Was the rise of Protestantism inevitable?

Yes, Protestantism is inevitable.

Once you start getting a both large and rising merchant class and printing it may well be inevitable.

Reform (which several people have suggested), just won't cut it. Firstly, there have been LOTS of reforms in the Roman church over the centuries, and each lasts about a century before rot sets in again. When the Papacy is the only theological game in town, its monopoly status leads to the problem of monopolies everywhere.

Why, though? As I said in the OP, there doesn't seem to have been any notable correlation between education and turning Protestant, or between turning Protestant and supporting freedom of thought. As for the reform -- degeneration -- reform cycle, that happened to Protestant Churches as well, so I'm not sure why this should give the Protestants an advantage?
 
I’ve seen it claimed a fair few times on these boards that the rise of Protestantism(*) was pretty much inevitable, the reason being that, as literacy increased, the people (or at least the well-off people) would naturally gravitate towards a religion that let them think for themselves rather than one which laid down what was and wasn’t acceptable opinion.

Protestantism was inevitable because eventually people will realize the Catholic church wasn’t following biblical doctrine and there would be a break from the heresy.
 
Protestantism was inevitable because eventually people will realize the Catholic church wasn’t following biblical doctrine and there would be a break from the heresy.

In similar fashion, Protestantism was inevitable, because the devil never rests, and he was bound to try corrupting good Catholics (and probably abused quite a few good men, too, in the process). Can't have a final battle with the antichrist without having unfaithful people.
 
In similar fashion, Protestantism was inevitable, because the devil never rests, and he was bound to try corrupting good Catholics

Ha! ;)

Can't have a final battle with the antichrist without having unfaithful people.

“Er, excuse me, your Popiness, but there’s talk of people beyond our borders with beliefs that state Jesus Christ is, forgive me, boiling in hell. Should we not confront them?”

“NO. CONCENTRATE ALL FIRE ON THE PEOPLE WHO DARE SAY THAT QUEEN MARY HAD MORE CHILDREN!”
 
People make jokes about the Anglican Church being "Catholic Lite".

Some of it, yeah. Than you have Anglicans like my grandparents and aunts and uncles who believe God sent the Divine Wind to sink the Spanish Armada and keep the stain of Popery from English soil, and Cromwell's main problem in Ireland was being too much of a nice guy.. It's a Broad Church, which stretches from almost-Catholic to strongly Protestant.
 
(* Defined for the purposes of this discussion as a belief in sola scriptura and sola fide.)

As defined, no.

As a schism from the Catholic Church, possibly. The pope was becoming more and more a mere Italian prince with a shiny hat than the head of Christendom in the eyes of many Christians.
 
The problem was not Henry VIII, really. He was a pretty big Catholic until the pope throw him in the Protestant camp refusing him a request who normally will granted (and Henry's cause, far from being hopeless, had much more ground than other similar requestes who were granted to other kings). The real reason for the English's schism is who at that time the pope was little more than a puppet in the Emperor's hand and Katherine was at the same time: unable to give to Henry the son England needed, unable to recognize the difference between Spain and England and the aunt of said Emperor. And Katherine's fight had nothing to do with her daughter's status... If Katherine had consented to the annulment Mary will be still regarded as legittimate princess, the King's eldest daughter and heiress presuntive until the birth of a son from Henry's second wife and destined for a royal match. Truly Katherine fight only for her position and her belief who Mary was destined to rule England but in the end Mary's bitter life was more fault of her mother than of her father.
It seems to be a very popular if strange delusion that Henry VIII became a Protestant he did not. He made himself the head of the English Church, by passing the Act of Supremacy. If you like he took the Roman, out of Roman Catholicism and substituted himself for the Pope. Then his Government 'reformed' the Church.
But doctrinaly Henry remained a Catholic, so much so that if you tried to practice Protestantism openly in Henry's England, He would have built you a nice warm fire, and had you burnt on it. Much the same as you got if you were a Catholic who continued to deny the Royal Supremacy.
 
It seems to be a very popular if strange delusion that Henry VIII became a Protestant he did not. He made himself the head of the English Church, by passing the Act of Supremacy. If you like he took the Roman, out of Roman Catholicism and substituted himself for the Pope. Then his Government 'reformed' the Church.
But doctrinaly Henry remained a Catholic, so much so that if you tried to practice Protestantism openly in Henry's England, He would have built you a nice warm fire, and had you burnt on it. Much the same as you got if you were a Catholic who continued to deny the Royal Supremacy.
I never said Henry became a Protestant himself... I know he was not... If you read well i said "protestant camp" or Protestant side with protestant meaning against the Church of Rome and not specifically Lutherans
 
Protestantism was an ideological framework that mixed perfectly with the needs of the rising commercial and financial bourgeoisie (how much does God love me? wait a moment, I check my bank statement :D). With this background, rise of protestantism is inevitable. Had Luther gone around proposing an anti-capitalism ideology like the Catharism, he would have ended on a pile of wood chops very, very quickly.
 
Had Luther gone around proposing an anti-capitalism ideology like the Catharism,

Are you serious? Or knowing anything about Catharism or western dualist churches, actually?
I can't search for the social composition of these in all cities I could for now, but suffice to say that most often associated with Cathars were the usurers, the backbone of medieval financing.
You could count as well merchants (that probably carried dualist beliefs from Italy and Balkans) and craftsmen ("Tisserand" was a common name for heretic at this point).

Basically, the denounciation of material world as a not good creation (there were difference about it being an evil creation or not) ended as "well, money is no more evil than the rest, so as we have to deal with evil for what matter to food or everyday life, we could just deal with it as normally"
Just look at the bishop of Foulques reaction for that.

The efforts to hold on for Weber's theories (long disproven) are quite amazing, especially from people that would shun immediatly any Marxian attempt at historicity.
I mean, so far it's just clichés on clichés without the slightest attempt to look on historical reality or analysis.

The Weberian theory was never able to explain why Protestantism never hugely touched huge financial places as Italy or Mediterranean trade posts, or the quite hugely capitalist southern Netherlands (do I need to recall that Antwerp/Anvers alone realized each year the same profit than Peru?), or why Protestantism touched definitely remote places as Scotland, or why mercantilism appears in France.

People have the right to abide by the "Protestants are more driven by work and money, it's why they're successful and Protestants", but please, don't expect it to be supported by historical analysis.
 
I've been reading the thread with interest, but I don't think there's anything inevitable about Protestantism. The two main problems were (1) religious organizational corruption and (2) rulers getting fed up of a foreign religious leader interfering in their domestic matters.

(1) has existed in plenty of religions around the world and usually hasn't resulted in splits. It could either be ended via reforms inside the church structure, or corruption could be continued but face periodic reform protests by followers, or people could just become gradually less religious without forming another church.

(2) I think is a fairly unique thing to the Catholic world, but there could certainly be other solutions. Either the Popes learn to just not push things too far, or they come to informal arrangements with powerful states that there will be substantial autonomy for national churches, or they lose their land and thus have a lot less secular power anyway.
 
The Weberian theory was never able to explain why Protestantism never hugely touched huge financial places as Italy or Mediterranean trade posts, or the quite hugely capitalist southern Netherlands (do I need to recall that Antwerp/Anvers alone realized each year the same profit than Peru?), or why Protestantism touched definitely remote places as Scotland, or why mercantilism appears in France.

People have the right to abide by the "Protestants are more driven by work and money, it's why they're successful and Protestants", but please, don't expect it to be supported by historical analysis.

It seems like you're touching on two separate questions here:

(1) Why did some places turn Protestant and others not?

(2) Does being Protestant make you more supportive of hard work/money making etc.

The second question has been argued a lot and I'm not particularly interested in going over it here, but I think the first one is more relevant to the subject matter. I have not fully formed my views here, so I am open to persuasion. However, it does seem to me like it was a combination between (a) distance from Rome and (b) trade focus of the economy.

I don't think your example of Scotland is a good one, as it was a very urban, educated and trade-focused economy for most of the population. The rural clannish areas were big in geographic area but small in population share. They also stayed Catholic longer. Your example of Meditteranean ports could be explained by being geographically closer to the centre of the church, and thus, despite the merchant outlook, being either emotionally closer to the church due to proximity, or at least more fearful about disobeying its power. The Southern Netherlands example is a good one, however, so I'd be interested in someone else trying to argue against you.

What I'd like to hear from you, however, is what common factors meant an area was more or less likely to go Protestant.
 
Something equivalent to the Protestant Reformation was inevitable, even if it assumed the form of a more political and nationalistic rebellion against Roman (Southern European) authority. Protestantism was as much an expression of north Germanic, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon nationalism as it was a religious schism. These people were never really part of the Roman Empire, and the Roman Catholic Church was in effect a surviving remnant of that lost empire. The founding of the Church of England is a case in point. The English reformation was almost entirely a national rebellion led by Henry VIII, couched in religious terms. These national rebellions against the perceived corruption of the Roman Catholic church/state hierarchy would have occurred anyway. Luther's theses just gave them a strongly religious cast.
 

Deimos

Banned
Protestantism was an ideological framework that mixed perfectly with the needs of the rising commercial and financial bourgeoisie (how much does God love me? wait a moment, I check my bank statement :D). With this background, rise of protestantism is inevitable. [...]
The syllogismus practicus that you describe is almost exclusively a Calvinist thing and only became popular after a fair amount of time had passed. Many protestants and almost all Lutherans consider this to be a violation of the "sola - tenets" because according to them, the syllogismus practicus is a justification through works and not through God.
 
(1) Why did some places turn Protestant and others not?
It generally have something to do with politics. Distance from Rome can play a part but it's not always that relevant : French Protestants could be found in bigger numbers in the South than in the North, for exemple.

As for trade focus on the economy, it's not systematical : eventually, it all depends who you are trading with.

Let's take the Dutch exemple.

Lutherianism recieved few echoes in Netherlands, while it was a trade and proto-industrial powerhouse.
More interesting is to see Anabatism, which is really not an urban or capitalistic branch of Protestantism, was much popular in Holland.

Eventually, as Reformation was more or less endorsed politically in England, Calvinism found its way in coastal elites (even after the 80 Years war, a significant part of the hinterland remained Catholic)

The mutual relationship between parts of Netherlands and England certainly played a role into the mutual Protestantisation of both, except in parts that were more actively tied with Catholic regions to the point preferring a, far, Spanish rule (League of Arras).

Summarizing it quickly, while economy does play a role, it's not on the equation trade/capitalist => Protestant

It's rather a complex situation where political choice at first allows structurated Protestantism to blossom and to, trough economical relations specifically but not exclusivly, support Protestantisation of different regions where they can find, or not, political support.

Really, that's the main difference between medieval heresies and Protestantism : that you had a political power able and willing to support and endorse them, helping them getting structurated.

(2) Does being Protestant make you more supportive of hard work/money making etc.
This theory is really outdated, and serves nowadays mostly as a way to rationalise a cultural complex of superiority.

I don't think your example of Scotland is a good one, as it was a very urban, educated and trade-focused economy for most of the population.
I'd disagree there : Soctland burghs were undergoing a decline at this point, since the late XVth, complete with monetary debasement. Altough trade was an important part of eastern Scotland economy, pre-industrial features played only a minor role, if at all.

While economy certainly played a role (I never said it didn't, just that it wasn't the decisive factor), I think proximity with England and english trade mcuh more ingrained with continental economy may have been somewhat more important.

Indeed, Protestantism in Scotland mostly passed trough Lowlands, while Highlands burghs (let's be clear I'm not talking about clannish lands there), didn't played a major role.
Basically (I should check, but I don't have my books on Scottish history with me right now, unfortunatly), I think economical relations (based on raw material exports) with England which itself was more "open" may have a role that political endorsment in England greatly facilited.

I'm not sure I'm much clear there, tough, so feel free to criticize me.

What I'd like to hear from you, however, is what common factors meant an area was more or less likely to go Protestant.
Near to a place where a political center endorsed Protestantism, and having economical/political/cultural links with this center.

I'll again use the French exemple to point how the protestant centers were often situated on Bourbon-Albret lands. But you can find similar cases in Germany.

As you said, proximity with Rome could (altough not directly) play a role, which is pointing there again to a huge political factor.
 
Something equivalent to the Protestant Reformation was inevitable, even if it assumed the form of a more political and nationalistic rebellion against Roman (Southern European) authority. Protestantism was as much an expression of north Germanic, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon nationalism as it was a religious schism. These people were never really part of the Roman Empire, and the Roman Catholic Church was in effect a surviving remnant of that lost empire. The founding of the Church of England is a case in point. The English reformation was almost entirely a national rebellion led by Henry VIII, couched in religious terms. These national rebellions against the perceived corruption of the Roman Catholic church/state hierarchy would have occurred anyway. Luther's theses just gave them a strongly religious cast.

Henry VIII's Reformation was almost entirely a top-down affair, though. Far from being an outlet for pent-up nationalistic resentment, the Break with Rome resulted in a huge rebellion which was only defeated through Henry's treachery. (He pretended to give in to their demands, then when they went home swept in and executed the leaders.)
 

Deleted member 67076

Yes, Protestantism is inevitable.

Once you start getting a both large and rising merchant class and printing it may well be inevitable.

Reform (which several people have suggested), just won't cut it. Firstly, there have been LOTS of reforms in the Roman church over the centuries, and each lasts about a century before rot sets in again. When the Papacy is the only theological game in town, its monopoly status leads to the problem of monopolies everywhere.

This raises the question of what would happen to *Protestantism should Orthodoxy remain prominent?
 
Yes, Protestantism is inevitable.

Once you start getting a both large and rising merchant class and printing it may well be inevitable.

Reform (which several people have suggested), just won't cut it. Firstly, there have been LOTS of reforms in the Roman church over the centuries, and each lasts about a century before rot sets in again. When the Papacy is the only theological game in town, its monopoly status leads to the problem of monopolies everywhere.
I'm going to say I strongly disagree with you, but kudos for actually bringing an argument of historical models and social issues more than religious dogma like last time.

Again, as others have pointed out, there were many places with rising or already dominant merchant classes in the Catholic world such as Italy, and those places had remarkably little penetration of any Protestant (as defined as schismatic/sola fide/biblical "literalist" focus) dogma.

Now, on the other hand, the argument that there was a major revolt in the making of some kind because of Rome's status as a monopoly has some credit, if only because there was a perception in many places, particularly the halls of power of German nobles, that the monopoly wasn't in their favor.

Attempts at an English/Gallican church as a revolt against perceived political bias or influence are not inevitable, but certainly probable. The same could be said of a distinct theological dispute, that it is possible and seems likely that someone will try it, but there is little evidence that either approach is inevitable and will last in a meaningful capacity as separate from a Roman Catholic Church's rival as in OTL.

By your logic, any and every religion should have fractured immensely the minute economic capitalism and a wider literacy rate. This is not born out anywhere but OTL's unique example of western Protestantism, which was, again, hardly inevitable in its current form.
 
Protestantism such as it is wasn't inevitable, but either a big reform of the Church (which is hard to see happening seens those in position to work for one such would be the ones losing the most), both in terms of the Chruchs strength as a monocultural (Italian) cultural behemoth claiming continental power, Chruchs strength within each of the dozens if not hunderds of semi-independent (in the case of HRE) nations of Europe, to the distaste of the nobility, royality and the growing merchantile middle class, and the Chruchs looting its laymen via Indulgences. If these mountain sized issues aren't handled, some splintering (even if 'reversing' into multiple competing papacies) is near impossible to avoid.

I think that's the cnetre of the issue here. I agree that something had to change and rCC as an instituion was too big and too bureaucratic to accept change easily. So it would need to be forced to do so and that would fail because of two reasons:
-too big to have everything torn down and rebuilt
-once people established their own power why bother with changing more, specially as that looks like actual work?

I think that if RCC doens't undergo significant internal reformation then spintering is almost inevitable. It's of course possible that RCC is different organisation in 16th century but that requires significant (series of) POD(s) much earlier.

I can see cycles in the history of the Church. A big heresy appear, many people are converted to this new heresy, it becomes noticeable, the heresy try to change the church, the church dont change, there is a council, the heresy is condemned but some reforms are made, the church fight the heresy, the heresy disappears or becomes irrelevant, some time passes, another big heresy appear.

The only exceptions that I can see are the arians, the albigensians and protestants. But all of them found the grace of governments.

To be more simple, the survival of a heresy is a matter of will of the state.

Interestingly enough, recently soembody remarked that church goes through massive shake up ever 500 or so yaers. After establishemnt as state church you first have Great Schism, then protestant revolution and now it's time for new one.
 
Top