Was Protestantism a reactionary movement?

[Ben Kenobi]

That doesn't say much for Christianity

Protestants perhaps.

Says nothing about the Catholics.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then they're conservatives giving in to reactionaries

Really? Conservatives can make intelligent changes to the status quo?

Whudathunk.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Protestants perhaps.

Says nothing about the Catholics.

Catholics >>> Protestants

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Protestants are reactionary because they sought to turn back the clock (as they saw it) on Christianity and return to an earlier, "purer" form.

As I wrote before, when you study histoical phenomena, you must look at their effects. The effects of the Protestant movement was revolutionary, regardless of the fact that they sought to return Christianity to an imagined earlier form. They did not seek to reestablish pre-feudal society, so while their theology may have been reactionary, they took this reactionary ideology and used it for revolutionary ends.

Furthermore, I don't necessarily accept that their ideology was all that reacionary. The key ideological component of Potestanism is the direct connection of worshipper and god, without an intermediary. Even in the days before the Church was institutionalized, the relationship of a Christian to God was mediated through his community. Christians did not have a direct relationship to God.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Considering that their churches have lasted 500 years, that means the Communists must suck harder.

Get back to me in three hundred years. Christianity faced crises without being destroyed, even if they were on the retreat. Communism is just in a retreat right now. We aren't defeated forever.

[Kuciwalker]

[Ben Kenobi]

Furthermore, I don't necessarily accept that their ideology was all that reacionary. The key ideological component of Potestanism is the direct connection of worshipper and god, without an intermediary. Even in the days before the Church was institutionalized, the relationship of a Christian to God was mediated through his community. Christians did not have a direct relationship to God.

Sure they did, through the Holy Spirit. One God in three persons.

Now, what I think you mean here is the rejection of the magisterium, which is another question entirely, the idea whether it was necessary for the magisterium to interpret scripture, those sorts of things.

Back in the primitive church, they will affirm the role of a magisterium, to interpret, and to teach others, but they will not say that they are the only ones qualified to understand God.

Hebrews refutes this, in saying that Christ is our priest, in the sense of the Jewish priesthood, he has entered the temple, and through him we know God the father.

[Ben Kenobi]

Communism is just in a retreat right now. We aren't defeated forever.

Defeated by whom?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Defeated by whom?

Our own mistakes and criminal misdeeds, mostly.

[Kuciwalker]

Rome never repudiated Christianity.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Rome never repudiated Christianity.

They would have if Mehmet II hadn't died suddenly.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No, the Church being conservative doesn't rule out Luther being reactionary.

And hell, I'd say that Luther wasn't "progressive". He was trying to return to a literal interpretation of the Bible! NWIH is that better for society. Just look at the Puritans.

I disagree. Luther himself cannot be reduced to a simple advocat of "back to the roots". That's why the process he launched or at least influenced heavily is called reformation, not restauration as for example the time after 1815 (in a completely other context of course).

And btw, even if a simple "back to the roots" can still mean relative progress. If the church is corrupt and you want to go back to have a church free of corruption it can easily be called progress compared to the time when corruption was high.

[Kuciwalker]

Reactionaries aren't necessarily not progressive, and liberals are not necessarily progressive.

[Tripledoc]

Regarding the argumant that protestantism meant the overthrow of one class of people, the feudal lords, by another, the city burghers.

That is probably true for the cites on both sides of the English Channel and The Hanseatic cities on the Baltic coast.

However, what of the merchant city republics in Northern Italy, such as Venice and Genova - They were at least nominally Catholic.

Was it not so that the reason merchant cities in Europe came under the sway of early capitalists, that their economic structure was based on the advanced art of shipbuilding, which required entirely new forms of ownership of the facilities of production.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Was it not so that the reason merchant cities in Europe came under the sway of early capitalists, that their economic structure was based on the advanced art of shipbuilding, which required entirely new forms of ownership of the facilities of production.

Not only new forms of ownership but new relationships between owners and workers. Capitalists needed some justification for exploiting workers.