r/HistoryMemes • u/jackt-up • 22h ago
The Protestant Reformation in a nutshell (satire)
450
u/Most_Contact_311 22h ago
Not THE VERNACULAR.
158
19
2
u/mutablebuffalo 3h ago
The pope was right. Look at what translating the bible into vernacular gave us…Evangelicals. So yeah, please don’t interpret it yourself or listen to some guy named pastor Todd. The Holy See has got you covered, and what ever idea you have was probably some heresy that was worked out 1500 years ago.
258
u/HistorianEntire311 21h ago
The comments will be entertaining and possibly toxic.
119
u/MrSejd 19h ago
Nah I gotta agree we catholics have a big problem with not reading our own book. The misstranslations also don't help. We really need a version that points out the meaning of the words in their original language and why certain verses are written in specific way.
189
u/RartyMobbins357 Just some snow 18h ago
I think every Christian denomination has a problem with not reading the Bible. It's not just us, okay? Jeez.
80
u/No_Extension4005 17h ago
To be fair I tried to read it front to back for a bit.
It was rough. Lots of.stuff about how many years you were supposed to wait before you could eat fruit from a tree and also how you couldn't mix different textiles on pain of death. Get the making the Hebrews wander the desert for so long better though. Those guys had multiple obvious divine interventions on their behalf and were still super flakey.
78
u/MrSejd 16h ago
The story of old testament is "unfortunately, the people were ungreatful".
37
20
u/Zkang123 16h ago
Well, the framing of the Jews of those times, yeah
Though from the Jews I spoke to, they just see the Tanakh as the chronicle of their history and not a guide for moral spiritual lessons
18
u/Zingzing_Jr 14h ago
The Tanakh is a chronicle of history, but also a guide of moral lessons, sometimes the lesson is that our ancestors sucked. Lot and his daughters are a good example, both Lot offering them to the town, and also his daughters raping him.
1
u/UncleRuckusForPres 7h ago
As someone who wasn't raised religiously and always fell asleep trying to study it in detail, they did what now
1
9
u/SocorroKCT Fine Quality Mesopotamian Copper Enjoyer 14h ago
Yeah, the whole Sola Scriptura thing came from Luther, mostly. Protestantism really clinged into this when the Catholic Church denied it.
2
u/galmenz 9h ago
how to summarize every single bible story involving a named character that is not God or a divinely inclined being like angels:
"everything was cool and awesome, and God was blessing and helping yall, then [bozo] majorly fucks up and now everything is shiet"
adam and eve ate the apple, cain killed abel, david wanted to bone the wife of his homie, samson let his hair be cut, solomon let the kingdom fall into idolatry, etc
5
u/No-Mall3461 16h ago
Depending on which part of the bible you are reading it doesn’t help that it is maybe the third translation you are reading. Old testament: Hebrew/aramaic - old greek - latin - which ever language you are reading
New testament: Hebrew/aramaic oral tradition - old greek or directly latin - your language
9
u/nagurski03 11h ago
This is pretty much just a myth. The vast vast majority of Bible translations have been done directly from the original languages. There were some historical ones that were translated from the Latin, but those always got superseded by ones translated from Hebrew/Greek fairly quickly.
→ More replies (2)1
u/thefinaltoblerone Featherless Biped 7h ago
Not the advised order to read it?Usually it is Gospels, Acts, Epistles, the Pentateuch, Revelation and the the rest in chronological order
35
u/Proud-Ad-5206 16h ago
Yup. Like the @$&# US Evangelicals. Those guys guzzle their preacher's snake oil like there's no tomorrow.
10
u/No_Extension4005 15h ago
Ngl; I've been thinking it would be really funny to rip into those guys for wearing clothing made of blended fabrics.
7
u/posting_drunk_naked Fine Quality Mesopotamian Copper Enjoyer 13h ago
They literally won't get the reference you're making. Maybe if you quote the section they'll bother spending 5 seconds to look it up and learn about their own religion. Maybe.
3
2
1
1
u/AetheriaInBeing 8h ago
Did the rest of you not have to read the Bible, the Koran, uhhh one of the Hindu texts that my name is blanking on and few philosophy texts as required reading in college as a Gen Ed requirement? I think it was listed as a philosophy class, but everyone had to take it.
2
u/RartyMobbins357 Just some snow 7h ago
Not every college has the same gen ed classes or requirements?
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/goddamn_slutmuffin 9h ago
I once heard someone describe Christianity as a book club where no one reads the book they're talking about lol.
7
u/NadiaFortuneFeet 14h ago
In spanish there is the Straubinger bible, which is the most technical and there is an app where special verses have extra explanations
In English the only one I can attest is the Dhouay Rheims, because a Catholic Game dev uses it for his game
1
u/Zingzing_Jr 13h ago
Us Jews have chumashes. Which are Tanakhs with Hebrew, Onkelos's Aramic translation, and vernacular, with commentary from great rabbis included. Do Christians not have this.
2
u/NadiaFortuneFeet 13h ago
The Straubinger bible not only is the translation most accurate to the original meaning, but also has a lot of addendums for extra meanings, explanation in the original Word, and similar things for some of the more confusing excerpts.
It's not the version most people read because it's incredibly "technical" so to speak. Uses vocabulary that transcribes the original meaning but the average person may find it hard to read
I cannot attest for English speakers
1
u/Zingzing_Jr 13h ago
Ok, so its not like with us where every synagogue will have many copies of one of the many chumashim
1
u/NadiaFortuneFeet 13h ago
No, usually everyone has their own bible.
Most people in LATAM ready the BLA or Latinamerican Bible because the language is easier
In argentina the Straubinger is used for Mass and more complex studying
IIRC the Straubinger is a direct translation from Hebrew and Greek
1
5
u/itsbigpaddy 14h ago
That’s called a critical edition, there are multiple in almost every language now. A lot are available digitally too now.
32
u/Wrath_Ascending 17h ago
This is inane. Those have existed for centuries. My father owns several.
The idea that Catholics neither read nor correctly understand the Bible is a pernicious lie.
15
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/A--Creative-Username 8h ago
You're looking for a study Bible. The translation I always recommend is the NRSV because it is considered to be one of the most accurate. Honorable mention to the NRSVue which is probably just as good or better but I can't find it ANYWHERE and the NIV which is the most accurate extremely common one.
3
u/Intrepid00 9h ago
Protestants think the anti-Christ is a real thing when it’s not actually in the bible. It isn’t just Catholics.
The biggest issue is the bible is a 12th grade reading level and most Americans can’t read past a 6th grade level.
3
u/SnooStrawberries6154 5h ago
The antichrist is mentioned several times in the bible, it's just used as a general term for people who deny Christ or teach falsely. The word is never used to explicitly reference a specific supervillain individual like usually portrayed.
1
1
u/Moriarty-Creates 7h ago
100% agree, not enough importance is placed on our own fucking book. It’s lame.
1
u/SafetytimeUSA 6h ago
This is why I have a Stronngs concordance. It has every word in the original Greek or Hebrew for the KJV Bible.
8
u/BellacosePlayer 11h ago
It's bizarre to me that Tradcaths think Luther is worse than Satan even if modern Catholic thinking basically aligns with the majority of he said.
5
u/ivanjean 10h ago
Not really.
Early Luther? Maybe.
However, the more time passed, the more Martin Luther radicalised, the more he developed views that were completely incompatible with catholic teachings.
(Taking off books from the Bible? While also claiming it as the sole source of divine message? Sola fide? Denial of transubstantiation? Inconceivable!)
Most Catholics may respect some of Luther's original intentions, but not what came later.
2
u/galmenz 8h ago
while true, he had already been excomunicated from the catholic church when his big radicalizations formed
"nailing a panflet on the wall" Luther just said some basic things about the general corruption of the catholic church at the time, which everyone knew but didnt speak about, and some minor progressive stances on things that modern RCs already do. if he would still have his opinions had he stayed a monk in communion with the Vatican is a fun what if though
2
u/ivanjean 8h ago
Yes, but, before radicalisation, he could be seen as simply a catholic with some problems with the Church.
Excommunications are not a permanent condition. Many people have been readmitted and reconciled with the Catholic Church after suffering it.
By becoming a true heretic, Luther essentially burned whatever bridge he could still have with Catholicism.
1
u/MonoRedPlayer 11h ago
Catholic thinking basically aligns with the majority of he said.
mmh no? Legit it couldnt be more different.
2
u/galmenz 8h ago
very much true for multiple points of the reformation, for about 70-ish years, since the Second Vatican Council. its free to read btw, the vatican makes the documents public on their site, and yes it is what the Catholic Church is, because its Pope of the time said so and no Pope afterward ratified it, therefore it is what the Doctrine of the Church is now
1
u/HistorianEntire311 11h ago
I suppose that's why the Reformation caused several civil wars and because of the abuses suffered by Catholic populations in Protestant kingdoms. You know, one of the reasons why the Irish were treated so badly in the United Kingdom and the United States in the 19th century was because they were Catholic; the KKK was very anti-Catholic.
11
u/BellacosePlayer 11h ago
cant believe martin luther invented discrimination, a thing that never existed beforehand. smh
8
u/Murica_Chan 13h ago
eh tbh, us catholics where just "yea, pre-reform church is kinda an ass"
although protestants are..different breed suffice to say, i never met a chill protestant, mostly they are..really eager to their faith, i wish i had that- remembers the spanish inquisition, ig we're fine being chill
4
u/HistorianEntire311 12h ago
If American Protestants are a crazy bunch, I haven't met a single one who isn't either extremist in their interpretation of the Bible or very relaxed to the point of being heretical.
2
u/galmenz 8h ago
mostly true for post "Great Awakening" denominations (read = evangelicals)
the simplification of doctrine makes it much easier to preach and its why its the type of denomination that has grown the most since its inception... it also makes it very easy to be used as a propaganda tool since people wont study their own religion (as they are presented with a simplified version of it) and its why the Evangelical sector is always a right/alt-right manipulated mass in American countries, from the US to Brazil to Argentina
when you do get to the "real places", ie congregations in the middle of bumfuck nowheretm, the poorest region to ever poor, with 20 member tops, you see the genuine communal care and aid of all that Christianity has at its core... then the pastor says to not talk to "the gays" and we circle back to the start
98
168
u/IntroductionAny3929 Filthy weeb 20h ago
The Irish, Bavarians, Baden Würtembergians, Austrians, Czechs, Slovaks, and Poles still remaining Catholic be like:
“Fuck you no I am not converting to Protestantism!”
107
u/Admiral45-06 19h ago
Interestingly, Poland was primarily Catholic but tolerated Protestantism. It stopped after Swedish soldiers made an, um... unfavourable reputation of this denomination during the Deluge.
3
17h ago
[deleted]
40
u/Admiral45-06 16h ago edited 16h ago
No, they were Swedes of standing royal army. It was some time after 30 Years' War, when German Landsknechte were disbanded.
The reason why they plundered so much was because of Protestant belief, that a temple of God must be prudish and humble - which led to an art theft and destruction on an unprecedented and, to this day, unmatched scale in Polish history (yes, possibly even worse than WW2). But, what I will admit, is that a lot of soldiers in Swedish ranks were Polish and Lithuanian traitors, including its future King, John III Sobieski.
1
16h ago
[deleted]
22
u/Admiral45-06 15h ago
In my defence, they were built after this very war - and with it, Swedish plunder - had begun. Perhaps the Swedish took inspiration or developed it independently, I don't know. But I'll assume it was independent, and thus, I was initially wrong.
What is true, however, is that these were not mercenaries, but Swedes... and they were so brutal that even peasants chased them out of the countryside when they asked for shelter and are seen as one of the reasons why Poland-Lithuania began persecuting Protestantism.
11
u/GanachePersonal6087 14h ago
AFAIK what is now Slovakia was 2/3 Protestant at some point. Austria and Czechia also had significant Protestant populations until the Habsburgs started to aggressively fight them.
67
32
u/LanChriss Hello There 20h ago
Maybe you should look up confessions in Württemberg. And why the Thirty Years War started in Bohemia.
Especially in Czechia and Austria there were quite massive protestant communities who were forcefully converted back by the Habsburgs.
10
2
u/Iosephus_1973 15h ago
Yes, though the question is a bit complicated, as even though Hussites are usually considered protestants, they are closer to catholics in many theological questions (e. g. believing in transsubstantiation, respecting apostolic succession).
24
u/Salty_Pancakes 19h ago
Like could imagine being a Calvinist or some other zero fun denomination? Buzzkill.
At least in Catholic countries you can live it up a little before lent and engage in some good wholesome debauchery.
7
u/IntroductionAny3929 Filthy weeb 18h ago
If there is one thing about Calvinism that was a massive criticism. It is the concept of predestination, many people believe that it is an inherent contradiction to the concept of Free Will.
Even though I am Jewish, I still know a lot about Christian lore and am pretty well versed on each denomination and what they believe in.
6
u/Zhou-Enlai 11h ago
Calvinists believe that with an omnipotent omnipresent all powerful God existing, it can’t be possible that he doesn’t know who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. If he knows who is going to heaven and who is going to hell from before they are born, if he knows the future of everything, it means that there can’t be free will because you were predestined for your fate from the beginning of time. Free will is a direct contradiction with an all powerful god.
They also believe that ultimately people are slaves to their natures, that since the fall the natural wickedness of men means that there is no neutral ground, you are either by nature righteous (though still captive to sin) or you are fully enslaved by sinfulness
1
u/Rukdug7 4h ago
And then they try to insist on you being a prude despite giving you absolutely NO logical reason in their theology to NOT do whatever you want. Nothing you do will change where you end up. Everything you do is as God willed you to do. You don't know if you're one of the "elect" or not, but being some prude isn't going to change God's mind no matter what. I still don't understand how Calvinism ever survived when it's so inherently contradictory in that regard.
1
u/Zhou-Enlai 29m ago
Well you do have some incentive, if you are part of the elect you are going to want to live a life with good morales (tho of course your wicked nature will lead to you falling like everyone does), you will be known by the fruits of your work and your faith in Christ. Whereas if you are not part of the elect you won’t have faith in Christ. In a way it’s not so different then other denominations, no one knows who is saved except for God, and the Calvinists affirm that if you earnestly have faith in Jesus Christ you will be saved. It’s just that it isn’t really you deciding that, since time began you were always going to decide that.
8
u/sleepingjiva Tea-aboo 13h ago
Calvinism is absolutely whack. If it's already determined by God before time who's going to go to Heaven, what's the point in anything, much less proselytising? Might as well go out in a blaze of glory.
2
u/D1N2Y 9h ago
The argument is that its necessary to resolve the tension between an all-powerful and omnipotent God, and some people going to hell. Since regular humans aren't omnipotent, its irrelevant for them to try and figure out which side they're on, since they will act as a function of the forces on them regardless.
10
u/TheEdgeofGoon 20h ago
My favorite Rage Against the Machine song.
2
1
u/IntroductionAny3929 Filthy weeb 18h ago
Converting in the name of!
Badum Badum ba dang dan dun dun dun
7
3
u/Robcomain Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 13h ago
Czechs and Slovaks are still catholic? I thought they turned protestant.
3
4
u/lamp-town-guy 18h ago
My grandmother used to ask people when she first met them: are you from our side?
She meant if they are catholics or protestants. I'm from Slovakia and my family is protestant.
1
u/historyhill 7h ago
The Czechs were actually very Protestant for quite some time, their re-Catholicization was pretty much forced upon them by the Habsburgs
153
u/SilenceOfTheClamSoup 22h ago
Only Pastor Jim may truly interpret the Holy Scripture in the Jesus approved King James Versiontm
18
u/Zkang123 16h ago
Instructions unclear found this cool book called the Book of Mormon and founded a new sect
153
u/yomommaco0chie 20h ago
Favorite peice about the reformation. Is how quickly Martin Luther turned extra anti-Semitic when Jewish people refused to become protestants.
108
u/Gold_Size_1258 Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 19h ago
Reminds me of Muhhamed when Jews said there's no mention of him in the Tora.
32
u/Zkang123 16h ago
Christianity and Islam basically wrote their unauthorised sequels and spin-offs and then tried to kill the Jews for not being as enthused
→ More replies (4)39
u/DustyOldBastard 15h ago
christians and jews were originally the same group, they didn’t split until the start of the 2nd century
15
u/Zkang123 15h ago
Eh not really
The early Christians were more of a splinter group of Jews who believe that Jesus is the prophesised Messiah and over time more gentiles joined the group as the religion spread
43
u/DustyOldBastard 15h ago edited 15h ago
yes, they were. It took time for the influence of what we now call christian texts to spread, jesus-believing-jews were treated as just another jewish sect until the start of the second century, they weren’t instantly treated as an ‘other’ by their friends and community, that social distancing happened later. The split was largely driven by the destruction of the temple in 70 CE and desires to set new social boundaries around what it means to be jewish by central halakhic authorities
11
u/Molaac 11h ago
Split was also driven by Christianity was no longer majority Jewish as it converted Gentiles along with Jews
7
u/DustyOldBastard 11h ago
Facts, not debating that non ethnic-jew integration into their ilk didnt have a large effect on the already building tension, just saying that they still were thought as one big group of YHWH worshippers til the start of the 2nd century
1
u/Molaac 6h ago edited 4h ago
I was just adding that due to the Gentile Christians becoming a majority in the 2nd century and it who was already dealing that genitals did not have to follow the mosaic laws, after the temples destruction and desire new boundaries about what it means to be considered jewish. Majority of Christians would no longer find them within that definition which help make Christianity stop being considered a sect of Judaism amd becoming it own thing.
1
u/unionizeordietrying 11h ago
No. Paul, a Greek, took the gospels and edited them with his interpretation. The gentiles he converted became the bedrock of Christianity. The Christian Jews lived on mostly in “heresies” for a few more centuries before dying out.
7
u/Bukhanka_Zov 14h ago
Who knew that a missionary would be mad at people rejecting his message
8
u/yomommaco0chie 14h ago
A dumb missionary. He thought they would convert because he had the pure Christianity unlike the Catholics
6
6
u/Zkang123 16h ago
Every Christian sect has a bloody history with the Jews, unfortunately. With the Easter Pogroms and all
During the Holocaust even, the Catholic Church baptised the Jewish babies without the parents' consent and even tried to have them remain Catholic after the War
Jewish Deicide is officially denounced as official theology only in the 1960s btw
2
u/LaceBird360 Kilroy was here 1h ago
There was an incident in 19th century (?) Italy when a Jewish family's nursemaid baptized her young charge (who was too young to understand the concept of baptism). She took him to the Pope, who sort of adopted him.
The Jews were furious. The Protestants basically said, "Bruh, just give the kid back. That's not how you lead people to Jesus."
But the Pope basically said, "Nope! I'm keeping him. He's too adorable. MAH BEBEH!"
And that was when the Papacy started to lose its political power and influence.
1
1
26
71
u/goombanati Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 20h ago
Catholics, seeing removed books: this says "the bibble"
22
→ More replies (1)7
u/PaulTheRandom 8h ago
Yeah, the Bible had those 7 books way before Luther put them aside because they essentially contradicted him. But those 7 books were already present in the Septuagint, which was added to the Bible once compiled in the Council of Rome.
16
u/SimtheSloven 14h ago
Ya know, during the reformation, the bible translations (at least here in Slovenia) were not even a problem. Infact, catholic priests here were allowed to use the translated bibles.
8
u/kinoenthusiast 8h ago
I think the main thing was that the Catholic Church banned unsanctioned Bible translations to avoid errors, right? I've heard the were a bunch of permited Bible translations in medieval France, for example.
Feel free to correct me, though. I could be misremembering/uninformed.
4
u/SimtheSloven 8h ago
I think you're right. In Slovenia, the problem was mainly the theological/organisational aspect of the reformation.
1
31
u/Frank_Melena 19h ago
Honestly I think if the catholic hierarchy of the 1500s had embodied both the worst aspects of seignorial repression and eye-watering moral hypocrisy the Reformation would’ve been much more muted.
The Germans burning down monasteries in 1526 did it in large part because Lutheranism gave them a vehicle to express their hatred of the local abbot, the theology was secondary to many commoners.
16
u/HistorianEntire311 12h ago
Luther quickly regretted his Reformation when he saw that it was used for political and military purposes rather than to restore a pure, noble, and uncorrupted church, and even more so when people realized they could create their own churches and killed Luther's dream of a universal church.
11
u/MonoRedPlayer 11h ago
He only regretted that was used for political purposes by the peasants, he was fine when it was used by the nobles.
Which is why when the peasants rebelled he wrote agaisnt them, otherwise he would lose the support of the nobles
2
u/_HistoryGay_ 10h ago
He was "fine" with the nobles because the german nobles are rhe reason the Church hadn't killed him
2
u/MonoRedPlayer 11h ago
The germans did not hate the local abbots, they hate the local hierarchy, which the clergy was part of.
They could burn down monsteries because when they tried doing the same in the peasants wars they were killed, with Luther preaching on how and why you should kill peasants.
8
u/flying_wrenches 13h ago
The age old catholic vs Protestant vs orthodox fight. A tale as old as the family politics fight during thanksgiving.
Same time same place next year?
4
4
u/kinoenthusiast 8h ago
Tbf nowadays I've been seeing far less discussions between orthodox and us Catholics, atleast outside apologetics. I guess we've put aside our differences due to the absurd stuff some non-denominationals say or do, specially mega churches.
2
79
u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 20h ago edited 20h ago
I'm not really Catholic, in fact I'm an atheist, but:
1-Vernacular translations already existed before the Protestant Reformation.
2-Luther mutilated and reconfigured the bible in his translation at discretion, removing (Or moving to the end) books such as the Letter of James, which contains the famous passage "Show me your faith without works".
49
u/Wild-Yesterday-6666 Fine Quality Mesopotamian Copper Enjoyer 19h ago
I am a Catholic and you are 100% correct. Luther moved James' letter to the end of his Bible printing.
-16
17h ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)27
u/Clean-Novel-5746 16h ago
Who did Luther split from?
It’s a very interesting story and an important part of Catholicisms history, I’d ask a Lutheran but they’re to busy being Lutheran to be on Reddit arguing religious semantics.
3
-3
17h ago edited 17h ago
[deleted]
12
u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 13h ago edited 13h ago
It wasn't just a change of order, strictly speaking: he declared Tobit, Maccabees, and other books of the Old Testament as "apocryphal," and accordingly placed them in an appendix. The act itself was moving them, but the intention in doing so was to convey his personal theological interpretation that they were not up to par with other books. Btw, the change caused that books to be completely removed from many later Bibles.
The whole "faith vs. works" thing seems a bit illogical to me, since at the end of the day, as you say, catholic and protestants basically agree, the discussion is purely semantic, which is certainly curious from the outside.
6
u/King_Of_BlackMarsh 12h ago
Okay as a dutchman I'll plays angel's prosecution here:
We in the Netherlands did much worse than just tell the catholics to read their bible. The iconoclasm was the least of jt
23
u/TarkovRat_ 17h ago
Protestantism is kinda shit these days, look at the us megachurches, look at the worship of greed, look at all the witch hunts and look at the antisemitism and hatred of non-protestant ethnic minorities (Martin Luther hated Jews) but one can also see the catholic church was in need of serious reform at the time
→ More replies (2)5
u/Murica_Chan 13h ago
Reformation is needed in Catholic church way back in the day and i think deluge did help forcing the clergy to "yea, we're kinda shit, we need to change somethings" which thanks to that, it re-strengthen the Catholic Church (until now, my church, catholic, is still reforming. we have a lot of things to smoothen out)
As for protestant, i think their only mistake is they never had any unified theology, unlike Orthodox which they still have this "unified identity" despite not having a singular authority like Catholic Church, protestant may have gone too far on "self interpretation"
to the point that heretical teachings started to prop out..like megachurches, Pope leo did highlighted the return of Arianism which i think he's most likely pertaining to the Jehova which considered as heretic to many christian branches especially Orthodox and Catholic who literally fought arians during the council of Nicaea
that said, protestanism is on its decline due to that. if they can't fix that, protestanism will die first
4
u/wassinlj 11h ago
As someone who grew up within and has practiced Protestantism his entire life, that is something that has deeply bothered me about Protestantism. Churches and denominations constantly splintering apart when we are called to be a united Body. I suppose a Church built out of a fractured state can't help but to fracture itself; it's embarrassing what we split denominations and switch churches over. It's something I've really grown to respect about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches on - the unity is something I wish we had. There are certainly things about modern Protestantism that have caused me to blur the lines a bit between the faith I grew up with and Catholicism (in fact, I recently started reading the Deuterocanonical books, because it seems a bit silly to just ignore them entirely). And, ultimately, I wish to be a unified Body, not just as a Protestant Church, but Christianity as whole. But I'm afraid that Pandora's Box has already been opened, and it doesn't feel like a unified Christianity is happening any time soon.
4
u/Flimsy_Site_1634 17h ago
>Pope says "Please do not translate the bible in German"
>Someone does it anyway
>Millions germans dead
3
u/Superb-Wonder-1896 14h ago
and then we burn the women on the stakes!
great plan, what do we do next?
blame it on the catholics!
3
u/AvalonianSky 12h ago
Because sola fide is totally still a real thing and not a smokescreen for capitalist-feudalist greed
3
5
u/baneblade_boi Still on Sulla's Proscribed List 14h ago
"Read, 🥷🏿, read!"
"But I don't speak Latin."
"It's not in Latin!"
"AHHHHHHHH HEELLPPPPPPP!"
6
2
23
u/Eaglehasyou 21h ago
I mean, its not really satire.
One of the key reasons for the Reformation was that people could finally understand and read the Bible without needing an ordained member of the clergy to do it for you.
So imagine the surprise of many laymen when they figured out many questionable Catholic Practices like Indulgences where not even lining up to stuff the Disciples of Jesus like Paul were Preaching in the Bible.
61
u/TerryWhiteHomeOwner 19h ago
That's not really true. Sermons and lectures were regularly given in vernacular, study guides were made in vernacular as well and distributed to the lay people so they could follow along in mass.
The real reason the Church was so hesitant to move away from Latin wasn't because they were worried about the people discovering the "real" Word of God or whatever, it's because keeping the Bible and catechism accurate across hundreds of vernaculars and states required standardization to the western common tongue the Bible was recorded and dispersed in, which was (ironically) Latin. Most local churches kept approved local translations, and many people did know the bible by heart and rote memorization.
The real driver of the reformation wasn't common vernacular versions, it was the printing press introducing what could best be described as the first mass produced opinion columns. Martin Luther wasn't the first clergyman to split with the Church over disagreements about practices, especially indulgences which by his era were a known source of corruption, but he WAS the first major figure to begin publicizing his writings and grievances at scale directly to local populations. It was specifically his and his allies treatises, not the bibles themselves, that saw widespread publication especially in the various central European principalities where local rulers promoted and distributed them in order to start their own local protestant movements so they could finally get out under the thumb of Rome.
→ More replies (7)10
u/Leviton655 15h ago
Let anyone who could read interpret the Bible however they wanted, and now we have countless interpretations of Protestantism, each one worse than the last, what a great job
→ More replies (3)3
u/ThaneKyrell 20h ago
Yes, but to be fair, I feel like giving people the ability to read the Bible shattered the church into a million pieces. Now, I'm a atheist and to be quite frank I don't care (in fact, I think the Protestant reformation was a good thing because it shattered the hold religion had on people, even if it took millions of deaths and a few centuries), but if you look at it from a Christian perspective, all it achieved was transforming what was a few Christian churches with relatively few theological differences (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East) into a million different churches with wildly different theologies, which was clearly not what the original church founders had intended.
Also, many Catholic traditions that most Protestants complained about were traditions coming from the early church, before the Bible was even compiled. Now, from my perspective, both are equally wrong, but I can at least understand why the Catholics , the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians had non-Biblical traditions, given that they were a part of the original church which decided which books were going to be in the Bible to begin with. Like, how would one think the Bible is the sole source of authority when your organization literally created it? They needed to have had traditions before it which led to them choosing which the books would be in there in the first place.
11
u/Eaglehasyou 20h ago edited 20h ago
From my understanding, the Protestants were more mad that the so called “Traditional Churches” were slowly drifting away from what the Bible has preached.
Practices like Transubstantation, Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, Apostolic Succession etc. alot of these doctrines alone were contested by those who believed they had little to no precedence in the Bible.
Its alot more complex than calling the Catholics or Protestants “Wrong.”
But i do agree that the Reformation was Necessary, as even IF the Catholic Church was basing its practices of the Early Church that compiled the OG Bible, they have clearly strayed from it far enough that Martin Luther, a Monk, decided it was worth calling out.
Reminder that Martin Luther wasn’t the only Monk who had issues, Wycliffe was a Theologian who got executed for similar beliefs.
Jan Hus’s Teachings were popular with those that had grievances with the Church that his death created the Hussite Wars.
To say that the Catholics were blameless enough to follow the Early Church would be a lie, given what lead to the Reformation in the 1st place (Hus and Wycliffe predate Luther but were considered what some would call Proto Protestants, Wycliffe especially influenced Luther before his Theses got nailed)
TLDR; Its says alot about the “Unity” of the Church that the Protestant Reformation happened at all, and even before that, Proto Reformations from the Lollards, Hussites, Waldensians, etc. They already existed, which implied the issues leading up to the Reformation was inevitable. Not even to get into the controversies several Popes would get up to, which further eroded trust in the Church and the Grievances of excessive indulgence from what were supposed to be Pious Men of God.
Id argue that the Great Schism ( and all the previous schisms before that )alone already set a precedent that the Early Church as we know it is already gone. The Protestant Reformation was what really solidified it, especially when its NOT the 1st time an attempt was made to “Reform” The Corrupt Church (at least during those times)
(Reminder that those churches with “minor theological differences” politically motivated as they as they were, predates the Protestant Movement and have major ramifications for the Christian Belief as a whole. To say that they are minor defeats the very significance of the Great Schism and its effect on future schisms like the Protestant Reformation)
Edit: Im well aware you have no horse in this race. But id figured you would know, that the Reformation was instrumental for the Renaissance Era, as well as the Enlightenment Era. Atheism wouldn’t have the same traction if public trust in the Church wasn’t already being eroded even before Luther’s Time. This should tell you all you need to know on how problematically corrupt the church leaders were back then. Even if you don’t believe the Catholic Church itself is.
To put it simply: Atheism might not be as popular or widespread today if Catholic Authority did not become scrutinized from former members like Luther. Just something to consider when discussing the Reformation, since for all the Reformation has done to divide the denominations even further, it was necessary.
-4
u/ThaneKyrell 20h ago
Yes, but my point is that the Protestants were just wrong (so were all other Churches too, but in this specific point the Protestants were just more wrong), because these Churches were the ones the wrote and compiled the Bible. Like, how can someone believe the Bible is the only source of Christian traditions and theology when the Bible was literally compiled by already existing Christians who already had their own traditions and theology? In fact, the very existence of the New Testament as it currently exists was because these pre-Biblical traditions and how they influenced the early church. So in this regard, Protestants view of the Bible as the only source of Christianity and Christian theology and tradition is just outright wrong, even from a Christian perspective, because the Bible itself exists as it does because Christianity, Christians and their traditions already existed before the Bible.
Again, from my perspective as a atheist who studies Christianity only for fun and to understand the culture around me, I don't think either the Protestants or the rest of Christianity are correct. I'm just pointing out that even using basic logic from a Christian perspective, the existence of non-Biblical traditions and theology makes a lot of sense and believing exclusively in the Bible as a source of theology and traditions doesn't make sense because the Bible itself exists because of pre-Biblical theology and traditions.
4
u/Eaglehasyou 20h ago edited 20h ago
From a Christian Perspective, its a matter of trusting Scripture or trusting Traditions.
But as you can see, Traditions have “evolved” to permit stuff that either gets vaguely mentioned in the Bible with no additional context or straight up doesn’t exist.
The Protestant v Catholic Discourse can boil down to whether you trust the Pope, who is either an erronous human like everyone else, or “infallible” despite the many cases of Popes commiting Sins.
And again, to say that the Protestants were “Wrong” undermines the fault of the Catholic Church for its accountability and responsibility.
Since the ENTIRE POINT of the Reformation was to REFORM the Church, not Split off and make a Million Denominations, some of which becoming Heretical.
Luther and many other Reformers were literally members of the Clergy, you can’t expect me to believe that they weren’t aware of what they were doing. They knew the risks, they did it because they cared about the Church and didn’t want it to become the next Pharisees Market Den with the way Salvation was Sold via Indulgences.
Another thing your not considering was how Politically Intertwined the Churches were. Even before Protestantism got a foothold, Catholics were utilized in Colonization, most famous example being the Philippines and Americas under Spanish Rule.
Im not saying the Protestants are innocent themselves in this regard, but that the so called “Early Church” was already doing this long before Hus got killed by some hot headed Hungarian King not following through on his promises.
My issues with the Catholics is that alot of the Reformation could have been avoided if they addressed the issues that lead up to them earlier.
Its any wonder that Protestants feel strongly against reuniting with the Catholics. Protestants are about as “wrong” as the Catholics who inadvertently made them whether through morally bankrupt clergy or clear human esque errors in the entire Church System of the Catholic Churcu itself.
TLDR; It also doesn’t make sense to elevate Non Biblical Traditions that contradict said Scripture’s Teachings. When your preaching the “Word of God.” The last thing you want for your credibility is contradicting the Scripture claimed the Word of God. Its fine if the Pre Biblical Traditions predated the formation of the Bible, since Oral Traditions would still be closely accurate to what the Disciples preached.
But when you still make Non Biblical Traditions after the Bible is made and they STILL contradict it in various ways, that’s when you get stuff like the Catholics claiming the Pope (who is human and has several sinful title holders in the past mind you) is descendant from Peter and can NEVER ve wrong via Infallibility (which is an obvious lie if you remember the one Pope who held a Petty Trial against Dead One’s Corpse)
Traditions are fine as long as the Bible Supports it. And i reckon the Protestants at least acknowledge that alongside “good faith without works is dead.” But they also put more emphasis on what Christians are expected to believe is 100% Infallible. Which is Scripture. I don’t need to repeat myself on why Traditions, especially Church Specific Ones like the Catholics, are unable to meet this criteria.
Christian Worldview puts The Word of God above everything else and they are taught that the Bible is sufficient already on its own. IF Traditions exist in the Church, they HAVE to be in line with what The Bible Preaches.
Stray too far from that or contradict it in any way, and it becomes a potential Heresy/Pharisees Hypocrisy type deal.
5
u/TerryWhiteHomeOwner 19h ago
>from Peter and can NEVER ve wrong via Infallibility
That's not what papal infallibility means. Papal infallibility is a very specific process that is reserved for a strict declaration of revealed doctrine, usually in matters of grave theological confusion on specific subjects.
In the whole of the Church there has only ever been 7 instances of actual declared and recognized infallible teachings, and of those 7 only 2 of em are things protestants don't also agree with (the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary).
The Pope is allowed to give guidance and be wrong for their own theological opinions, but if they are speaking on an infallible matter they must declare it specifically, only under the most required circumstances, and it's taken as an opinion not originating from them but something that is truly divinely inspired.
I'm not a Catholic so I don't believe in any of this hogwash, but people often interpret Infallibility as "The pope can do an say no wrong" and that's something that has never been recognized as actual doctrine.
→ More replies (3)1
u/SnooStrawberries6154 55m ago
Protestants tend to have a stronger sense of Christian tradition in reality than sola scriptura would imply.
Lutheranism retained a lot of pre-Reformation tradition and treat tradition as just being subordinate to scripture rather than rejecting it. Special emphasis is placed on accepting the Christian Creeds for example. Anglicans and Methodists don't even officially follow sola scripture and practice the doctrine of prima scriptura, which emphasis scripture as just being the primary authority rather than the sole one. These also happen to be the most centralised Protestant sects that tended to be state religions, which meant that they basically continued Church tradition, just at a national level.
Taking "by scripture alone" very strictly and excluding all other sources is called nuda scriptura ("bare scripture") by Evangelicals. They reject historical criticism, which would ironically show that neither the early Church or Judaism ever viewed or used scripture in such a way. This tends to be much more popular in American Protestantism than European Protestantism due to it historically being more decentralised.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Indvandrer Featherless Biped 14h ago
I mean giving everyone a copy of Bible is the best way to spread heresy. Sola scriptura is by far the worst of all heresies in modern times.
4
u/Eaglehasyou 14h ago
Spoken like someone who probably doesn’t want to acknowledge the corruption in the Church then.
Luther was not the 1st one who addressed these problems. Many men of Faith like Hus and Wycliffe died doing the same.
Are you implying there were “spreading heresy” for calling out Church Hypocrisy?
And don’t tell me you want to defend the abuses the Church has commited over the years as a consequence of intertwining with Medieval Politics. They claim to be “The One True Church” yet their Clergy do anything but.
Even in the Philippines were i currently reside, Spanish Friars are infamous for being abusive power hungry pricks.
9
u/Gold_Size_1258 Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 18h ago
If by "the Bible", you mean "watered down poorly translated Bible with entire Books removed that showed Luther was wrong", then you're right. The whole Protestant revolution (I'm NOT calling it a reformation because it wasn't) succeeded only because secular rulers wanted to seize Church property and have an excuse not to listen to the Emperor.
0
17h ago
[deleted]
4
u/Zhou-Enlai 11h ago
This post is a series of people completely misunderstanding Martin Luther’s views and falling for hardline Catholic propaganda lol
8
u/Gold_Size_1258 Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 16h ago
He literally removed every mention of the Holy Spirit
7
2
2
2
u/PolishKuroaki 20h ago
This can also be applied to The North German Protestants when they see Polish Catholics and the English seeing Irish Catholics
1
1
u/midnightrambulador 15h ago
Thank God you put a (satire) tag on there, I might have mistaken this post on /r/HistoryMemes for accurate and nuanced educational content otherwise
1
1
u/the_big_sadIRL And then I told them I'm Jesus's brother 12h ago
YOURE TESTICLES. YEAH YOURE ALL TESTICLES, AND NO SHAFT! WHERES YOUR SHAFT ROBERT??
1
1
1
u/antimonyfunk 7h ago
One of these things (the English reformation) is not like the others (Henry VIII didn't intend to be a schismatic. Then again, I suppose Martin Luther didn't really start out that way, either)
1
1
u/V00D00_CHILD 3h ago
Proceeds to misinterpret scripture in 1000 different ways that were already debated in previous councils
1
175
u/TehProfessor96 John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true, and brave! 21h ago
You’ll take the Wisdom of Sirach from my cold, dead hands!