Could one have prevented Protestantism?
Could one have prevented Protestantism?
Nathaniel Mitchell
Other urls found in this thread:
Hudson Thompson
If Julian succeeded in stamping out state sanctioned christianity. then they wouldn't have had such a centralized system to rebel against
Carter Cox
Yeah, the Jews by not writing the Bible.
Bentley Cox
Everything is determined so no
Ian Roberts
proof?
Jace Sanders
Possibly, but it would have been a gigantic undertaking. It would have meant a massive, unprecedented reform and restructuring within the Medieval Church at no later than the 13th century. For one, the translation of the Bible into vernacular and the allowance of mass in local languages, a voluntary divorce from temporal matters on part of the Church (yeah, right), making certain beliefs/traditions (relics, saints, etc.) to be "optional", as in the Anglican church, which has its High and Low traditions that believers are free to choose from, reducing the outward displays of wealth and opulence both in Church buildings and by the clergy, and investigating corruption and weeding it out.
Of course, these would be impossible, hence why in our world and timeline, the Protestant Reformation occurred.
Ian Evans
They're mostly right, really.
Except Sola Fide and editing the Bible to support the blatantly false notion, the filthy heretics. But I kinda understand that, too, because catholicism has a horribly legalistic way of looking at sin, which does not exactly feel like Jesus's teachings.
Christopher White
these dubs
Lincoln Myers
What books were taken out from the bible by protestants?
Evan Barnes
damn it so close to trips
Juan Jackson
en.wikipedia.org
>Luther did not include the deuterocanonical books in his Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read".[4] He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of the Book of Esther from the canon to the Apocrypha, because without the deuterocanonical additions to the Book of Esther, the text of Esther never mentions God. As a result, Protestants and Catholics continue to use different canons, which differ both in respect to the Old Testament and in the concept of the Antilegomena of the New Testament.
>Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]
"If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times".[1] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident "that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon".[1]
Also he added "alone" after "saved by faith" in the Romans iirc. Don't hold me on that, though.
Zachary Murphy
Really fudged the formatting on that one.
en.wikipedia.org
>Luther did not include the deuterocanonical books in his Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read".[4] He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of the Book of Esther from the canon to the Apocrypha, because without the deuterocanonical additions to the Book of Esther, the text of Esther never mentions God. As a result, Protestants and Catholics continue to use different canons, which differ both in respect to the Old Testament and in the concept of the Antilegomena of the New Testament.
>Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5] "If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times".[1] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident "that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon".[1]
Also he added "alone" after "saved by faith" in the Romans iirc. Don't hold me on that, though.
Brayden Edwards
Kek has forsaken you.
Christopher Martinez
Yes, if Catholicism had remained faithful to the Gospel.
Zachary Reed
>
Isaiah Fisher
Ignore , I have no reading comprehension.
Nolan Bailey
You are now aware the the protestant reformation was a near-inevitable consequence of Gutenberg's contraption, and the spread of literacy. This lead to more people being able to actually read the bible in their own tongue. If it wasn't Luther, it would have been someone else who would have called the papists on their bullshit.
That is all.
Levi Bell
Catholicism was a mistake.
Adam Rodriguez
Yes, if the Pope accepted he was just another Patriarch.
Sebastian Long
yep
the pope could've
Protestantism was a consequence of the papacy trying to be more secular rulers than clerical ones
Josiah Garcia
But, as i see, not you...
Dominic Martin
That and being far too excommunication happy.
Noah Butler
Jesus is Lord.
Austin Evans
Catharism was prevented so why not
Jordan Campbell
If the French were exterminated than Protestantism wouldn't survive the 30 Years War. Unfortunately this unpopular opinion goes against every Francophiles preconceived notions that French were good Catholics and saviors of Europe
Carson Thompson
All of it was a mistake. Constantine was a meme emperor. Should've fed all your asses to the lions while he had the chance.