Theory why Protestantism flourished Northern Europe

[Picky_Picky]

Anglo Saxon kings as well - Wodan is the A/S form of Odin. Virtually all old Germanic royalty traces it’s origins back to Odin/Wodan.

Most cultures trace their kings/queens back to a deity (e.g. the rulers of Persia to Ahura Mazda, Oriental royalty to a Sky god, etc.) - hence the “reason” that their kingship is/was by “divine right”.

I think the “divine right” thing owes more to the OT. Certainly the British coronation specifically references Solomon.

 

[manualman]

Major conflicts in human history rarely genuinely arise from differences in sincere principle. What’s rather more common is that principles are held up as sales pitches to convince the masses to support a conflict that is ACTUALLY about power and money. In that sense, it’s unlikely that the thinking of the peasants were what drove the success or failure of the “reformation” in different regions.

As mentioned above, the practice of allowing indulgences to be ‘sold’ (a disparaging way of characterizing a naïve decision to allow formalized penance for financial self-sacrifice) in northern countries certainly captured the notice of the so-called nobility there. But that charity did not always, not even usually go to Rome. Typically, it went to donations that supported the works of local churches and monasteries that grew very wealthy over time. Luther and Calvin’s ideas would have fizzled out like so many other novel heresies before them except for one critical thing: the local nobles immediately recognized the immense wealth and power to be captured via seizing the churches, monasteries and associated land properties belonging to them as their own property. Combined with the ability to control their own local clerics rather than be subject to chastisement for wrongdoing from a distant authority and the temptation was too much to resist. They propped up the “reformers,” gave them pulpits, protected them from the discipline of the catholic church and plundered to their hearts content.

Hillaire Belloc is a great source for reading on this view of the reformation period. “How the Reformation Happened.” Not to be read in isolation from other sources though. Belloc’s a bit too opinionated for that. A useful additional voice to be heard though.

 

[GKC]

Major conflicts in human history rarely genuinely arise from differences in sincere principle. What’s rather more common is that principles are held up as sales pitches to convince the masses to support a conflict that is ACTUALLY about power and money. In that sense, it’s unlikely that the thinking of the peasants were what drove the success or failure of the “reformation” in different regions.

As mentioned above, the practice of allowing indulgences to be ‘sold’ (a disparaging way of characterizing a naïve decision to allow formalized penance for financial self-sacrifice) in northern countries certainly captured the notice of the so-called nobility there. But that charity did not always, not even usually go to Rome. Typically, it went to donations that supported the works of local churches and monasteries that grew very wealthy over time. Luther and Calvin’s ideas would have fizzled out like so many other novel heresies before them except for one critical thing: the local nobles immediately recognized the immense wealth and power to be captured via seizing the churches, monasteries and associated land properties belonging to them as their own property. Combined with the ability to control their own local clerics rather than be subject to chastisement for wrongdoing from a distant authority and the temptation was too much to resist. They propped up the “reformers,” gave them pulpits, protected them from the discipline of the catholic church and plundered to their hearts content.

Hillaire Belloc is a great source for reading on this view of the reformation period. “How the Reformation Happened.” Not to be read in isolation from other sources though. Belloc’s a bit too opinionated for that. A useful additional voice to be heard though.

A salute to your last paragraph.

GKC

 

[manualman]

A salute to your last paragraph.

GKC

Thanks, I think… Unless isolating just the last paragraph means you think that which preceded it actually butchers Belloc’s argument. In which case, correct me. You’ve no doubt read it more times than I have!

 

[GKC]

Thanks, I think… Unless isolating just the last paragraph means you think that which preceded it actually butchers Belloc’s argument. In which case, correct me. You’ve no doubt read it more times than I have!

No, nothing wrong with the preceding ideas. Though you’ll find Belloc is sometimes a little this way, sometimes a little that on some things in the Reformation. I think HOW THE REFORMATION HAPPENED is a good compromise choice. But see also his CHARACTERS OF THE REFORMATION, Vol IV of his HISTORY OF ENGLAND, maybe his CRANMER. He thinks Cranmer was an excellent horseman. I don’t know how he knows that.

GKC

 

[Faithdancer]

Yeah, I always looked to Wycliffe and Hus when I was a Protestant, trying to say that the Protestant Reformation was simply recovering the “true gospel” rather than creating a new or changed Gospel. The problem is that Wycliffe and Hus were still 1,300 years late, were mostly fighting over power, and both still had mostly Catholic beliefs.

I read the Church Fathers, expecting to see two strands of Christianity from the beginning-- the “true” “faith alone” “bible alone” strand and the false “works righteousness” “man-made tradition” strand. The problem was that the first strand simply didn’t exist in the Church Fathers, while a full reading of the Church Fathers showed they were extremely Catholic. Catholic theology was all there in the Early Church: Apostolic succession, the Apostles written words (scripture) and oral teaching (tradition) being authoritative, the Church having the authority to interpret the Apostolic teaching rather than the individual, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Mary’s perpetual virginity, etc etc was all in the first two centuries; yet we have no trace of a Protestant strand fighting against these Catholic ideas until many many centuries later.

To get back to the original post about why Protestantism flourished in Northern Europe; as has been stated earlier, there are so many variables that it’s probably impossible to pin down one.

I do think your point about Kings making the decision for the country to be very true. It’s not like today, where we read different ideas and make decisions for ourselves. Back then the monarchy would decide for everyone what the people were to believe. Many Kings converted to Protestantism out of political convenience, such as King Henry VIII. Heaven knows the monarchies were trying to fight against the Pope for political power well before the Protestant Revolt; the Protestant Revolt provided a new way for the monarchies to fight against the Pope together. Yet, we still stand, while all their monarchies are gone.

It certainly didn’t take long after Christ’s ascension for things to get hierarchical and for all of the accretions to start building up, layer upon layer, did it?

 

[Faithdancer]

And, back through torturous and tentative ways, to Aeneas. Hence to Aphrodite.
$
GKC

My brother the amateur geneaologist traced our ancestry back to Charlemagne. Charlemagne apparently traced his descent from Mark Antony, who in turn claimed descent from Hercules. That plus $2.25 will get me a cup of coffee.

 

[GKC]

My brother the amateur geneaologist traced our ancestry back to Charlemagne. Charlemagne apparently traced his descent from Mark Antony, who in turn claimed descent from Hercules. That plus $2.25 will get me a cup of coffee.

People just don’t keep track of these things these days. I can’t get my own line traced back much before 1700. No classical deities/semi-deities have appeared, so far.

GKC

 

[andrewstx]

Really I have never been involved in British mythology very much. My Mother’s geneology has been traced in one part to French Protestants. All the other’s were Brits in the CofE.
About all I know is the Glastonbury bush LOL.

My Dad no idea, he was adopted. All I know is his Mother was the daughter of a Methodist minister.

 

[GKC]

Really I have never been involved in British mythology very much. My Mother’s geneology has been traced in one part to French Protestants. All the other’s were Brits in the CofE.
About all I know is the Glastonbury bush LOL.

My Dad no idea, he was adopted. All I know is his Mother was the daughter of a Methodist minister.

That’s all you need to know of much of British legend.

GKC.

 

[Adamski]

People just don’t keep track of these things these days. I can’t get my own line traced back much before 1700. No classical deities/semi-deities have appeared, so far.

GKC

I am descendant of illiterate Shepard’s that lived in the Tatra mountain range for at least 1000 years never new how to read or write any language until the 1930’s never had any worldly influence. But they have had a deep devotion to jesus and his church for at least 1000 years and some think even longer because they may have come from Persia before they lived in Poland. To me that’s real royalty

 

[GKC]

I am descendant of illiterate Shepard’s that lived in the Tatra mountain range for at least 1000 years never new how to read or write any language until the 1930’s never had any worldly influence. But they have had a deep devotion to jesus and his church for at least 1000 years and some think even longer because they may have come from Persia before they lived in Poland. To me that’s real royalty

Sounds right to me.

GKC

 

[Adamski]

What do you mean “allowed” to have a conversion?
How do you define “conversion”?

I think this was true for the Roman Empire, too…when Constantine converted to Christianity. The rest of the Empire felt obliged to do so to align with him.
It was more a following of his lead and doing what they felt they must do, I believe, rather than any kind of “born again” seeing-the-light type of experience.

.

They were not able to make a choice for them self they were forced to by their king or they would be killed or disowned

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Outside the Holy Roman Empire the Catholic churches flipped Lutheran when the archbishop and king converted in Scandinavia and the Baltic regions.