What if the Protestant reformation never happened?

rockytopva said:

Have you guys ever stopped to think that nobody runs Islam? You do not need a human leader to run a faith!

Click to expand...

Islam is a false religion and has no human head...are you sure you wanna continue this logic?

TaylorSexton said:

I know this sounds weird, but one of the greatest things about the Reformation is the advent of religious freedom. True faith cannot be forced.

Click to expand...

That's certainly true...and it's a point that usually is overlooked when this question about the Reformation is raised.

Albion said:

That's certainly true...and it's a point that usually is overlooked when this question about the Reformation is raised.

Click to expand...

In Catholicism, religious freedom is bad for your soul.

ViaCrucis said:

I might even posit that without the rather sober minds of Luther, Melancthon, Calvin (etc)

Click to expand...

The "sober" minds of Luther and Calvin?

BAHAHAHAHAHA.


Let's talk about Luther's "sober" mind for a minute. He created his own word for what he experienced day in and day out: anfechtung. We can't translate this into English because it's so loaded. It means something along the lines of God or the Devil sending a trial that brings turmoil, doubt, pain, tremor, panic, despair, and desolation to a person. Luther was possessed by such supreme mental anxiety that his entire physical body haemorrhaged under the stress and condemnation he felt for his sins. He was tormented all day and all night. Sometimes he would spend most the day doing nothing but sweating in fear and confessing in prayer every second thought that entered his mind. So twisted was his being by this state that he was wracked by almost constant gaseous eminences (flatulence). And he eventually came to think of his farts as weapons by which he expelled his unclean thoughts: "I am of a different mind ten times in the course of a day. But I resist the devil, and often it is with a fart that I chase him away" (Luther, Table Talk #122: Treatment of Melancholy, Despair, etc. November 30, 1531).

And Calvin! Calvin! Where to begin with his "sober" mind!?!?!

I think I'd rather just not put my head into his to begin with. My mind is too valuable to risk getting lost in the vacuous chasm of his head.

ViaCrucis said:

it was already pretty violent with the Radicals spurring on the Peasant's Revolt and fanning the flames of fanaticism and rebellion

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Radicals, whose primary mode of theology and belief was NON-VIOLENCE are responsible for spurring on VIOLENT rebellion by peasants.

BAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh man, Luther farted, and may have made jokes about it (in Table Talk).

Do people who read Table Talk actually know what Table Talk is??

No. No they don't, precious.

rockytopva said:

Pope, Imam, Calvin, and Pagin.

Click to expand...

Who is this Pagin guy? Is he French?

Tangible said:

No. No they don't, precious.

Click to expand...

We have often joked here in our own household where flatulence is a daily occurrence that the demons of the world are escaping us the only way they know how.

And really, SO WHAT? Our bodily excretes foul stuff every day and what's the harm in thinking that we're getting rid of evil stuff?

PreachersWife2004 said:

In Catholicism, religious freedom is bad for your soul.

Click to expand...

Christ never set up a democracy.

concretecamper said:

Christ never set up a democracy.

Click to expand...

Surely you understand what I mean with my post. How much did the religious upper echelon in your religion fight against the common man having his own bible?

God forbid, someone wanting to read the bible for themselves. Tsk tsk.

PreachersWife2004 said:

Surely you understand what I mean with my post. How much did the religious upper echelon in your religion fight against the common man having his own bible?

God forbid, someone wanting to read the bible for themselves. Tsk tsk.

Click to expand...

Really.... about what time in history was that?

PreachersWife2004 said:

Surely you understand what I mean with my post. How much did the religious upper echelon in your religion fight against the common man having his own bible?

God forbid, someone wanting to read the bible for themselves. Tsk tsk.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should spend a little bit of time re accessing this lie that has been completely debunked as what it is. A lie.

If the will be set on virtue, there will be no practice of wickedness. - Confucius

Human feelings are such that people submit to virtue rather than force. - Lao-Tzu

The virtue of man ought to be measured, not by his extraordinary exertions, but by his everyday conduct. -Blaise Pascal

The European history and religion are grim topics of study. When the religion becomes state the precious commodities of virtue tend to go out the window and men become corrupt.

I think people completely miss the point when they pass the buck on religious leaders. Whether people lead or follow, sin is sin, God will hold all men and women accountable for their actions. (Edit: Pleading naivety may work with man, but God knows all the intimate thoughts of the mind and feelings of the heart. God will not be tempted.)

PreachersWife2004 said:

Surely you understand what I mean with my post. How much did the religious upper echelon in your religion fight against the common man having his own bible?

God forbid, someone wanting to read the bible for themselves. Tsk tsk.

Click to expand...

the common man from having a Bible?

well before the time of the printing press (invented by a Catholic) the "common man" could not afford a hand written Bible
and probably could not even read one if it was given to him

educated people could speak Latin

do a quick google search for Old English Bibles, you can see that atleast the Gospels would have been offered in the common language, the Gospels and Psalms had several translations in common languages across Europe

I don't see the point in defending two old systems, or using individuals to defend them. Corruption always tries to unbiblisize and destroy everything. If you read between the lines you will learn more. That's what some of the old munks did in their monistaries, and the nuns too. People were and still are executed for the mere posession of the Bible. Translating the scriptures to english and meeting heavy martyrdom as a result is a minor issue to dispute. The bigger picture is that unfortunately some (not all) well off priests, cardinals, bishops and popes rode the system into the ground made up rediculous laws (once you decree law it cant really be changed) and the aristocracy was well aware that when the bible turned global it would ultimately spell the end of the mother church as a whole because the bear, dragon and arab would never forgive her for power grabbing at the expense of her own. The Bible says that he who does not provide for his house is worse than an infidel. She is in a very dangerous place right now. How many catholics are martyred by extremists? Revelations is a good book to read on this one. God will preserve her though His Church becaue He keeps His promise, but she must make her paths straight follow those ten commandments plus two. And as for those of us who act like cain esau or ishmael unfortunately we will meet those plagues mentioned in scripture head on. God destroys those who change His words. God's word was made perfect psalms 12:6-7. For me the way I see the reformation is that it was to obviously rebuke the mother church for the crusades and inquisition but protestants too for all the wars that followed. God Loved David but David was stiffled by the bloodshed not able to build the temple. I don't believe in defending huge systems and movements within christianity or condeming things so broadly how on earth can we know all what they did. Thats why the Bible teaches to judge wisely and righteously not as the world judges. God wanted a priest not a king. He wanted peace not war. Modern catholics and protestants for the most part to my knowledge are very different than the old. And you could say that most people in the world have changed from a type of theism to humanism over the past two thousand years. I will always put my foot down when it comes to Spirit or Doctrine as a Kjv bible believer but i won't stiffle my faith by spotting out my history for the sake of my culture. My ancesters worshipped the sun mood and stars. (My ancestors also prayed for the dead and performed many other abominations before the Lord. But I don't believe in praying for or being baptised for the dead or in purgatory. So I suppose you could say that I am not someone who respects the dead. Fair enough. How many cultures reject the idea of resurrection? And God teaches that He is the God of the living not the dead. I know where I differ fundementally with other brethren. Pretending to have reconcilliation out of fear for the elders is not what keeps my heart pumping with full blooded communion, but Christ who taught faith and prayer and real strength. But I don't gloat over that difference, to each his own - I pray, and I don't give up. I reject the new age at being ably name old fashioned. God makes all things new, that ius the hope I believe pulled Catholic and Protestant alike through the bloody dark medieval and middle ages on to prosperity and the here after, and hopefully striving on in holliness and nothing but the clean blood of Jesus and unbreakable unshakeable fearless faith.)Thats about all I can bring to this thread though perhaps when I get a good set of church history books i can talk more

Erose said:

Perhaps you should spend a little bit of time re accessing this lie that has been completely debunked as what it is. A lie.

Click to expand...

The specific cases aside (since that seems to be the "lie" you were referring to), the Roman Catholic Church undeniably has a history of opposing democracy and national sovereignty.

As recently as the 19th century, Papal edicts and church councils were outspoken againt all national independence movements and the prospects for the people to choose their own leaders instead of having monarchies (in which the Pope retained some "say" in the affairs of government).

Albion said:

The specific cases aside (since that seems to be the "lie" you were referring to), the Roman Catholic Church undeniably has a history of opposing democracy and national sovereignty.

Click to expand...

The lie that I am referring to is the one propagated by many ignorant Protestants that the Church withheld the Scriptures from the masses. That is a lie that has no foundation in history.

Where the Bibles chained in many churches? Yes. Why? Was it to keep the peasant from having one? No. It was keeping someone from stealing them, because a Bible during that time was a small fortune. On average it took a monk about 20 years to copy the Bible. 20 years! Not a few hours, not a few days, not a few weeks, not even a few years. Bibles were in short supply and it wasn't possible for individuals to have their own, unless they spent the time copying the words of the Bible for themselves.

Instead of giving the people their own individual Bibles, the Church did the next best thing. She read it to them, in the Mass and in the Divine Office each day. She illustrated it to them through the Sacred Art found in the Churches. She sang it to them through the Sacred Music offered.

The people then probably knew the Bible better than the people today, even though everyone has access to the Bible. Because the people then knew just how precious the Word of God is.

Albion said:

The specific cases aside (since that seems to be the "lie" you were referring to), the Roman Catholic Church undeniably has a history of opposing democracy and national sovereignty.

As recently as the 19th century, Papal edicts and church councils were outspoken againt all national independence movements and the prospects for the people to choose their own leaders instead of having monarchies (in which the Pope retained some "say" in the affairs of government).

Click to expand...

Well, sure, but other churches weren't much better at the time. The Anglican Church, for instance, never had a great track record when it came to British imperialism. The big watershed for Protestants didn't happen until the 1910 Edinburgh Conference. Not to mention that the Catholic Church's record over the past century has seriously attempted to put behind them their nineteenth century legacy, and the concordat system of church-state relations, I think, is one of the better schemes.

In my opinion it wasn't Protestant or Catholic that contributed to religious freedom, but simply the fracturing of the religious map of Europe. England and North America aren't the only example; Poland is another good case where the boundaries of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox produced a good century of not only religious freedom, but constitutional liberty more generally.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

Well, sure, but other churches weren't much better at the time. The Anglican Church, for instance, never had a great track record when it came to British imperialism. The big watershed for Protestants didn't happen until the 1910 Edinburgh Conference. Not to mention that the Catholic Church's record over the past century has seriously attempted to put behind them their nineteenth century legacy, and the concordat system of church-state relations, I think, is one of the better schemes.

In my opinion it wasn't Protestant or Catholic that contributed to religious freedom, but simply the fracturing of the religious map of Europe. England and North America aren't the only example; Poland is another good case where the boundaries of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox produced a good century of not only religious freedom, but constitutional liberty more generally.

Click to expand...

Yes I do agree as well. I think it ludicrous to think that Protestant theology was the cause of religious freedom. What IMHO attributed to religious freedom was the reality of religious pluralism, becoming more prevalent.