Tradition is bad

>1525

None of these were Reformation principles. Not one. Go back and do the reading.

This is also simplistic and false. On all three points. None of these persons/groups would have owned these statements.

>Puritans went far as to ban Christmas.
They did so on the basis that what was acceptable in public worship must be normed by Scripture, either explicitly or by good and necessary consequence. They found no reason in the earliest church traditions to celebrate Christmas either. For the same reasons as the Orthodox, they also rejected instruments, holding that worship was to be conducted in chant or song, a cappella. Most of Christendom finds this position to be extreme and anti-tradition. The Puritans were also a somewhat more radical example among Protestants. You can find certain key celebrations in the church year in most Reformed liturgies.

The pope shouldn't have been selling indulgences to fund his wars and opulent palaces

Luther is a reactionary person

That said, the revolts that came about the reformation destroyed many valuable artifacts, monasteries and churches.

(((valuable)))

They might have. They all died 500 years ago.

We're Christians. Always have been, since 32 AD.

Unsullied by Rome. Or in your case, Constantinople.

>tradition is bad
>hierarchy is bad
>individualism is paramount

These are all true, fuck off collectivist.

>make a thread about "protestants"
>b-b-but I actually meant puricucks
Nice backpedaling

How can you not know that all Christians are saints, sanctified by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, and "set apart" from the world?

If you don't know that, how can you say you are saved?

>Orthodox

Sorry.
t. Christ-hating diet Catholic

>tradition is bad
Tradition isn't bad, so long as it doesn't superceed scripture, or be the basis of the entire church.

>inb4 we place scripture and tradition on equal footing! Even though we also believe that scripture is the product of tradition!

Protestants are literally wahhabis

Pretty sure wahhabis are muslims.

>iconoclasts
>hates the clergy class and prefer independent reinterpretation
>kills heretics with a higher casualty to population percentage than the inquisition
>some relies on heathen supports
Not quite different desu

Except that entire Jesus Christ being the lord and savior part but don't let such an insignificant detail distract you.

Jesus is a prophet in Quran too.

He's not a prophet in the Bible, he's literally God.

The Orthodox Church they introduced some revolutionary ideas,

>tradition is bad
People should be allowed to use contraception, remarry (but only up to three times), we should almost only use liturgies created 400-500 years after Christ (because what were those early Christians thinking) and Chalcedon was wrong until Justin I enforced the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople (but its okay he 100 million of us still venerate him)

>hierarchy is bad
>individualism is paramount

We are a strong and independent Church who don't need no Pope

> your ideology is all that matters, virtue is unimportant

Tyranical Tzars and Sultans, not reading the bible? Absolutely fine by us long as you sit through our services once a week, kiss these pictures and dont eat when we tell you to.

>formalism

Anything the Church Fathers say is true even when it goes against the bible or Church Fathers we don't like.

Oh When you die you will have to visit demons in toll booths who will test you.

There is no real similarity. Wahhabism's emphasis was on a strict theology of God by which they measured and found wanting the vast majority of the Islamic world. Protestantism's doctrine of God was right in line with, indeed pretty much a direct continuation of, the theology of the medieval church. Protestantism did end up having issues with areas of the nature of church authority, tradition vs. Scripture, and canon law, whereas the Wahhabis were fairly traditional scholars of the Hanbali school of fiqh.

If you wanted to find a "christian" analog to Wahhabism, you'd have to imagine something like a Westboro Baptist Church-style movement, and make them much, much more violent, and then give them support of a major world government. So really, you don't have anything like that.

>something like a Westboro Baptist Church-style movement
"something like a Westboro Baptist Church-style movement, but much more Catholic," is what I meant to say. Sort of like WBC meets SSPX or the more radical OCC types.

Evangelicalism, fundamentalism and other non-mainline Protestant movements are the outgrowth of radical reformation sects. Calvinists were considered radicals during the Reformation. Anglicanism was developed under the influence of Calvinism.
Even in previous ages you had divisions for similar reasons like all the so called heresies and iconoclasm and such. The modern Assyrian Church of the East doesn't make much use of icons if any or of the term theotocos. By comparison Orthodox Christians tend to avoid use of three dimensional religious artwork like crucifixes and statues.

Anbaptists were pretty radical and slaughtered clergy and expelled Catholics during the Münster Rebellion and held to all sorts of fanatical millennialist beliefs.

Sure, although Anabaptists didn't really see much state support. That's one of the things that distinguishes them from the "magisterial" Reformation. And as many violent Anabaptists as there were, there were a good share of pacifists too. They weren't, obviously, a single phenomenon. Some of them ended up being relatively orthodox (Baptists), and some ended up being cuckoo bonkers.

Wahhabists, on the other hand, although initially relegated to the relatively "redneck" regions of Najd, ended up having influence on widely-accepted scholars and garnered state support, even controlling the major Islamic holy sites. There isn't much of an equivalent among the Anabaptists (unless you count the chokehold modern American evangelicalism has on American religion and politics, but that's a much later, post-Protestant development).

>demons in toll booths
This sounds similar to the archon toll collectors in the First Apocalypse of James. Maybe derived from it.
>The Lord [said] to him, ["James], behold, I shall reveal to you your redemption. When [you] are seized, and you undergo these sufferings, a multitude will arm themselves against you that may seize you. And in particular three of them will seize you - they who sit (there) as toll collectors. Not only do they demand toll, but they also take away souls by theft.

The Orthodox derive them from visions of Church leaders starting with vague ones in the 400s before being "revealed" in a dream in full detail to Gregory of Thrace in the late 900s.

Given that that document was unknown until the 1940s makes it seem unlikely it was derived from it.

>visions
>unknown until the 1940s
The codices themselves are dated to the 4th century and were bound in a typical Coptic stitch style of the region and era. It isn't too farfetched to consider at least the possibility of transmission.

>>visions
I was talking about the official position of the East Orthodox Church which is based on the accounts of Gregory of Thrace not that the First Apocalypse of James was a vision.

>It isn't too farfetched to consider at least the possibility of transmission.

Of course it just seems odd that the Church which obsesses with doctrinal authenticity would have no record, reference or discussion of such a text until that text was discovered nearly 1800 years later.

It leads me to think that like the other documents discovered they were either later works with no direct connection or that they were true but suppressed ones.

The Puritans did literally nothing wrong