What would the world be like if the Reformation never occurred, and every Protestant Church was Catholic?

[FrRob]

Ah . . .I like this question, as I am a big science fiction fan.

Of course, we cannot really know the answer, but “alternate history” can be an interesting thing to think about, as it can in some ways help us to examine our own real history, and just what it means to us.

If there had never been a Protestant Reformation . . . the first thing that comes to mind is there would never have been a Counter-Reformation. There would have been no reaction to the quite correct objections some of the reformers had.

The sale of indulgences comes to mind.

If the Church had continued in that vein, without reform of some serious abuses, we could be very much a corrupt institution.

One can argue that Christ would have preserved His Church.

Yes . . . but . . .

The Chosen people of God, Israel, were just that: God’s Chosen People.

This did not stop them from straying into Adultery with idols. They had to be corrected by God many times, always bringing forth a faithful, or repentant, or both, remnant, to carry forward His covenant.

Would God have purified His Church? I have no doubt that He would, but . . .when? How long might we have strayed? 100 years? 1000? 10,000?

We really have no way of knowing.

In some ways, we need to give thanks for the call to reform that was made.

Did this call also lead us down a path where Christians are no longer around one table? Yes, of course.

Could that perhaps also be the punishment or Guiding Hand of God at work, forcing the Church to re-examine Herself?

I think it just may have been.

While we are the heirs of those within the Church who sought to reform, we perhaps also ought to remember that, in a way, we are also the heirs of those who brought about that need for reform.

Perhaps as we continue in Penance, striving to amend what what wrong, and offering prayer for those whose faith was damaged by scandalous practices in the Middle-Ages Church, we will one day regain the gift of our wandering Protestant brothers and sisters rejoining us as the Table of the Eucharist.

Fr. Rob

 

[Contarini]

Ah . . .I like this question, as I am a big science fiction fan.

Of course, we cannot really know the answer, but “alternate history” can be an interesting thing to think about, as it can in some ways help us to examine our own real history, and just what it means to us.

If there had never been a Protestant Reformation . . . the first thing that comes to mind is there would never have been a Counter-Reformation. There would have been no reaction to the quite correct objections some of the reformers had.

I disagree–although part of the disagreement may be that I don’t agree with the assumption that “corruption” was the basic problem.

Plenty of other people were complaining about abuses. And frankly, it seems to me that corruption continued after Trent. I’m not sure that the significant cleanup that did take place was worth the high price that was paid–centuries of centralization and repression, creating an image of Catholicism as a legalistic, authoritarian, power-obsessed religion that remains now fifty years after Vatican II–and even more seriously, creating institutional structures and habits of thought that remain identified with “orthodoxy” in the minds of more conservative Catholics, so that the “reform of the reform” now risks falling back into those grooves.

The Church is always more or less corrupt. I don’t think corruption was ever the big problem. I’d much rather have the Church of 1500–yes, plenty of corruption, but also a dazzling, rich diversity of piety and theology, including significant movements of renewal whose promise was cut short by the warring official “Reformations” of the next century–than the Church of c. 1600.

Edwin

 

[Portofino]

I’m not sure that the significant cleanup that did take place was worth the high price that was paid–centuries of centralization and repression, creating an image of Catholicism as a legalistic, authoritarian, power-obsessed religion that remains now fifty years after Vatican II–and even more seriously, creating institutional structures and habits of thought that remain identified with “orthodoxy” in the minds of more conservative Catholics, so that the “reform of the reform” now risks falling back into those grooves.

Was the way in which the Church responded to the Reformation – the way in which it “cleaned house” – inevitable, in the sense that it could not have reacted in any other way? If the reaction of the Church entailed all of the things you described above, I have a hard time believing that its 1500 incarnation, for all of its apparent nuance and diversity, did not suffer from a serious weakness in terms of how it could respond to pluralism (“one holy, catholic, and apostolic church”) and to challenges to its authority. While the post-Vatican II church has done quite well at adapting itself to the reality of religious pluralism, it seems that the church of 1500–while superficially showing the promise of Vatican II in some respects – did not have the internal mechanisms–or the culture–necessary to adapt itself to pluralism and diversity from without. Faced with pluralism, it had a tendency to become repressive. In my mind, this makes the Reformation even more of a necessity; if the Church could be enlightened, open-minded, and peaceful, but only so long as there were never any challenges to its authority, then its authority needed to be challenged in order for the church to grow. Challenging its authority was, seemingly, the only way that the church could learn the lesson of pluralism and of co-existence with diverse viewpoints (even if those viewpoints–in its mind or in reality–were dead wrong).

I’m thinking of the analogy of the individual who is perfectly mature, peaceful, and calm – so long as no one disagrees with him. That small limitation would be a major liability, or handicap. The church can be the true church and still need to have learned the lesson that, in a world where God has granted free will, not everyone will use their free will similarly. But before there was Luther, there were the Cathars… And if it hadn’t been Luther, it would have been the Jews; or the Muslims (both Jews and Muslims were expelled from Catholic Spain in 1492; nonetheless, Muslims and Jews were tolerated in Christendom, at one time or another). What was never tolerated, until well after Luther, was pluralism in Christianity (not simply inner diversity or richness, but truly opposing viewpoints).

 

[minion]

So…I was on youtube, and I saw this video, and it reminded me of this topic. Thoughts?

youtube.com/watch?v=51cgPwKNg-E

It pretty much blames the decline of Western Civilization on the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Portofino]

So…I was on youtube, and I saw this video, and it reminded me of this topic. Thoughts?

youtube.com/watch?v=51cgPwKNg-E

It pretty much blames the decline of Western Civilization on the Protestant Reformation.

What a whirlwind of a video!

His central thesis is that Protestantism has brought western civilization crashing down, through its pernicious notion that man is the sole arbiter of truth.

The problem is that militant Catholics and militant Protestants have been pointing the finger at each other over this selfsame accusation, for the past 500 years or so.

One of the ultimate Protestant reproaches against Catholicism is precisely this: “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.”

Of course, Catholics have the same reproach against Protestants, as this video makes clear – for what was Martin Luther, if not a man? For the militant Protestant, the pope is a man – a man who would place himself and the tradition of his church, on an equal footing with infallible Scripture.

A perhaps more plausible argument I’ve heard, of why Protestantism has led to secularism, is that it was a comparatively rationalist movement (even though Luther would have hated that designation of rationalist). The Protestant was perpetually saying, “this doesn’t make sense; it cannot be rationally justified.” The rejection of transsubstantiation was a case in point. So was the rejection of infant baptism, by the Anabaptists – the external ceremony of baptism has no inherent power, in and of itself, but requires faith in order to have meaning. An infant is not conscious and has not reached the age of reason; therefore, it cannot have faith or conscious commitment; therefore, the baptism of infants is worthless – an external rite that is empty and vacuous. You may as well baptize someone while they are sleeping, or unconscious. So reasoned the Anabaptists.

Before too long, it could be argued, the “rationalism” of the Protestant Reformers contributed to the full-blown skepticism of their secular descendants – the Voltaires, the Diderots.

 

[Portofino]

So…I was on youtube, and I saw this video, and it reminded me of this topic. Thoughts?

youtube.com/watch?v=51cgPwKNg-E

It pretty much blames the decline of Western Civilization on the Protestant Reformation.

What a whirlwind of a video!

His central thesis is that Protestantism has brought western civilization crashing down, through its pernicious notion that man is the sole arbiter of truth.

The problem is that militant Catholics and militant Protestants have been pointing the finger at each other over this selfsame accusation, for the past 500 years or so.

One of the ultimate Protestant reproaches against Catholicism is precisely this: “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.”

Of course, Catholics have the same reproach against Protestants, as this video makes clear – for what was Martin Luther, if not a man? For the militant Protestant, the pope is a man – a man who would place himself and the tradition of his church, on an equal footing with infallible Scripture.

A perhaps more plausible argument I’ve heard, of why Protestantism has led to secularism, is that it was a comparatively rationalist movement (even though Luther would have hated that designation of rationalist). The Protestant was perpetually saying, “this doesn’t make sense; it cannot be rationally justified.” The rejection of transsubstantiation was a case in point. So was the rejection of infant baptism, by the Anabaptists – the external ceremony of baptism has no inherent power, in and of itself, but requires faith in order to have meaning. An infant is not conscious and has not reached the age of reason; therefore, it cannot have faith or conscious commitment; therefore, the baptism of infants is worthless – an external rite that is empty and vacuous. You may as well baptize someone while they are sleeping, or unconscious. So reasoned the Anabaptists.

Before too long, it could be argued, the “rationalism” of the Protestant Reformers contributed to the full-blown skepticism of their secular descendants – the Voltaires, the Diderots.

 

[Contarini]

Was the way in which the Church responded to the Reformation – the way in which it “cleaned house” – inevitable, in the sense that it could not have reacted in any other way? If the reaction of the Church entailed all of the things you described above, I have a hard time believing that its 1500 incarnation, for all of its apparent nuance and diversity, did not suffer from a serious weakness in terms of how it could respond to pluralism (“one holy, catholic, and apostolic church”) and to challenges to its authority.

Certainly the Church of 1500 had serious weaknesses. But I’m not a determinist. I don’t think one can conclude that because certain things happened, therefore they must have happened.

If two cardinals had voted differently in the papal election of 1550, the “evangelical” Reginald Pole would have been elected Pope. That might have made a difference. In 1555, Marcello Cervini–another reformist of a gentler sort than the ones who eventually prevailed–was elected (though to be fair, he cast the only vote against himself and he cast it for Carafa, who would succeed him as Pope and set the tone for the harsher aspects of the Counter-Reformation). He died in less than a month. But he might have lived.

Also, my point is that pluralism was the reality of the 15th century. The Church, in the sense of the hierarchy, didn’t necessarily deal with this very well. But it had no choice. The Reformation gave it a choice. The Reformation lessened pluralism within the Church while increasing it within Europe.

While the post-Vatican II church has done quite well at adapting itself to the reality of religious pluralism, it seems that the church of 1500–while superficially showing the promise of Vatican II in some respects – did not have the internal mechanisms–or the culture–necessary to adapt itself to pluralism and diversity from without. Faced with pluralism, it had a tendency to become repressive.

Of course. It was pretty repressive before the Reformation. I think you have mistaken my meaning.

In my mind, this makes the Reformation even more of a necessity; if the Church could be enlightened, open-minded, and peaceful

News to me. I certainly did not claim that the fifteenth-century Church was peaceful; I don’t generally use the word “enlightened” except when speaking of Buddhism; and it was open-minded in certain ways (the Renaissance Popes favored humanism, for instance) but not in others (vicious persecution of dissenters, etc.)

but only so long as there were never any challenges to its authority, then its authority needed to be challenged in order for the church to grow.

Its authority was challenged plenty throughout the Middle Ages. The Reformation allowed it to become more monolithic than it had been, but of course those tendencies were already there. No dispute there.

Challenging its authority was, seemingly, the only way that the church could learn the lesson of pluralism and of co-existence with diverse viewpoints (even if those viewpoints–in its mind or in reality–were dead wrong).

Again, the point I’m making is that the Church took longer than it might have to learn these lessons. It seems to me that you come to this with your conclusion already settled. There’s no evidence that the confrontation with Protestantism made the Church learn lessons of pluralism and co-existence. Ultimately what made it learn these lessons was the existence of threats that made Protestantism look mild by comparison. . . . Insofar as Protestantism, and/or the repression involved in the conflict with Protestantism, led to secularization, it contributed to this eventual result.

But before there was Luther, there were the Cathars… And if it hadn’t been Luther, it would have been the Jews; or the Muslims (both Jews and Muslims were expelled from Catholic Spain in 1492; nonetheless, Muslims and Jews were tolerated in Christendom, at one time or another). What was never tolerated, until well after Luther, was pluralism in Christianity (not simply inner diversity or richness, but truly opposing viewpoints).

Certainly heresy was less tolerated than non-Christian religions were. But it seems to me that the facts you rehearse above tell against what you have been saying. The Church wasn’t peaceful and “enlightened” (in a modern sense, with regard to pluralism) in the Middle Ages. Perhaps relatively more so than immediately after the Reformation. But I wasn’t claiming that the Middle Ages were an idyll. What I’m claiming is that the Reformation is far more likely to have delayed desirable changes in the Church than to have accelerated them.

Probably we’re looking at this differently because we have very different assumptions about what changes were desirable and with what priority. I’m primarily interested in reforms that allow the Church to be more fully the Church. I agree that given the Church’s failures to learn co-existence with others, the Reformation was ultimately helpful in that respect (though only after centuries)–in traditional language, it was divine judgment on the Church. But none of that changes the fact that there were movements–the work of Erasmus for instance–toward reform within the Church before Luther came along, and that Luther and the other Protestants killed or at least long delayed those kinds of reforms within the Church. It also doesn’t change the fact that there was much less internal diversity in the Church after the Reformation than before. Again, we may just have different values here. You value pluralism–the co-existence of genuinely contradictory points of view. I value diversity in unity as the goal, although of course I condemn coercion as a means of getting there and I recognize that the medieval *and *early modern Church used coercion, and that that was an abomination.

Edwin

 

[Portofino]

Certainly the Church of 1500 had serious weaknesses. But I’m not a determinist. I don’t think one can conclude that because certain things happened, therefore they must have happened.

Thanks for those thoughts, Edwin. Have I mentioned, or made clear, that I much prefer Erasmus to Luther? I very much appreciated his “Manual for the Christian Soldier.”

I agree with your cautioning against determinism, which is a faulty reading of history. From what I understand, historians caution against this same determinism in those who conclude that Anti-Semitic Nazism was “fated” to occur in Germany, and could have occurred only in Germany, not elsewhere. This is not to discount certain contributing factors to what actually occurred (e.g., Prussian militarism; anti-Semitism; Darwinism; a tradition of romantic and neo-pagan mysticism; German unification and nationalism; the Treaty of Versailles; inflation and the depression).

two cardinals had voted differently in the papal election of 1550, the “evangelical” Reginald Pole would have been elected Pope.

I hear you on this. I just can’t believe it took until Vatican II – over 400 years later – for the vernacular to be admitted into the Mass, or for laity participation in the same. A momentary delay would have been more conceivable – Protestantism setting back the course of “reform” by a few decades, maybe by a century. But by 400 years?

course. It was pretty repressive before the Reformation. I think you have mistaken my meaning.

I regret greatly what happened to the Cathars. The cynical idealist in me wonders to what extent the statement, “the Cathars were a threat to the very fabric of our society, and needed to be stopped” was not really saying, “the Cathars were a threat to those in power.”

to me. I certainly did not claim that the fifteenth-century Church was peaceful; I don’t generally use the word “enlightened” except when speaking of Buddhism; and it was open-minded in certain ways (the Renaissance Popes favored humanism, for instance) but not in others (vicious persecution of dissenters, etc.)

Agreed, word-for word

I wasn’t claiming that the Middle Ages were an idyll. What I’m claiming is that the Reformation is far more likely to have delayed desirable changes in the Church than to have accelerated them.

I hear you on this. As I type this, though, I’m imagining an adult being the arbiter between two quarreling children (a mere analogy). So if the Church were to say, “Luther made me…” the arbiter might interrupt and say, “Luther didn’t ‘make’ you do anything. How you responded to Luther was your choice and your responsibility, not his.”

none of that changes the fact that there were movements–the work of Erasmus for instance–toward reform within the Church before Luther came along, and that Luther and the other Protestants killed or at least long delayed those kinds of reforms within the Church.

Personally speaking, I don’t like Luther very much I find he was terribly, recklessly impulsive – a “loose cannon.” I much prefer some of his predecessors, such John Wycliff or Jan Hus; as well as other of his contemporaries, particularly Zwingli and the early Anabaptists. Zwingli’s more calmly-reasoned arguments are much more congenial to me.

What I most honor in the early Protestants are those who gave some of the earliest articulations of the separation of church and state, and religious tolerance (the Anabaptists, the English Baptists, and the Quakers). Granted, they had a selfish reason for doing so: they were the persecuted religious minority. They had nothing to lose, everything to gain. Or, perhaps, this helped lend the idealism of their position greater clarity, since it was unencumbered.

You value pluralism–the co-existence of genuinely contradictory points of view. I value diversity in unity as the goal, although of course I condemn coercion as a means of getting there

That’s true, I do value those things. Thanks for discerning that certain idealism in my viewpoints On the other hand, the “intra-pluralism” of the Church is truly wonderful to behold. The church seemingly has a place for all temperaments and all talents, for individuals of all stripes. If you would lead a more active, worldly life, there obviously is a place for you as a lay Catholic. You can be a doctor, a lawyer, or a teacher, and still be a good Catholic. If the monastic life is for you, you can become a Dominican, a Franciscan, a Benedictine, among many others, each with a somewhat different culture and ethos; you can lead the vita contemplativa (even taking a vow of silence) or the vita activa (teaching children or young adults, or writing books). You can live in relative wealth and ease, or take a vow of poverty. If you are more intellectually-oriented, you can become a Jesuit; there, the church needs you as an apologist for the faith, to defend her against other skeptical intellectuals who would assail the faith with their arguments. It is like an army, in a way; all manner of weapons are needed, and all manner of service.

I came to a knowledge of Protestantism much later than to a knowledge of Catholicism, but I have my own heroes of the Reformation, as well – Wycliff; Hus; Faustus Socinus; Zwingli; Conrad Grebel and the Anabaptists; John Smyth and the English Baptists; Roger Williams; George Fox and William Penn. I tend to favor the rationalists, as well as the pacifists, and those who advocated separation of church and state and religious tolerance. Luther and Calvin hardly count for me, there; I like those Reformers who were more radical in outlook, more moderate in temperament.

 

[minion]

I’m primarily interested in** reforms that allow the Church to be more fully the Church**. I agree that given the Church’s failures to learn co-existence with others, the Reformation was ultimately helpful in that respect (though only after centuries)–in traditional language, it was divine judgment on the Church.

Could you clarify?

 

[Contarini]

Could you clarify?

Well, among reforms that have now taken place but which I wish had happened earlier, I’d include:

1. Vernacular liturgy
2. Broad Church approval for serious lay reading of Scripture, including vernacular translations
3. The renunciation of the use of the temporal power to repress heresy.

I could name others, but these are three that are relatively uncontroversial today but were considered quite radical in the sixteenth century.

By divine judgment on the Church I mean that because the Church refused to enact needed reforms, and because Church leaders generally behaved in a manner that did not reflect the example of Jesus very well at all, God allowed a terrible schism to occur which produced some good reforms (1 and 2 of the ones I mentioned, and eventually 3 as well) but also great evils, primarily the evil of schism itself.

Edwin

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

:ehh:

well said

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So…I was on youtube, and I saw this video, and it reminded me of this topic. Thoughts?

youtube.com/watch?v=51cgPwKNg-E

It pretty much blames the decline of Western Civilization on the Protestant Reformation.

I watched the video.

Its just the usual (Catholic) traditionalist claims backed up by the usual talking points.

Nothing new, interesting, or remarkable:shrug:

 

[Portofino]

I watched the video.

Its just the usual (Catholic) traditionalist claims backed up by the usual talking points.

Nothing new, interesting, or remarkable:shrug:

Ecumenically-minded, it certainly wasn’t No olive branch there, unless the leaves had fallen off