What if the Protestant reformation never happened?

[Rhamiel]

There may be another Reformation coming ....

the Church is always in a state of constant reform
we are called to die to self daily, to pick up the cross and follow Christ

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

the Church is always in a state of constant reform
we are called to die to self daily, to pick up the cross and follow Christ

So I taught a class on Luther's early years and his road to Reformation for our Sunday Bible study at church this past Sunday (our pastor was ill and I was filling in for him).

In doing my research, I found it really interesting that before the 1518 Leipzig Disputation with papal representative John Eck, Luther vehemently denied being a Hussite because, well, Hussites were heretics, and maintained that he wanted to put his ideas before the pope so that the pope could lead then work on reform (and Leo X was pretty good as far as popes went at the time, but was heavily invested in just those areas- the indulgence sales- that Luther wanted reformed).

At the Leipzig Dispute, however, Eck successfully demonstrated that Luther held to Hussite beliefs. Until that point, Luther had been a conciliarist, which was very much a live position within the church (less than a hundred years earlier the Council of Constance had resolved the Avignon triple schism and the Council of Ferrara-Florence had worked mightily toward reunion with the Byzantine church). Unfortunately Eck proved too good, and it pushed Luther out of the conciliarist position and beyond the pale, such that he believed that not only popes but also councils could err- because after all, a council had burned Hus. It was a few months later that he gave in and admitted "We're all Hussites now."

The irony being that since Vatican II, we all are, indeed, Hussites now.

And I'm surprised, honestly, that Luther never went ahead and tried to draw the distinction I do- between genuinely ecumenical councils that cannot err (the first seven)- and between the medieval western councils that were not truly ecumenical, for they lacked the participation of the East (except for Lyon II and Ferrara-Florence). Was he unwilling to draw a distinction between, say, Constance (which ironically was at once the great triumph of conciliarism and the instrument of Hus' murder) and the Council of Ephesus? Alas, I don't think this was ever seriously considered by the Lutheran reformers.

 

[Rhamiel]

you might be a Hussite now...
I do not take up the mantle of a heretic
I am a Christian

I will keep to Christ and you can keep to Huss if you so desire

 

[Albion]

you might be a Hussite now...

Why so?

I do not take up the mantle of a heretic
I am a Christian

Heretics are Christians, Rhamiel. By definition.

There may be another Reformation coming ....

Almost certainly, although it might be awhile before one is so desperately needed as the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was.

 

[Rhamiel]

Why so?

Gratia was the one who agreed with the claim that "we are all hussites now"

 

[Albion]

Gratia was the one who agreed with the claim that "we are all hussites now"

Oh, was that all. I thought you might have taken it literally for some reason. Sorry.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Gratia was the one who agreed with the claim that "we are all hussites now"

Are you a member of a church that permits worship in the vernacular and offers communion in the form of both bread and wine to the laity?

Congratulations, you would have been burned by the Council of Constance.

 

[Rhamiel]

Are you a member of a church that permits worship in the vernacular and offers communion in the form of both bread and wine to the laity?

Congratulations, you would have been burned by the Council of Constance.

no, because I recognize the legitimacy of the Mass in Latin (or greek or any of the languages of the Eastern Rite)

it is not about what species of the Eucharist is offered, it is about Church authority

 

[Albion]

Are you a member of a church that permits worship in the vernacular and offers communion in the form of both bread and wine to the laity?

Congratulations, you would have been burned by the Council of Constance.

I'm beginning to see the wisdom behind the observation that "We're all Hussites now." Even those who don't recognize it.

I must admit that just dropped in before without "reading up" on the relevant posts.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

What if the Protestant reformation never happened?

What would society be like today?

I could give a guess but I doubt it would be better than you could get from a magic eightball.

 

[tadoflamb]

I could give a guess but I doubt it would be better than you could get from a magic eightball.

Concentrate and Ask Again

 

[Rhamiel]

I could give a guess but I doubt it would be better than you could get from a magic eightball.

yeah, the Reformation changed history
we can not assume how it would be different now

 

[Gxg (G²)]

the Church is always in a state of constant reform
we are called to die to self daily, to pick up the cross and follow Christ

Indeed - although as it concerns the ways that the Church adapts to handle different environments (even as the saints within changed), the dynamics of political/social climate that set the stage for the Reformation to develop (i.e. kingdoms being liberated from certain concepts and at war, the printing press, prior church movements that set the stage for Luther to come into view, etc.) are similar to things in our day that have set the stage for radical ways in which the Church may find itself being seen.

And as it concerns another kind of Reformation, I definitely think there's an INFORMATION Reformation that has developed and will continue when seeing how we process and think.

For reference, one can go to On Pop Theology: The Ethics of Information

Even Pope Francis noted the issue last year after he met with members of the Pontifical Council for the Laity who had gathered to discuss the theme, “Announcing Christ in the digital age.”

​

NET TV - In the Arena - "The Church in the Digital Age" (12/15/2013) - YouTube

As the proliferation of blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube alters the visual production and spread of Jesus imagery, allowing Christ to be remade countless times, how does this affect the ways in which we proclaim the Incarnation? With the evolution of social media impacting how we construct our identities, communicate with one another, and organize for social action, how does this transform our worship and work? From Obama to Occupy and many others...

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

no, because I recognize the legitimacy of the Mass in Latin (or greek or any of the languages of the Eastern Rite)

it is not about what species of the Eucharist is offered, it is about Church authority

IIRC, Hus also recognized the legitimacy of the Mass in Latin. He simply also recognized the legitimacy of the Mass in the vernacular. As do we all now.

 

[Albion]

Let's be clear on this much..."The Church" may be constantly in a state of flux. It is not necessarily in a state of "reform." For much of its history "the Church" has done its best to squelch all reform. As we all know, had the Church been willing to even CONSIDER the idea of reform in 1517, the Protestant Reformation might have been averted.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Let's be clear on this much..."The Church" may be constantly in a state of flux. It is not necessarily in a state of "reform." For much of its history "the Church" has done its best to squelch all reform. As we all know, had the Church been willing to even CONSIDER the idea of reform in 1517, the Protestant Reformation might have been averted.

And this is a really important point.

On the one hand, Luther and other reformers were ideally placed in time and space to spread their message because of cultural frameworks like the Renaissance and new technologies like the printing press and emerging national consciousnesses.

Yet on the other hand, the papacy at that time wasn't just resistant to reform; it was downright hostile to it. The church had just come out of a century of getting over the triple papal schism, the conciliarist controversy, and disappointed attempts at east-west reunion; France had recently invaded Italy, Charles V would soon do the same, and the Turks were at the gates; the papacy was deeply in debt as were several important cardinals and needed money from illicit indulgence sales in order to pay off their creditor; and the Lateran V, which addressed some important reform topics but lacked teeth, had just closed.

Even a pope like Leo X, who, aside from Pius II, was one of the best popes in the previous half century (which isn't saying much considering those popes included Sixtus IV, Alexander VI, and Julius II), couldn't possibly have seen a new round of discussions and debates on conciliarism (and with them another divisive and expensive council), venacular liturgies (and with them an acceleration of national consciousness), and indulgences (which generated much needed profits that everyone knew were illegal and pretty much everyone accepted) as welcome. I can't honestly say my reaction, if I'd been the pope, would have been anything other than: "Are you kidding me? Another one of these annoying northerners?"

Leo X at least ended the preaching tour of Johann Tetzel. But it would take the next three popes- Adrian IV, Clement VII, Paul III- to even organize efforts that positively contributed to the reform of Roman Catholicism manifested at Trent rather than simply squelching the Protestant reformers.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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

One big difference in the timing of the Protestant Reformation that sets it apart from other reformers and reformation movements was the availability of mass communication made possible by the printing press.

If I may say...

Sometimes the printing press may be given too much credit as it concerns it being the reason why ideas spread in Europe....

 

[Albion]

And this is a really important point.

On the one hand, Luther and other reformers were ideally placed in time and space to spread their message because of cultural frameworks like the Renaissance and new technologies like the printing press and emerging national consciousnesses.

Yet on the other hand, the papacy at that time wasn't just resistant to reform; it was downright hostile to it. The church had just come out of a century of getting over the triple papal schism, the conciliarist controversy, and disappointed attempts at east-west reunion; France had recently invaded Italy, Charles V would soon do the same, and the Turks were at the gates; the papacy was deeply in debt as were several important cardinals and needed money from illicit indulgence sales in order to pay off their creditor; and the Lateran V, which addressed some important reform topics but lacked teeth, had just closed.

Even a pope like Leo X, who, aside from Pius II, was one of the best popes in the previous half century (which isn't saying much considering those popes included Sixtus IV, Alexander VI, and Julius II), couldn't possibly have seen a new round of discussions and debates on conciliarism (and with them another divisive and expensive council), venacular liturgies (and with them an acceleration of national consciousness), and indulgences (which generated much needed profits that everyone knew were illegal and pretty much everyone accepted) as welcome. I can't honestly say my reaction, if I'd been the pope, would have been anything other than: "Are you kidding me? Another one of these annoying northerners?"

Leo X at least ended the preaching tour of Johann Tetzel. But it would take the next three popes- Adrian IV, Clement VII, Paul III- to even organize efforts that positively contributed to the reform of Roman Catholicism manifested at Trent rather than simply squelching the Protestant reformers.

Exactly so (although I'm confident that it'll be rejected out of hand by those who have no idea what you're talking about ).

As has been pointed out before, Francis of Assisi was, by all standards, a well-intentioned daydreamer and amateur, but the Papacy was riding high in his day, so he was given more slack than he probably deserved. By contrast, Luther was a renowned Bible scholar and ordained cleric whose offense was merely to pose some questions the Pope didn't want to hear. Still, the state of the Papacy in Luther's day was, as you outlined, just the opposite of Francis's.

For many people today who have only a rudimentary knowledge of the facts of history, however, it's easy to think that Francis was so admirable that he couldn't be denied while Luther was some sort of religious Luddite. Of course also, there's no religious denomination with a vested interested in painting Francis in the worst possible terms, either.

 

[Erose]

Let's be clear on this much..."The Church" may be constantly in a state of flux. It is not necessarily in a state of "reform."

I agree with you. If the Church was always in the state of reform, then you wouldn't have anything to reform right? There is an ebb and flow, because...well the Church is composed of human beings, and not all of them view seeking the Kingdom of God as a priority. No one can deny that the Catholic Church had, has corruption within its walls, from the beginning even to today. Humans are funny that way.

For much of its history "the Church" has done its best to squelch all reform.

I disagree with this statement. I think that you can say that there are always members of the Church that don't like change, that is for sure. There are going to be members of the Church who view it in their best interests that it stays exactly the way it is, and they are going to resist any proposed change. Many of the bishops at that time were political appointees, brothers of princes and kings and whatnot. They enjoyed what power they had and they were going to resist any loss of that power.

As we all know, had the Church been willing to even CONSIDER the idea of reform in 1517, the Protestant Reformation might have been averted.

I disagree. Like Rhamiel already stated I believe, the Church at that time was already in a state of reform. The problem is that reform is never instantaneous and takes time. I do think that the attempts of that reform during that time weren't going far enough; and that there were many of those who were willing to take advantage of the environment.

During that period, people wanted change. They didn't like their government, they didn't like their living conditions, and since the Church was such a huge part of their lives, they didn't necessarily like it either. They wanted change and they didn't care what the change was they just knew they wanted it.

And this is a really important point.

On the one hand, Luther and other reformers were ideally placed in time and space to spread their message because of cultural frameworks like the Renaissance and new technologies like the printing press and emerging national consciousnesses.

I think that we should also be honest to know that the Protestant Revolt would not have been successful if not for the princes who view Luther and the others that rose up after him, as a means by which they could rebel from the emperor, and carve out for themselves their own little bases of power. But oddly enough the princes are never discussed as being instrumental in the revolt, for some reason.

Yet on the other hand, the papacy at that time wasn't just resistant to reform; it was downright hostile to it. The church had just come out of a century of getting over the triple papal schism, the conciliarist controversy, and disappointed attempts at east-west reunion; France had recently invaded Italy, Charles V would soon do the same, and the Turks were at the gates; the papacy was deeply in debt as were several important cardinals and needed money from illicit indulgence sales in order to pay off their creditor; and the Lateran V, which addressed some important reform topics but lacked teeth, had just closed.

I think the key here is that the pope had too many pots in the fire, and couldn't address all of them.

The other thing that I think needs to be pointed out is that for some reason, people perceive that the pope had absolute secular power during this period, and that was just not true. Did he have influence? Yes. But the secular leaders could pretty much do what they wish, and the only recourse the pope really had was excommunication.

Even a pope like Leo X, who, aside from Pius II, was one of the best popes in the previous half century (which isn't saying much considering those popes included Sixtus IV, Alexander VI, and Julius II), couldn't possibly have seen a new round of discussions and debates on conciliarism (and with them another divisive and expensive council), venacular liturgies (and with them an acceleration of national consciousness), and indulgences (which generated much needed profits that everyone knew were illegal and pretty much everyone accepted) as welcome. I can't honestly say my reaction, if I'd been the pope, would have been anything other than: "Are you kidding me? Another one of these annoying northerners?"

Good point. Pots in the fire.

Leo X at least ended the preaching tour of Johann Tetzel. But it would take the next three popes- Adrian IV, Clement VII, Paul III- to even organize efforts that positively contributed to the reform of Roman Catholicism manifested at Trent rather than simply squelching the Protestant reformers.

Quite honestly the pope was powerless to do anything against the princes who backed the Lutherans, except diplomacy. The emperor was the only one to do anything against them; but he was stuck with the problem of the Turks, and was able to effectively address the civil war that was rising up in his empire.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Exactly so (although I'm confident that it'll be rejected out of hand by those who have no idea what you're talking about ).

As has been pointed out before, Francis of Assisi was, by all standards, a well-intentioned daydreamer and amateur, but the Papacy was riding high in his day, so he was given more slack than he probably deserved. By contrast, Luther was a renowned Bible scholar and ordained cleric whose offense was merely to pose some questions the Pope didn't want to hear. Still, the state of the Papacy in Luther's day was, as you outlined, just the opposite of Francis's.

For many people today who have only a rudimentary knowledge of the facts of history, however, it's easy to think that Francis was so admirable that he couldn't be denied while Luther was some sort of religious Luddite. Of course also, there's no religious denomination with a vested interested in painting Francis in the worst possible terms, either.

A very apt comparison. Innocent III and his successors represent the height of papal power in history; Franciscan spirituality probably seemed a lot less threatening to them than Lutheran proclamation did to the late renaissance popes, even though Franciscan spiritual had its own brand of dangerous radicalism that eventually caused serious friction after Francesco's death.