Why did protestants abandon Christian monasticism?

Why?

There's a monastic order in Taize started by Protestants if anyone is interested

Monks did a lot of preaching, outside of their other activities

prayerfoundation.org/brief_history_protestant_monasticism.htm
>By 2008: There are estimated to be over 100 groups in North America claiming to be both "Evangelical" and "Monastic"
celticevangelicalmonasticsociety.org/faq/

Yes, people taking vows of silence preach volumes.

How gay does something have to be before you stop defending it?

>claiming

you do know entire orders of monks were founded to proselytise right

are you claiming their aren't proddie monks

Not all monks were trappist monks. which you would know if you got your information from books rather than movies

Different orders of monks had different rules and different goals. Besides the fact before printing presses if you wanted a bible or some other Christian writings a monastery is probably where it came from

They didn't.

There's a late 16th century writer who described seeing it happen in his childhood, with pages of handwritten Bibles and manuscripts fluttering like fallen leaves, having been ripped out of their covers and bindings and left behind.

taize.fr/en_article6525.html

>They had their fingers in everything didn't they?
What do you mean?

Albrecht was the first Duke of Prussia. The Hohenzollers up to Willy 2 were his successors (not in a straight male line though due to the Brandenburg merger a few generations later).

He was the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order and spent the first few years of his tenure assuring the pope that he was fighting against the Protestant rot supposedly spreading among the Order's top brass. Secretly, he was the one spreading it.

Then he basically self-couped: he broke with the Catholic Church by officially converting to Lutheranism and declared himself a hereditary monarch of the former Teutonic Order's lands. He avoided any major consequences by immediately swearing fealty to the King of Poland (his uncle), who was in on the conspiracy.

tl;dr: Prussia was LITERALLY founded on stealing from the Catholic Church.

>Prussia was LITERALLY founded on stealing from the Catholic Church.
Literally nothing wrong with stealing from the Catholic Church back then.

how do you become a protestant monk?

A kind warning that not everything that says it is X is actually X.

>proddy monks don't exist

Actually, you just didn't get one. It was chained to the pulpit in a Jesuit stronghold guarded by soldiers, just so you couldn't read it.

And if you did sneak a copy in your own language, guaranteed some Jesuit would find it, burn it, and kill your family.

Is a complete and utter ignorance regarding History a prerequisite to posting here?

And the Catholic Church was founded on the stealing of land via the fraudulent and forged Donation of Constantine.

Or didn't they teach you that in Jesuit school?

>there's nothing g wrong with taking institutions that had educated children, fed the poor and healed the sick for more than a thousand years, stealing everything you possibly can up to the lead from the roofs, torturing to death anyone who resists and leaving the rest to rot. All so you can cram more pies into your gaping maw and have more sluts run up and down your cock.
>Oh and those poor people? Make it illegal for them to be poor, have them whipped and let them starve.

It certainly might have seemed so to a young nobleman sworn to celibacy and the thankless job of administering a monastic realm, especially with a Wormtongue like Luther at his side whispering that he should steal it all for himself and start a dynasty.

Must have been the same for the state who saw a taxless, power hungry organisation gobble up more and more land for itself.

>posts pseudohistory bordering on conspiracy theory
>calls others ignorant of history

You are now aware that privately owned bibles were all over the place throughout the medieval world, including in the vernacular? With the majority of surviving examples being privately held rather than church copies?

>Implying they only took it to live a more luxurious life
>Implying the monastries wasn't leeching on society more than they were aiding to it

some of Erasmus' criticisms of monasticism:

>that, in withdrawing from the world into their own communal life, they elevated man-made monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience above the God-given vows of sacramental baptism; and elevated man-made monastic rules for religious life above the God-given teachings of the Gospels;

>that, notwithstanding exceptional communities of genuine austere life and exemplary charity, the overwhelming majority of abbeys and priories were havens for idle drones; concerned only for their own existence, reserving for themselves an excessive share of the commonwealth's religious assets, and contributing little or nothing to the spiritual needs of ordinary people;

>that the monasteries, almost without exception, were heavily involved in promoting and profiting from the veneration of relics, in the form of pilgrimages and purported miraculous tokens. The cult of relics was by no means specific to monasteries, but Erasmus was scandalised by the extent to which well-educated and highly regarded monks and nuns would participate in the perpetration of obvious frauds against gullible and credulous lay believers.

Henry VIII litterally suppressed the monestaries to get their money and to give their lands to his nobles to gain their support.

>Transferred the land to people loyal to him rather than a Italian a some hundreds of miles away
good on him

>it's good for a king to destroy the one thing supporting his lowliest subjects and allowing them to starve, in order to litterally feed his own face

>implying monastries weren't fat sons of nobles themselves eating themselves fat on the peasant's hard labor
>Forgetting the Tudors introduced poverty relief

Face it, it was just as justified as the viking raids on monastries were.

Yeah, the Tudors, not THAT Tudor.

Monks being all third rate nobility is something of a meme.

Vikers would not vike monasteries if there was nothing worth viking

ora

et

labora

Die lying scum. So clearly talking about a time from 325 AD to the Reformation.

“Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should
not be permitted to have the books of the Old or
New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having
any translation of these books.”
– The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD
Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe,
Scolar Press, London, England
copyright 1980 by Edward Peters,
ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195

Men who live to indulge the flesh are the same as men who live to deny the flesh; they both live in the flesh.

Men of God live in the Spirit, not the flesh.

Hey, papist scum. Any thoughts on this "infallible" utterance?

The Council of Tarragona of 1234,
in its second canon, ruled that:

“No one may possess the books of the Old
and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses
them he must turn them over to the local bishop
within eight days, so that they may be burned…”
– The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD;
2nd Cannon – Source : D. Lortsch,
Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.

It wasn't that many tudors to begin with.
And now x% didn't go straight to the coffins of the popes.

Of course.
Anti terrorism isn't free.

>Implying the Catholic Church wasn't throughouthly corrupt at the time

tired yet, Jesuit victim? How about this one? The bible on the forbidden list?

“Opened on Thursday alongside the Inquisition
archives was the infamous Index of Forbidden Books,
which Roman Catholics were forbidden to read
or possess on pain of excommunication. They showed
that even “the Bible” was once on the blacklist.
Translations of the holy book ended up on the bonfires
along with other “heretical” works…The Index
of Forbidden Books and all excommunications relating
to it were officially abolished in 1966. The Inquisition
itself was established by Pope Gregory IX in 1233….”
-Vatican archives reveal Bible was once banned book
By Jude Webber
ROME, Jan 22, 1998 (Reuters)

>>it's good for a king to destroy the one thing supporting his lowliest subjects and allowing them to starve, in order to literally feed his own face

The issue is they weren't doing that, less than 5% of their enormous wealth was spent on charity whats more they even were muscling in on resources collected by local parishes.

There is a reason why there was no great outcry from the masses when this happened

What was that you said again about the medieval times?

“Whoever reads or has such a translation in his
possession… cannot be absolved from his sins
until he has turned in these Bibles…Books in the vernacular dealing with the controversies between Catholics and the heretics of our time are not to be generally permitted, but are to be handled in the same way as Bible translations…”
– Rule IV & Rule VI
Die Indices Librorum Prohibitorum des sechzehnten
Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1886), page 246f.
Source: The Reformation, by Hans J. Hillerbrand,
copyright 1964 by SCM Press Ltd and Harper and Row,Inc.,
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-15480,
pages 474, 475.

the thing that matters is that they weren't translated so only the rich could read them, rich who gladly allied the Church as long as it benefited them to some degree.

I guess that means all those hundreds of medieval Bibles, Psalters, Prayer Books, Books of Hours, etc etc etc just don't exist then.

searcharchives.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?ct=facet&fctN=facet_local6&fctV=English&rfnGrp=1&rfnGrpCounter=1&dscnt=0&vl(1UI0)=contains&vl(drStartMonth3)=00&vl(1UI2)=contains&tab=local&dstmp=1480467736865&srt=rank&vl(boolOperator0)=AND&mode=Advanced&&indx=1&vl(4961882UI2)=any&vl(47200252UI4)=all_items&vl(freeText0)=Bible&vl(2604854UI1)=any&fn=search&vid=IAMS_VU2&vl(freeText2)=&vl(boolOperator2)=AND&vl(drEndMonth3)=00&vl(drStartYear3)=1230&vl(1UI1)=contains&frbg=&vl(boolOperator1)=AND&ct=search&dum=true&vl(drEndDay3)=00&vl(drEndYear3)=1540&Submit=Search&vl(drStartDay3)=00&vl(2126785UI0)=any&vl(freeText1)=

what is the point of being a monk?

this isn't the dark or medieval ages anymore. we don't need a bunch of people hand copying books.

Cool hastily Googled quotes with half the content and context ripped away.

And yet the British Library alone has litterally hundreds of personal Bibles from the Late Medieval and Early Modern period

>Christian monasticism
Where is that in the bible again?

Apart from that Pilgrimage of Grace thing.

But they were translated.

Which involved a bunch of things apart from fat monks being torn from their land.

Read Wycliffe

What is the point of you being alive? It's not like we need you to post stupid shit all the time.

But that was ONE of the things.

>No one may possess the books of the Old
>and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses
>them he must turn them over to the local bishop
>within eight days, so that they may be burned
There is no context in which this is not evil and anti-Christian

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Toulouse
"We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

LARPing

>Organisation claiming to bring on the works of a man living without wealth
>Becomes the richest organisation in Europe, becoming the biggest landowner in at least a few countries

Don't try to change the subject. You were trying to claim noone owned a Bible and they were all locked up under guard of anachronistic "Jesuit soldiers", which is patently false.

Not that guy, but why did you cut out "in the Romance language" from the D. Lortsch quote?

>"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion."

We are talking about the Cathar heresy in aftermath of the Albigensian crusade here.

The Index of the Forbidden Books () didn't ban "the Bible" either; it banned translations not accepted by the Church.

Fuck The Babylonian Catholic Church
>tiny Dutchy
>making enemies with all surrounding enemies for greed

To minimise your exposure to sin and max your chances of getting into heaven

>Prussia was LITERALLY founded on stealing from the Catholic Church.
Nicene Christianity was LITERALLY founded on stealing from the Roman Empire.

>own bible
>get burned at stake

It's almost as if he's deliberately editing those quotes to line up with his own viewpoints, rather than what actually happened, or something...

>325 AD
Nicaea?

Care to cite examples of those two things happening, with no other factors involved? Or how that lines up with the hundreds of medieval Bibles still extant?

It was illegal to translate scripture into vulgar tongues and was also condemned by the Church. This is a historical fact.

And yet it happened.

>Or how that lines up with the hundreds of medieval Bibles still extant?
A bible in a language no one but clergy can speak is no bible

Yes, by proto-Protestants

are NEETs like monks?

>making enemies with all surrounding enemies for greed

Poland and Lithuania (in a personal union at the time) were the nascent Prussia's only neighbour (encircling it entirely) and their ruler was Albrecht's uncle who supported the coup.

NEETs are undisciplined. Monks, if they are doing their jobs right, are extremely disciplined

WE

It's a fact that Albert did it out of faith, and not greed. Catholics simply need historical revisionism to survive.

>he thinks only clergy spoke Latin
>only my increadibly selective interpretation of X is really X

If you bothered to follow that BL link, you'd find several language options available in the filters. The third actual entry should be Egerton MS 618, a 15th century Wycliffite (English language) Bible.

There were two vernacular translations before the Reformation, the Wycliffe bible and the Hussite bible. It's also possible there was a French translation produced by the Waldensians, but there simply was no Catholic translation.

>determinism and Calvinism et al
where is that in the bible?

>determinism
Logical conclusion from god being both almighty and omnipotent.

Most people who could read read and wrote in Latin. It was the lingua Franca until well after the reformation

Where are you getting this idea that peasants had the ability/money to read anyway

Which was over the enforcement of a protestant state religion and property laws+ taxes with Monks only being a minor component of this.

Another fun fact Monasteries owned over 16% of all English land

>>he thinks only clergy spoke Latin
Only the scholars monks and priests spoke Latin.
>>only my increadibly selective interpretation of X is really X
What?
>Wycliffite
John Wycliffe was a proto-reformer who's teachings were declared anathema by the RCC. His followers were called Lollards, not Wycliffites.

John 6, Romans 9 and the entire Old Testament

>Most people who could read read and wrote in Latin.
Enough literate people who couldn't speak Latin existed for Rome to fear them reading the bible. If so few literate people couldn't speak Latin, then why did Rome ban vernacular bibles?

No.

That's you.

WE WUZ LOLLARDS AND SHEIT. Also Wycliffite and Lollard mean litterally the same thing.

>That's you.
What's me?
>WE WUZ LOLLARDS AND SHEIT.
It's an accepted historical fact. Wycliffe and the Lollards taught the Solas.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformers#Precursors

When you bother to actually look it up, they didn't fear people reading the Bible. They feared any old heretic writing whatever they wanted and passing it off as the actual Bible.

You know, kind of how today anyone can write a conspiracy theory and pass it off as a history book.

They couldn't find it in the bible and couldn't find a way to separate it from the Catholic Church. It was a way of removing church presence from Protestant land as well.

Good for them. Yet the point remains. Bibles were freely available. In multiple languages. Not chained up under anachronistic guard.

>When you bother to actually look it up, they didn't fear people reading the Bible.
Yes they did. They recognized their power and wealth came from a religous monopoly that would vanish if the common man could interpret scripture.
>They feared any old heretic writing whatever they wanted and passing it off as the actual Bible.
I didn't know the Reformation produced the Joseph Smith Version
>Bibles were freely available
Yes, in spite of the Catholic attempts to remove them.

Hey wolfie did you end up finishing that pastebin response to East Orthodoxy?

A Bible being casually mentioned in personal correspondence between minor gentry and a servant.

But noone owned them and they were all locked up by time travelling Jesuits.

Just proddies bowing to their usurer masters like always

...