For Didymus: Christian unity

[Contarini]

In a thread on “Popular Media,” Didymus expressed his concern with what he saw as Catholic calls for censorship, and he went on to say:

Well, I’m glad the Church isn’t in charge of things. That’s exactly why I never pray “for the unity of all Christians” – if it weren’t for the Reformation we’d still be living under monarchies.

Didymus, I wonder how you can defend this? Jesus prayed for the unity of all who believe in Him. How can anyone be a follower of Jesus and not share that desire?

And as a matter of historical counterfactual speculation, I think your claim is very dubious. Many forms of Protestantism (Lutheranism, Anglicanism, some of the more moderate versions of “Calvinism” that emerged in Germany) did not go against monarchy at all–on the contrary, they strongly supported monarchy. Even Dutch Calvinism, I believe, generally supported the movement toward stronger centralized authority (amounting to monarchy though without the title) in the 17th century, though I could be wrong on that. Furthermore, Catholicism was far more supportive of monarchy after the Reformation than before. During the Middle Ages, the Church was a major thorn in the sides of would-be absolute monarchs.

But more to the point, how can you put your political speculations ahead of the clearly expressed desire of Jesus?

Edwin

 

[Della]

I don’t agree with Didymus. What brought down the monarchies was nationalism, not the Reformation. The break up of the Roman Empire into nations is what did it. As soon as countries broke away from the Emperor with no one outside each country to answer to it was only a matter of time until republicanism would conquer. All the Reformation did was give the nationalists an excuse, but it was not the cause.

 

[Contarini]

But Della,

Initially nationalism helped the monarchies (if you can call it nationalism). Any nationalism that was detrimental to monarchy arose long after the Reformation.

Edwin

 

[Della]

Contarini:

But Della,

Initially nationalism helped the monarchies (if you can call it nationalism). Any nationalism that was detrimental to monarchy arose long after the Reformation.

Edwin

At first, but it was the beginning of the end when men decided neither the Church nor the Emperor should have authority over them. It was inevitable after that. The princes and kings lorded it on for a while, but the break up of the Holy Roman Empire meant the ultimate downfall of monarchies. And as we know, most monarchies fell except here and there, and even the ones that survive to today are not absolute, but merely figureheads that are kept in place for tourism and national pride more than anything else. It was a domino effect that could not be stopped.

 

[Contarini]

Della,

I don’t see this at all. The Holy Roman Empire was never anything approaching an absolute monarchy. In fact, I think that the breakup of the HRE as a coherent political unit (facilitated by the Reformation) contributed to the rise of absolutism rather than a genuine constitutional monarchy, which the Empire at its best was.

While medieval society was monarchical, authority was vested in a lot of different places. The Reformation led to a concentration of authority, initially in the hands of rulers (this was true at least as much in Catholic as in Protestant countries). Eventually this led to a reaction.

This is to say that your “domino” theory may be right. But I don’t see how one can be sure. At any rate the rejection of the Emperor was relevant only in Central Europe, because he didn’t have any authority anywhere else.

Edwin