No reformation

[rcduggan]

what would it take for there to be no protestant reformation?

 

[Epimethius]

Interesting idea umm, first off, Roman Catholicism would have to be more of a religion of the people, and not the nobility, as one of the main reason that the reformation succeeded as well as it did was that the Catholic church was corrupt, especially in Germany, where bishops were not only religious figures but political figures as well, controlling some pretty rich principalities and acting more like nobles then men of the cloth. Second you'd have to have a church that acknowledges the developing educational and scholarly revolution as well as the development of national counciousness and adapts itself accordingly.

 

[Philip]

Interesting idea umm, first off, Roman Catholicism would have to be more of a religion of the people, and not the nobility,

I am not sure what you mean by this. The rank and file tended to be quite loyal to the Church. The real problem was the struggle for temporal power between the Church and the earthly rulers, especially German Princes. It was the nobility, not the peasants, that were disloyal.

as one of the main reason that the reformation succeeded as well as it did was that the Catholic church was corrupt, especially in Germany, where bishops were not only religious figures but political figures as well,

This is true in France, Spain, and England as well. The reason the Reformation succeeded in the HRE is that the princes were rebellious. The Reformation in England did not succeed until the king jumped on board. The Reformation did not succeed in Spain because the nobles remained loyal to the Church.

Second you'd have to have a church that acknowledges the developing educational and scholarly revolution

This would be helpful, but is not necessary. The Church had weathered such storms before. If the Church had stronger political control in the HRE, any calls for reform based on scientific advances would be squashed.

as well as the development of national counciousness and adapts itself accordingly.

This didn't come for a couple hundred more years.

 

[Epimethius]

Hate to disagree with you phillip but it was already in the works, especially in the netherlands where increasing merchant wealth, combined with a well educated middle class produced enough perhaps proto national counciousness (i think im willing to give you that much, that true national counciousness does not develop until the early 1700's overall) that an entire nation stuck together to weather some pretty brutal and long seiges during the Dutch Revolt. The reformation found fertile ground in the middle classes, the princes of Germany joined only after they saw the rising support it had in the merchants from whom they drew the majority of their taxes from. Combine this with a newly found religous fervour and a desire for more independence from a fairly strong and foreign emperor and you have princes joining. The proto reformers, the Waldenses of France and the Hussites of Bohemia found the majority of their support in a literate merchant class and a literate and increasingly wealthy free farming class. The reformation was a lower class phenomena. Those at the top of the heap wouldnt try to rock the boat, while those who were just becoming aware of the world around them and the injustices they found there had more to gain and less to lose if they embraced a faith that in the end came to echoe and reinforce the values that they themselves were embracing to get a head.

 

[ljofa]

The Black Death was crucial to the development of genuine Protestantism as it caused many monks and nuns to succumb to the plague thus crushing the fantasy that illness was caused by godliness. Of course it didn't help the RC church that the survivors were generally of the questionning sort who liked nothing better than to challenge the status quo.

The Great Schism was really the first blow the Catholic Church took, followed by the general failure of the Middle Eastern Crusades (as opposed to those waged in eastern and Baltic Europe which were successful by comparison). The Mongol invasions did their bit to erode faith subsequently succeeded by the Black Death and then the general fallout from the Great Western Schism.

I think all of these events have to be removed from the timelines or at the very least be altered drastically so that the Catholic Church smash any signs of dissent or foreign presence. Protestantism grew from a general sense of dissatisfaction with the Church and the whole doctrine of Predestination - that the fate of man in the afterlife was decided from birth. Who wants to hear that they're going to hell but devote your life to the many tenets of Catholicism and it might not be so bad?

The English, Welsh and Scots were also generally restive against the authority of Rome as the English, Scottish and Welsh Catholic Churches evolved without any Roman influence and any allegience was tenuous at best so the Vatican would need to extend its tendrils into the British Isles. Being on the extremities of Europe gave the natives a lot more leeway.

Also the role of printing did give Catholicism a swift kick in the family jewels with bibles being printed outside the control of monasteries.

 

[Atreus]

As I rcall, there was a series of 6 notably corrupt popes just before the reformation. Their actions, such as the building of Saint Peters, set the stage for Luther. On the other hand, there were 2 men who, if elected or kept in office, might have changed the course of the church. One was Marco Balbo of Venice, known for his high character and scruples, who came within five votes of being confirmed as pope. However, the two main challengers united behind Giovanni Cibo, who became Innocent VIII. The other was Pius III, whose first act upon taking office was to declare he would reform the papacy. However, he died after holding office for 26 days. I think that is a record. Anyways, he was serious. I think if Pius III survives, then reform is likely, and the reformation may be stillbourne.

Another possibility is no sack of Rome. There are several ways this can happen, but I cannot remember the specifics. Something about the Pope's best general dying during a skirmish, and the German cannons almost not arriving. Anyway, this means that the papacy is not so much under the Hapsbugh's thumb, so he may Grant Henry VIII a divorce. That removes the formation of Anglicanism.

 

[Philip]

Hate to disagree with you phillip but it was already in the works,

Already in the works at what point? 1500? 1400? 1300? You really need to be more specific here.

especially in the netherlands where increasing merchant wealth, combined with a well educated middle class produced enough perhaps proto national counciousness

This just illustrates my point. Stronger control of Low Countries by the nobility of the HRE or France would have prevented this. Reducing the Church's political control in the Low Countries only accelerates reformationist ideals.

that an entire nation stuck together to weather some pretty brutal and long seiges during the Dutch Revolt.

Are you referring to the Eighty Years' War? This started in 1568. This is fifty years after the beginning of the Reformation. Indeed, much of the unity of the Dutch during this war a result of the Reformation, not the cause.

The reformation found fertile ground in the middle classes, the princes of Germany joined only after they saw the rising support it had in the merchants from whom they drew the majority of their taxes from.

Really? How strong was Lutheranism in the middle classes of Germany when Frederick III of Saxony offered Luther sanctuary?

You are right that taxes play a role, but you have them playing the wrong one. The princes who joined the Schmalkaldic League wanted to keep the taxes they collected in their own lands. They did not want to send the taxes on to the Empire or Rome. This is even more true for the imperial cities that joined.

The proto reformers, the Waldenses of France and the Hussites of Bohemia found the majority of their support in a literate merchant class and a literate and increasingly wealthy free farming class.

Again, you are supporting my position. Both of these were crushed by the Church making use of the nobility. Had the Church been able to do the same to Luther, there is no Reformation.

The reformation was a lower class phenomena.

This is manifestly wrong. (We can skip the fact that it contradicts your earlier claim that the Reformation was a wealthy middle class phenomenon.) Consider the leaders of the Reformation:

1. Luther: His father was a leaseholder for mines (copper, I think). His father sat on the local council and was able to pay for the education of his son. Not lower class.
2. Calvin: He was a lawyer as his father was. He was educated at the University of Paris. Not lower class.
3. Zwingli: His father was chief magistrate of Wildhaus. Not lower class.
4. Bullinger: Son of the dean of a church. Educated at the University of Cologne. Not lower class.
5. Knox: He was a priest educated at the University of Glasgow (although he may not have graduated).
6. Muntzer: A Catholic priest. Although he was a leader of the Peasants' War, he was not a peasant himself. Don't forget that Luther condemned Muntzer's actions in order to convince the nobles that Reformation did not mean 'replace the nobles'.
7. Simons: He is of peasant stock, but without the influence of Luther and Bullinger, he probably would not have developed his views.
8. Viret: His parents were poor, but he was educated by those sympathetic to Lutheranism.

See a pattern?

 

[Philip]

The other was Pius III, whose first act upon taking office was to declare he would reform the papacy. However, he died after holding office for 26 days. I think that is a record. Anyways, he was serious. I think if Pius III survives, then reform is likely, and the reformation may be stillbourne.

Agreed. His reforms were likely to keep the nobles happy. With the secular powers in line with the Church, the Reformation has no support and sputters out like so many before.

 

[BrotherToAll]

Yet reform in the Church was inevitable I think that what we know as the counter reformation would still happen and maybe have more effect because at this poit there was movement within the Church to weed out corruption and many bishops, cardianals, priests, and monks died at the hands of nobles, and kings who wished to control the populace through the Church infact many clergy supported reform in the Church its just that those men even though the majority did not have the backing of kings or armies at their beck and call but reform in the Church still would have come maybe even sooner without the Protestant Reformation. Also in places like the Polish-Lithuanian Common Wealth the Church supported scientific growth and exploration also oddly enough they also supported the idea of an educated peasantry.

 

[Max Sinister]

@ljofa: Eastern Europe and the Muslim world suffered much more under the Mongols than western Europe. So why didn't they reform their religions then?