Yeah - it is nice to be around people that believe the same thing.
Disagreement occurs on issues of how to implement and live that belief. Much better than the protestant sections where everyone has their own cafeteria faith.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
lol Been to OBOB lately?
Then the Scientific Revolution and democracy as we know it wouldn't have happened.
Which is something Christianity did until the western church decided it was the church to the exclusion of anyone who did not submit to Rome. During the Pax Romana Christianity flourished, once Rome was installed as the religion of the Roman Empire it simply excluded all other Christian groups. Got to give them some credit though, it lasted a thousand years.
Well, the Eastern church was under the thumb of the eastern emperor a lot more than the western part. The emperor had a lot more control over the naming of bishops/patriarchs, and he also managed to get his way in many of their later councils/synods. Also, the Greek speaking east was much more prone to theological/philosophical exploration, and they produced quite a few of the doctrinal conflicts that required further definition of the faith, particularly in Christology. The Latin speaking west generally had a more practical bent, and would have been content with the Nicene creed, or even previous creeds that were less narrow. At least that is what I have gathered from my Church History class thus far. The texts for the class are The Story of Christianity: Volumes I and II, by Justo L Gonzalez. I recommend them highly, they are a good introductory source that provides a solid overview of Church history.
The primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the west was something that developed over time due to tradition and circumstance. From very early times, the Bishop of Rome was recognized as an authority of the highest rank, along with the Bishops of Antioch, Byzantium (later Constantinople), Alexandria, and perhaps a few others. All of these were large, influential cities that could claim (rightly or not) Apostolic origin. Over time, the primacy of Peter amongst the Apostles gave rise to an increasing respect for the Bishop of Rome. Another factor was the power vacuum left in the west when the capital of the empire was moved east to Constantinople. Over time, the empire's deteriorating organization and power in the west left the church, whose leaders were often highly regarded by the people, to take an ever increasing role in government. Since Rome was the capitol city of the western empire, this might have also played a role in the increasing authority of the Bishops of Rome. The Bishops of Rome began taking a more authoritarian stance as the final word on orthodoxy largely due, among other reasons, to it being the largest major western city in the empire, and the ever increasing doctrinal controversies springing up in the east, and also as a counterbalance to the authority of the eastern emperor who had too much authority (in many people's eyes) over the church in the east.
That's the way I understand it so far... hope it helped.
Ugh. This thread is depressing. It's such an interesting question and so quickly became Catholics screaming "better!" and Protestants screaming "worse!"
Dissent had occurred a few centuries earlier. Protestantism caught on because they found a way to appeal to rulers, instead of just the peasants.I agree at the very least with those that say something had to happen in the sixteenth century. Considering that Luther and Zwingli began their reformations in Saxony and Zurich at about the same time completely independent of each other, you'd either have to assume a conspiracy from some future Catholic fundamentalist going back in time and murdering all the early reformers (which would be a fun novel), or only be able to take out one of the reformations, not all of them.
The Catholic Church has a history of reformers and I find it offensive you would call them crypto-protestants, because they loved the Church and wanted to improve her, rather than ditching her and creating their own groups.In any case, the reformers of the Catholic Church- Erasmus, More, Staupitz, Cajetan, Contarini, Pole, etc.- would probably have had more influence and been less marginalized as crypto-Protestants. On the other hand, the Protestant crisis had at least one very positive effect upon the Catholic Church: it pushed the Renaissance-era papacy to stop behaving like petty Italian princes (there was a string of about a half dozen absolutely terrible popes in the half century before the Reformation) and start behaving like Christian prelates. Would that have happened where it not for a pesky monk in Wittenberg, a loud nobleman in Zurich, and a turncoat king in England? I don't see that happening, no. So in at least one sense, the Catholic Church would be mired in corruption for longer, because the Counter-Reformation did accomplish some good and important things within the papal body.
This is completely untrue. Galileo is praised by atheists to denounce religion as against science, thus stupid and ignorant. Galileo is one example on one very particular issue of science because it seemingly contradicted scripture. This was not an issue among other sciences which the Church promoted and supported. Thus, the only thing protestantism would have furthered is heliocentrism, but I believe they would have considered that heretical at the time too.The Scientific Revolution would probably also have proceeded apace and perhaps quicker, since the Roman Inquisition may not have been set up and may not have prosecuted Galileo.
This is profoundly wrong. One- Mexico is part of North America. France had colonies all over North America which they lost to the British. The British had colonies within a small area of what is now the American east coast, which they prevent Spanish and French from colonizing.One area, however, in which things could have been far worse is in the long term settlement of North America and the development of early modern political thought. Without the independence of the United Kingdom from papal censure, England (like France) would have been severely stunted in its pursuit of North American colonies. The Treaty of Tordesillas would have remained in force. Moreover, without the Reformed wing of the Protestants, Puritan political theory would have never undermined absolute monarchy as it did. No English Civil War, no beheading of Charles I, no John Locke. No Mayflower Compact. No English Bill of Rights. No American Declaration of Independence and Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Catholics didn't start this thread. I wish you had held yourself to a higher standard and decided not to do exactly what you condemned and then tried to push off on Catholics like we started it.Well, maybe. But I don't know why I should bother if this is going to be an exercise in ecclesiastical flag waving rather than an interesting discussion on alternate history. Sorry, Catholics, I just hold you all to a higher standard.
yeah, but we also say that Protestant "churches" are not churches in the proper sense of the word
are you SURE you want to use the Catholic Church as a source?
anyways, Anglicans see themselves as part of an ancient religion, and not something that was made up 500 years ago
Yes it was an abuse and there were many abuses by the Catholic Church then. The Catholic Church needed to reformed. It refused to reformed on their own. The reformation made it reform (to a point lol).
The doctrine of papal infallibility already existed well before the Protestant revolt. It was only defined as dogma at Vatican I well after the Protestant revolt. In other words the Protestant revolt had no bearing whatsoever on the dogma of papal infallibility.It depends the point of divergence and the degree of reform. Let's say Luther was killed in 1513, and someone like Calvin became a notable Bishop? Italy was the richest part of Europe during the renaissance, but their economy went downhill as France, Spain, Portugal, the Dutch and Britain created new mercantile markets with their colonies.
So, the Pope might have become less political by default and with the existence of the printing press, maybe we would have had a much more diverse Catholicism. But, there would be no merger between East and West. Further, the claims of Papal Infallibility would probably not occur, or if they did (because there was some historical basis) it might have created a future reformation perhaps in the 18th or 19th centuries.
It depends the point of divergence and the degree of reform. Let's say Luther was killed in 1513, and someone like Calvin became a notable Bishop? Italy was the richest part of Europe during the renaissance, but their economy went downhill as France, Spain, Portugal, the Dutch and Britain created new mercantile markets with their colonies.
So, the Pope might have become less political by default and with the existence of the printing press, maybe we would have had a much more diverse Catholicism. But, there would be no merger between East and West. Further, the claims of Papal Infallibility would probably not occur, or if they did (because there was some historical basis) it might have created a future reformation perhaps in the 18th or 19th centuries.
Papal infallibility always existed.For some reason protestants think declaring something is making up something new. It must be from what is always believed. There is no new revelation.
It depends the point of divergence and the degree of reform. Let's say Luther was killed in 1513, and someone like Calvin became a notable Bishop? Italy was the richest part of Europe during the renaissance, but their economy went downhill as France, Spain, Portugal, the Dutch and Britain created new mercantile markets with their colonies.
So, the Pope might have become less political by default and with the existence of the printing press, maybe we would have had a much more diverse Catholicism. But, there would be no merger between East and West. Further, the claims of Papal Infallibility would probably not occur, or if they did (because there was some historical basis) it might have created a future reformation perhaps in the 18th or 19th centuries.
True enough. It is clearly in operation from 155ad onward. The real question is whether it is apostolic? No.
those are some VERY interesting ideas
I do agree that if the Protestant Reformation never happened, there would be a lot more of a diverse Catholic Church
but who can tell?
Papal Infallibility might have never been made a dogma
it is hard to tell
this is all speculation, the Reformation effected every bit of European history for the last 500 years
The book of Acts has a very wonderful example of Papal Infallibility in action.
And your basis for that is, what?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?