What if the Protestant reformation never happened?

[Albion]

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.

Whoa. That's quite a comparison of apples to oranges. The Anglican Church has a history of Erastianism, it can be said fairly, but that is not at all parallel to the Papacy itself categorically opposing national indepence and voting rights as a matter of theology. The Papacy, you know, didn't own any of the lands in question, so that point right there puts a lot of distance between the Anglican Church's complicity with its nation's political policies and the Vatican's desire to hold onto the notion that it gets to put the crown on Charlemagne's head. LOL

In my opinion it wasn't Protestant or Catholic that contributed to religious freedom, but simply the fracturing of the religious map of Europe.

You probably could make that argument, but it isn't the point. The point is not what happened, but what the church did in response. Yes, the emergence of national liberation movements, democracy, self-rule, socialism, etc. was due to many factors, but what did the church do in reply to it? Who was threatened by it? Certainly not the Protestant churches defending some ancient political "right."

That's the issue.

 

[Erose]

Whoa. That's quite a comparison of apples to oranges. The Anglican Church has a history of Erastianism, it can be said fairly, but that is not at all parallel to the Papacy itself categorically opposing national indepence and voting rights as a matter of theology. The Papacy, you know, didn't own any of the lands in question, so that point right there puts a lot of distance between the Anglican Church's complicity with its nation's political policies and the Vatican's desire to hold onto the notion that it gets to put the crown on Charlemagne's head. LOL


You probably could make that argument, but it isn't the point. The point is not what happened, but what the church did in response. Yes, the emergence of national liberation movements, democracy, self-rule, socialism, etc. was due to many factors, but what did the church do in reply to it? Who was threatened by it? Certainly not the Protestant churches defending some ancient political "right."

That's the issue.

So why were people fleeing the British Isles to America to escape religious persecution then?

 

[Albion]

So why were people fleeing the British Isles to America to escape religious persecution then?

It wasn't because the Anglican Church was afraid of American independence, was it?

 

[Erose]

It wasn't because the Anglican Church was afraid of American independence, was it?

I think it was people were afraid of the Anglican church in general. Had nothing to do with what the Anglican church was or was not afraid of.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

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.

Do you deny the Council of Toulouse? Do you deny Pope Pius VI? Do you deny the lists of banned books?

Someone elsewhere mentioned it was no different than, say, the Lutheran church prohibiting the reading of the JW bible. What they fail to realize is that the Lutheran church never banned the reading of ANY bible. The Catholic church made it a CRIME to possess English translations of the New Testament, for heaven's sake.

There's a letter to a particularly bad pope whose legitimacy has been questioned but it seems that a group of cardinals wrote Pope Julius III and begged him not to let the laity have the bible: "The Bible is the book that, more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempest by which we have almost perished. In fact, if anyone examines closely and compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible and oftener still contrary to it, and if the people wake up to this they will never stop challenging us till everything is laid bare and then we shall become the object of universal scorn and hatred. Therefore, it is necessary to withdraw the Bible from the sight of the people, but with extreme caution in order not to cause rebellion."

The only arguments I've found against it are the basis that the letter is fake (not a whole lot of proof for that) or I've been told I don't really care about the truth so why bother trying to explain it...

Look...there's several examples of the Catholic Church trying to keep the bible out of the hands of the laity (or the common people as I like to call them). You can't dispute that. You can dispute the logic behind or or the reasons, but not the fact that it happened.

 

[Albion]

I think it was people were afraid of the Anglican church in general. Had nothing to do with what the Anglican church was or was not afraid of.

Then it is not what we were discussing in the case of the Papacy, either.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Wasn't it Scripture and Tradition that was precious

 

[Erose]

Do you deny the Council of Toulouse?

And if you spent any time studying this council, you will realize it was a temporary ban, not a permanent one, to combat the attempts of the Albigensian heretics to use heretical bibles to lead unknowing people into their heresy.

Do you deny Pope Pius VI?

I'm not sure what you are accusing him of.

Do you deny the lists of banned books?

Why should I? I personally thought it was a good practice. It provided Christians with a list of books that taught not orthodox teaching.

Someone elsewhere mentioned it was no different than, say, the Lutheran church prohibiting the reading of the JW bible. What they fail to realize is that the Lutheran church never banned the reading of ANY bible. The Catholic church made it a CRIME to possess English translations of the New Testament, for heaven's sake.

And why shouldn't they? There are many Bibles out there today that I wouldn't recommend to those who are Catholic due to the footnotes and some wording that isn't properly interpreted. Not all Bibles are the same PreachersWife. Would you recommend to someone in your Church that they should read a copy of the Douay Rheims bible instead of a King James Version? That pendulum swings both ways.

T

here's a letter to a particularly bad pope whose legitimacy has been questioned but it seems that a group of cardinals wrote Pope Julius III and begged him not to let the laity have the bible: "The Bible is the book that, more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempest by which we have almost perished. In fact, if anyone examines closely and compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible and oftener still contrary to it, and if the people wake up to this they will never stop challenging us till everything is laid bare and then we shall become the object of universal scorn and hatred. Therefore, it is necessary to withdraw the Bible from the sight of the people, but with extreme caution in order not to cause rebellion."

Nice to have something without a link or at least a reference. I will not respond until I have access to the full document.

The only arguments I've found against it are the basis that the letter is fake (not a whole lot of proof for that) or I've been told I don't really care about the truth so why bother trying to explain it...

Like I said, I will evaluate it if I have the full document.

Look...there's several examples of the Catholic Church trying to keep the bible out of the hands of the laity (or the common people as I like to call them). You can't dispute that. You can dispute the logic behind or or the reasons, but not the fact that it happened.

Actually there are very little. In fact I think the proof is on the opposite side. What reason would the nuns spend time teaching peasant kids to read and write if the Church was so afraid of educated folks? Why start universities? Why push education to the masses instead of just the elites?

 

[Erose]

Wasn't it Scripture and Tradition that was precious

Yes, but in this line of discussion we are talking about Scripture.

 

[Albion]

FWIW, I keep thinking of the question of the OP--WHAT IF the Reformation had never happened? Well, I guess the old system would have gone on, gotten steadily worse, until it was challenged.

If not the Protestant Reformation, there would have to have been something like it, and probably rather soon, given the existence--for completely separate reasons--of the discovery of the New World, the Renaissance, etc.

 

[concretecamper]

Do you deny the Council of Toulouse? Do you deny Pope Pius VI? Do you deny the lists of banned books?

Are you saying that the Catholic Church is the only one who stands up against heresy?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Erose

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.
​

Do you deny the Council of Toulouse? Do you deny Pope Pius VI? Do you deny the lists of banned books?

Someone elsewhere mentioned it was no different than, say, the Lutheran church prohibiting the reading of the JW bible. What they fail to realize is that the Lutheran church never banned the reading of ANY bible.

The Catholic church made it a CRIME to possess English translations of the New Testament, for heaven's sake...............................................

Look...there's several examples of the Catholic Church trying to keep the bible out of the hands of the laity (or the common people as I like to call them). You can't dispute that. You can dispute the logic behind or or the reasons, but not the fact that it happened.

Are you referring to Jerome?................

http://www.christianforums.com/t7234016-13/#post46966950
Jerome and banning Translations

Everyone here pretty much knows I am a stickler about Translations and most arguements on GT appear to stem more on oral traditions handed down as I am sure not everyone had a Bible to read during the early centuries.

But this simply SHOCKED me, as after the Canon had been finalized, why is it that only Jerome and the RCC had authority to TRANSLATE it?
Any thoughts on this and how accurate is Jerome's translation compared to others we now have today? And please just keep this on the early Translations of the Bible for now. Thanks.

http://biblelight.net/banned.htm

............In 1408 the third synod of Oxford, England, banned unauthorized English translations of the Bible and decreed that possession of English translation's had to be approved by diocesan authorities. The Oxford council declared:

"It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things.

We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error.".................
​

 

[Erose]

FWIW, I keep thinking of the question of the OP--WHAT IF the Reformation had never happened? Well, I guess the old system would have gone on, gotten steadily worse, until it was challenged.

If not the Protestant Reformation, there would have to have been something like it, and probably rather soon, given the existence--for completely separate reasons--of the discovery of the New World, the Renaissance, etc.

I agree with you. Rebellion was in the air at that time. People wanted something different. There was a lot of corruption among both church and political officials at the time. There were opportunities popping up all over the place for political upheaval. And the general person wanted change. I don't think they really cared what the change was, they just wanted it.

Rebellion was going to happen no matter if Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc. died as infants.

 

[Erose]

Are you referring to Jerome?................

St. Jerome has very little to do with it LLoJ. But even today a Catholic Bible must pass the muster of the Vatican, which in my opinion makes sense quite frankly.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Are you saying that the Catholic Church is the only one who stands up against heresy?

*giggle* of course not. Although I'm sure she thinks enough of herself to think so.

 

[concretecamper]

*giggle* of course not. Although I'm sure she thinks enough of herself to think so.

 

[concretecamper]

Are you referring to Jerome?................

http://www.christianforums.com/t7234016-13/#post46966950
Jerome and banning Translations

The RCC has every right to preserve the meaning of scripture.... only she is guided by the Holy Spirit in such matters. So you do not accept this... fine.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The RCC has every right to preserve the meaning of scripture.... only she is guided by the Holy Spirit in such matters. So you do not accept this... fine.

This may well be why your papal decrees are called bulls.

 

[concretecamper]

This may well be why your papal decrees are called bulls.

I have never had a papal decree.....but if I did, you would be correct to call it bull!!!! God Bless

 

[New Legacy]

I didn't call them crypto-Protestants. Many of them were marginalized by the church and considered crypto-Protestants at the time. Erasmus' books were put on the Index later in the century. So don't get in a huff. It's simply the facts of history, not my personal opinion. I don't considered them crypto-Protestants.

You called them Crypto-protestants, you did not say they were called crypto-protestants.
It is silly to call a group something, then say oh, I didn't say that, I even disagree with it.

Also, you say that like Hus or Luther didn't love the church and want to improve her. Neither wanted to create their own groups, but once they (or their followers) were outside the church, they did.

A church in their own image.

In fact, that's the most interesting counterfactual of all: what if the Catholic Church had coopted Hus in the fifteenth century and allowed communion in both kinds and worship in the vernacular, and then allowed Luther to do on teaching and publishing in Wittenburg and done away with indulgence sales? What if the Reformation could have been confined to the Reformed and Anabaptists, and the Catholic Church had basically behaved in the sixteenth century in the same way it behaved at Vatican II?

Which they could have encouraged as many people had before.

Did I just mention the scientific revolution and you assumed that I was sneaking in a common Protestant position? Did you read what I actually wrote? I said the Scientific Revolution would have proceeded apace and only perhaps faster due to the one instance of Galileo's trial- exactly what you ended up saying.

One scientific issue that would not have been accepted by protestants until later on is hardly 'perhaps faster'.

Oh for the love of.... Mexico is not part of the North American political tradition, and that's what's under consideration. If you're going to be nitpicky then no one is going to want to play.

Dude, you said "North America", not North American political tradition.
Do not claim you said something you didn't and then act like I am being daft.

Moreover, everything you say subsequently falls under this point: the North American political tradition as it developed in the Atlantic seaboard British colonies would not have developed as it did, and the North American political tradition would simply not exist.

We do not know that. France and other nations had or would have had colonies and they would have evolved in a similar way. Britain had nothing to do with our political system. The US political system evolved from communities in a non-colonial (like the Spanish) land.

Well this is just untrue. The Spanish and Portuguese committed horrendous atrocities against the Native Americans that make British crimes, and later American crimes, pale in comparison.

Sure they did, but they did not commit outright genocide.