WestVirginiaRebel
Banned
WI Martin Bucer had been able to jump-start the Reformation in his native Germany, instead of being forced to flee to England as in OTL?
In real life Bucer was a proponent of religious unity and seemed to believe in real reform as opposed to strict interpretation of doctrine.
"If you immediately condemn anyone who doesn't quite believe the same as you do as forsaken by Christ's Spirit, and consider anyone to be the enemy of truth who holds something false to be true, who, pray tell, can you still consider a brother? I for one have never met two people who believed exactly the same thing. This holds true in theology as well."
-Martin Bucer, c. 1530
From Wikipedia:
"Bucer believed that the Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire could be convinced to join the Reformation. Through a series of conferences organised by Charles V, he tried to unite Protestants and Catholics to create a German national church separate from Rome. He did not achieve this, as political events led to the Schmalkaldic War and the retreat of Protestantism within the Empire. In 1548, Bucer was persuaded, under duress, to sign the Augsburg Interim, which imposed certain forms of Catholic worship. However, he continued to promote reforms until the city of Strasbourg accepted the Interim, and forced him to leave.
In 1549, Bucer was exiled to England, where, under the guidance of Thomas Cranmer, he was able to influence the second revision of the Book of Common Prayer. He died in Cambridge, England, at the age of 59. Although his ministry did not lead to the formation of a new denomination, many Protestant denominations have claimed him as one of their own. He is remembered as an early pioneer of ecumenism."
So-what if he had succeeded? Would he have been able to create a kinder, gentler version of Protestantism (no Puritans, for example) if his work had been accepted earlier on?
(I just recently found out about this guy, which was why I was intrigued-any further information from actual Protestants is welcome!
)
In real life Bucer was a proponent of religious unity and seemed to believe in real reform as opposed to strict interpretation of doctrine.
"If you immediately condemn anyone who doesn't quite believe the same as you do as forsaken by Christ's Spirit, and consider anyone to be the enemy of truth who holds something false to be true, who, pray tell, can you still consider a brother? I for one have never met two people who believed exactly the same thing. This holds true in theology as well."
-Martin Bucer, c. 1530
From Wikipedia:
"Bucer believed that the Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire could be convinced to join the Reformation. Through a series of conferences organised by Charles V, he tried to unite Protestants and Catholics to create a German national church separate from Rome. He did not achieve this, as political events led to the Schmalkaldic War and the retreat of Protestantism within the Empire. In 1548, Bucer was persuaded, under duress, to sign the Augsburg Interim, which imposed certain forms of Catholic worship. However, he continued to promote reforms until the city of Strasbourg accepted the Interim, and forced him to leave.
In 1549, Bucer was exiled to England, where, under the guidance of Thomas Cranmer, he was able to influence the second revision of the Book of Common Prayer. He died in Cambridge, England, at the age of 59. Although his ministry did not lead to the formation of a new denomination, many Protestant denominations have claimed him as one of their own. He is remembered as an early pioneer of ecumenism."
So-what if he had succeeded? Would he have been able to create a kinder, gentler version of Protestantism (no Puritans, for example) if his work had been accepted earlier on?
(I just recently found out about this guy, which was why I was intrigued-any further information from actual Protestants is welcome!
Last edited: