Saxony, Brandenburg, Bavaria etc. As for devastation, here is a map of the population loss caused in the thirty years war between protestants and Catholics. A third of the population of Germany died of war, disease and famine in those years.

Colours refer to population killed.
Orange is highest.
Green is lowest death toll.

 

[Lotar]

I wouldn't exactly call the HRE a country or Germany, especially not in the late middle ages. It was more of a loose confederation of vassals, dominated by the Hapsburgs (Austria and Spain). Though the Hapsburgs definately were the power in Europe at the time.

On that subject, despite the temporary devistation of the 30 yrs war, it is generally recognized that Melanchthon's reformation of the education system was what launched the Germans into becoming an economic and technological powerhouse. Allowing Prussia to quickly defeat Austria-Hungry and France in two successive wars, and form a unified, independant Germany.

Of course that led to two world wars, so that doesn't have to necessarily be considered a good thing.

 

[constance]

In France, they fought wars of religion for almost a hundred years, but the Kings were eventually able to make Catholicism dominant in most of the country. In fact, the reason the Reformation was able to divide the HRE was because the Emperor didn't have the power to stop it - the Princes of the German States were, in themselves powerful enough that they could resist the Imperial Authority. The lack of fealty is what ripped the HRE in half.

Switzerland, like "Germany", was a confederation of states with different religions, and it was not devastated by wars of religion.

The Netherlands are a completely different story - our hero Phillip sent Spanish soldiers to supress the Dutch Revolt. the duchies of East & West Flanders, Brabant, Liege, Hainaut, & Artone were all heavily supressed & placed under control of France, later to become Belgium. The Northern Netherlands stayed fervently protestant.

However, while "The Netherlands" are part of the Holy Roman Empire during Luther's time, it's not appropriate for you to refer to them as Germany. They had their own government, their own language, etc. Similarly with Slovenia, etc.

All I'm saying is, call the Holy Roman Empire the Holy Roman Empire.

Constance

 

[Axion]

I wouldn't exactly call the HRE a country or Germany, especially not in the late middle ages. It was more of a loose confederation of vassals, dominated by the Hapsburgs (Austria and Spain). Though the Hapsburgs definately were the power in Europe at the time.

The Holy Roman Empire functioned as a nation state (as much as most other countries in Europe functioned as nation states at the time. ) All countries at the time were feudal, with vassals controlling strong forces. The real break-up of the Empire came after the reformation and the wars of Religion.

The HRE was the 1st Reich. Bismark founded the 2nd reich. We all know about the next one...

On that subject, despite the temporary devistation of the 30 yrs war, it is generally recognized that Melanchthon's reformation of the education system was what launched the Germans into becoming an economic and technological powerhouse. Allowing Prussia to quickly defeat Austria-Hungry and France in two successive wars, and form a unified, independant Germany.

The devastation of the 30 years war was more than temporary. Look at the map I posted. Over a third of the population died. Melancthon was in 1550. By 1650 Germany was in ruins, its prosperity gone, its population cut by a third. France occupied western areas. Sweden occupied Northern areas. Other parts had become independent states. The Empire had been replaced by dozens of semi-independent states all charging taxes to each other. The economy was wrecked. It took 150 years to recover. This was why germany didn't join in exploration, trade, or get colonies in the New World, Africa or Asia. The rise of a united germany you talk about was 300 years after the reformation.

The reformation was a disaster for Germany.

 

[constance]

The Holy Roman Empire functioned as a nation state (as much as most other countries in Europe functioned as nation states at the time. ) All countries at the time were feudal, with vassals controlling strong forces. The real break-up of the Empire came after the reformation and the wars of Religion.

All countries but The Holy Roman Empire. See these famous contemporary sources (these are from wiki):

Contemporaries did not quite know how to describe this figure either. In his famous 1667 description De statu imperii Germanici, published under the alias Severinus de Monzambano, Samuel Pufendorf wrote: "Nihil ergo aliud restat, quam ut dicamus Germaniam esse irregulare aliquod corpus et monstro simile ..." ("We are therefore left with calling Germany a body that conforms to no rule and resembles a monster"). Voltaire later described it as "neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire".

In Faust I, in a scene written in 1775, the German writer Goethe has one of the drinkers in Auerbach's Cellar in Leipzig ask "Our Holy Roman Empire, lads, What holds it still together?"

The HRE was more than a confederation but less than a religious state.

Constance

 

[Axion]

In France, they fought wars of religion for almost a hundred years, but the Kings were eventually able to make Catholicism dominant in most of the country. In fact, the reason the Reformation was able to divide the HRE was because the Emperor didn't have the power to stop it - the Princes of the German States were, in themselves powerful enough that they could resist the Imperial Authority. The lack of fealty is what ripped the HRE in half.

We're getting into complex areas here. The french wars of religion were different from the German because fewer foreign countries intervened and the protestants were a smaller minority. Also the French allowed protestants freedom of worship under the Edict of Nantes from 1590 until 1680, ending the war.

The Holy Roman Empire suffered more because the Emperor faced invasion from the Muslim Turks at the same time, giving the protestants time to get armed. When the Emperor did get the upper hand, foreign armies intervened, extending the war and causing more devastation.

Switzerland, like "Germany", was a confederation of states with different religions, and it was not devastated by wars of religion.

There were brief wars. Led by Zwingli. But they settled on cantonal lines.

The Netherlands are a completely different story - our hero Phillip sent Spanish soldiers to supress the Dutch Revolt. the duchies of East & West Flanders, Brabant, Liege, Hainaut, & Artone were all heavily supressed & placed under control of France, later to become Belgium. The Northern Netherlands stayed fervently protestant.

The Netherlands were infected with Calvinism rather than Lutheranism. The reformation was very violent, and provoked a violent response. The area was directly ruled by Spain, and so separated from Germany. It had a different history from Germany after about 1540. There were long wars with the Spanish, which led to a full split by 1650. Catholics moved south to what is now Belgium. Protestants moved North to Holland.

However, while "The Netherlands" are part of the Holy Roman Empire during Luther's time, it's not appropriate for you to refer to them as Germany. They had their own government, their own language, etc.

They were known as "Low Germans" (Niederdeutsch) until the 18th century. Dutch is more a dialect of German.
Strangely the Germans call themselves Deutsch (Dutch) and the Dutch just call themselves Netherlanders. (Lowlanders)

 

[Tertiumquid]

I would like to address one part of your post though.... please do not assume that I am attacking sir without first asking me for verification of my meaning, as that was not my intent... My intent was to tell you that I had indeed researched your site and I had indeed researched into who you actually are .... It was not meant to attack you merely to let you know so that we are on an even playing field.... If you so choose to take that as an attack then I am sorry, as it was never meant in that fashion, I am a rather forthright person sir, I do not use ad hominem attacks trust me, should I feel compelled you will know directly how I feel ....Pax Christi
Debi

Hi Debiwebi,

My initial frustration is toward comments such as these:

"Don't you think using sources that you have researched and then included into your own work Mr Swan is highly prejudicial to this conversation considering your reputation as being someone that is opposed to Catholicism and therefore sways his Apologetics towards those avenues....
Do you not think that it would be better to also include not only the quote but also the link so that the quote used may be seen in it's entirety as well?"

Now what any these words has to do with the material I posted earlier from the Roman Catholic historian Hubert Jedin is beyond me. I have yet to use any material from Jedin's book, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent in any of my papers at ntrmin. If I have misused Jedin, I await for you to prove it. I will then apologize. To insinuate here publically that I have deliberately misused a source without proving it to be so is a tactic i'm particularly aware of, and tire of.

I don't even know what you mean, "we are on an even playing field..." For the most part, I don't think I can add anything of value to this thread anyway(unless we get back to Luther), Constance has been brilliant. I love it when someone else does all the work!

Regards,
James Swan
http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

 

[constance]

The Netherlands were infected with Calvinism rather than Lutheranism. The reformation was very violent, and provoked a violent response. The area was directly ruled by Spain, and so separated from Germany. It had a different history from Germany after about 1540. There were long wars with the Spanish, which led to a full split by 1650. Catholics moved south to what is now Belgium. Protestants moved North to Holland.

Oh, yay! Someone finally wants to talk about Netherlands!

I don't understand why the rule would be different until 1556 (abdication of Charles V/I) - am I missing something? I am very well aware of the Duch Revolts and the Spanish invasions. I don't think "moving" south and north is a really good way to interpret it, though - it was more of an imposed conversion, right?

They were known as "Low Germans" (Niederdeutsch) until the 18th century. Dutch is more a dialect of German.
Strangely the Germans call themselves Deutsch (Dutch) and the Dutch just call themselves Netherlanders. (Lowlanders)

Well, those living in the duchy of Flanders were often called "Flemish" or "Flanders". Those living in the duchy of Brabant were often called Flemish too.

I have several facsimile books of 16th century Netherlandish engravings where all of the people are contemporarily referred to by their province name.

Constance

 

[Lotar]

The Holy Roman Empire functioned as a nation state (as much as most other countries in Europe functioned as nation states at the time. ) All countries at the time were feudal, with vassals controlling strong forces. The real break-up of the Empire came after the reformation and the wars of Religion.

The HRE was the 1st Reich. Bismark founded the 2nd reich. We all know about the next one...

Feudalism was pretty much dead and burried by the Reformation. The HRE did not rule the Electors in the same manner that say, the King of England ruled the Duke of York.

Austria was an independant country that had influence to varying extents over these other small states.

As the old joke goes, the HRE was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire.

The devastation of the 30 years war was more than temporary. Look at the map I posted. Over a third of the population died. Melancthon was in 1550. By 1650 Germany was in ruins, its prosperity gone, its population cut by a third. France occupied western areas. Sweden occupied Northern areas. Other parts had become independent states. The Empire had been replaced by dozens of semi-independent states all charging taxes to each other. The economy was wrecked. It took 150 years to recover. This was why germany didn't join in exploration, trade, or get colonies in the New World, Africa or Asia. The rise of a united germany you talk about was 300 years after the reformation.

The population recovered fairly quickly.
Melanchthon's restucturing of the school systems was far reaching, even to today. It was not something that ended when he died.
I also forgot to mention, Martin Luther's unifying of the German language.

Also, the HRE encompased much more than just Germany.

 

[Axion]

Oh, yay! Someone finally wants to talk about Netherlands!

I don't understand why the rule would be different until 1556 (abdication of Charles V/I) - am I missing something? I am very well aware of the Duch Revolts and the Spanish invasions. I don't think "moving" south and north is a really good way to interpret it, though - it was more of an imposed conversion, right?

I think its more the fact that things were changing in the rest of Germany early on, but not so much in the Low Countries, under direct Hapsburg rule.

After Charles V abdicated, the Low Countries were passed to Spanish Hapsburg Rule rather than being subject to the German Hapsburg Emperor/Kaiser.

Well, those living in the duchy of Flanders were often called "Flemish" or "Flanders". Those living in the duchy of Brabant were often called Flemish too.

I have several facsimile books of 16th century Netherlandish engravings where all of the people are contemporarily referred to by their province name.

Yes but isn't this the same as some French being called Gascons or Burgundians or Provencales. Or English called Yorkshireman, Lancastrians, Midlanders, Devonians etc?

 

[Axion]

Feudalism was pretty much dead and burried by the Reformation. The HRE did not rule the Electors in the same manner that say, the King of England ruled the Duke of York.

England was more unitary than most European Countries in the Middle Ages, but even there as late as the 1470s we find the great barons like Warwick the Kingmaker overthrowing the King and fighting the Wars of the Roses between Lancaster and York.

In France, Normandy, Burgundy and Aquitaine were semi-independent as much as Saxony or Pfalz in the German Empire.

Austria was an independant country that had influence to varying extents over these other small states.

Austria didn't eally exist as a nation in the Middle Ages. It was just an amalgam of the Hapsburg lands in the Alpine Region. After the Reformation, the Hapsburgs pretty much retreated to their own lands in the South - which became Austria-Hungary-North Italy (later adding Bohemia).

As the old joke goes, the HRE was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire.

Maybe not after the 1500s but the Empire was a major power before then - and the Austrian part stayed a major power.

The population recovered fairly quickly.
Melanchthon's restucturing of the school systems was far reaching, even to today. It was not something that ended when he died.

Germany did not recover. That is the point. Instead of joining the rest of Europe in founding colonies across the world. Germany was only slowly recovering from the wars and divisions throughout the 1600s and 1700s. Much german territory was taken by France, Spain, denmark and other powers. It was newer powers like Prussia and Austria that rose and dominated this period. Germany again became battlefield of Europe in the Napoleonic Wars.

Also, the HRE encompased much more than just Germany.

So did most states. France ruled Brittany. England Ruled Wales and Ireland. Poland ruled the Ukraine. The HRE covered "greater Germany" including present-day Germany, the Netherlands (until 1550), areas later taken by France (Alsace, Lorraine,) Areas that became Austria, Bohemia and northern parts of Italy.

 

[constance]

Yes but isn't this the same as some French being called Gascons or Burgundians or Provencales. Or English called Yorkshireman, Lancastrians, Midlanders, Devonians etc?

Dunno, I still think it's different, but I'm speaking from my gut here. I think it's more like calling a Welshman a Welshman or a Scotsman a Scotsman. I'll have to look at some contemporary sources. Most of the 16th Century sourcesI read is in English & I see "Hollander" "Frieslander" and "Flemish" and "Brabantine", also "German" quite often. You even see "Germany" but also "Saxony" and "Hungary"... but as has been discussed, "German" is understood to be a people and "Germany" more of a...tribe? race? Whatever.

Constance