Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Spain was the first nation-state and became the first superpower. Its bishops and its inquisition were autonomous of the Popes, and their first loyalty was to the monarch.
The Catholic Counter Reformation was actually the Catholic Reformation. It did away with the medieval Church and created a new organisation, streamlined and useful as a colonial force. You cannot equate Catholicism everywhere with the feudal system, like medieval Catholicism.
In France the Church also enjoyed autonomy and under Richelieu it led state centralisation demolishing regional defences and increasing the power of the throne.The first nation-state, Spain, was Catholic. Later, the Counter Reformation made the Catholic Church in Catholic countries a revolutionary force, streamlined, and a colonial force, competing with protestant states and also aligning with them (i.e. France in the Thirty Years War).
Google: ” England never officially adopted Lutheranism as its state religion, although Lutheran ideas and theology had a significant, albeit limited, influence on the early English Reformation. While the Church of England broke with Rome under Henry VIII, the resulting Anglicanism was a distinct, often political, structure that did not fully embrace the theological principles of Martin Luther.
Reddit
Reddit
+4
Key Reasons Lutheranism Was Not Adopted
Political vs. Theological Reformation: The English Reformation was initiated by Henry VIII for political reasons (securing a divorce) rather than theological convictions like those driving the German Lutheran movements.
Henry VIII’s Conservatism: Henry VIII considered himself a traditional Catholic and personally attacked Martin Luther in his 1521 publication Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, earning the title “Defender of the Faith” from the Pope.
Deviation from Lutheran Doctrine: The Church of England never officially accepted the core Lutheran confessional documents, such as the Augsburg Confession, and retained more elements of medieval Catholic structure (like bishops).
Shift to Reformed/Calvinist Ideas: Following Henry VIII, the English church moved toward Reformed (Calvinist) theology, particularly during the reign of Edward VI, which differed significantly from Luther’s views on the Eucharist.”Evangelical Christianity is Calvinist. Trump’s Church of Prosperity espouses the Calvinist view in championing capital and big business. American Christianity is Calvinist, as the Mayflower “Pilgrims” were.
The Tudors never adopted Lutheranism. Protestants were burned by Henry VIII, who was never a Protestant. The protestantism allowed in by Edward VI and consolidated by Elizabeth I was Calvinist. The Low Church in Anglicanism is Calvinist, and that’s where the Puritans emerged from.
The victory of the German feudals delayed capitalist development in Germany. This development was boosted by the Kings of Prussia, esp Frederick the Great in the 18th century. It was under the aegis of the Prussian monarchy, the Kaisers, who were both Kings of Prussia and Emperors of Germany, that Bismarck united the principalities into the nation-state. Nothing to do with Lutheranism.
Luther may have kickstarted the Reformation, but he didn’t represent the bourgeoisie and welcomed the protection of the feudals.
Lutheranism wasn’t very different from Catholicism in ritual; it was the followers of Calvin, who came to include John Knox and the Puritans in England, who really made their churches home to the merchant class, doing away altogether with not only the rites of the Catholic Church, but with any regard for the poor and dispossessed, making poverty a sin and financial prosperity the highest, sacred, virtue.So what is Europe trying to do? And what are they getting out of it by continuing the Biden line?
Once they get rid of Orban tomorrow, they’ll be giving another 90 billion euros to Zelensky. Meanwhile Norway is helping Ukraine in the north. Hungarian youth are convinced Kiev is winning and are shouting russophobic slogans.
The Nazis also instituted far more protections for nonhuman animals than any other modern nation-state has done.
The German feudal princes adopted Luther and put a spanner in the development of state centralisation, which had the effect of fossilizing Germany, just as the East was fossilized re: the development of capitalism. Germany was to miss out on the colonial game and on industrial growth until Bismarck united the Reich. This resulted in Germany needing to try and expand, and Hitler was correct in identifying Britain as the main power suffocating German capitalist aspirations.
Catholic power wasn’t always the reactionary force in Europe. It worked to centralise state power in France via Gallicanism, and in Germany, via the Emperor, it tried to, but was scuppered by the Lutheran princes.Now, Calvinism, on the other hand, was a merchants’ creed, and was revolutionary. There would even be, for a time, Catholic Calvinists, called Jansenists.
The Catholic Counter Reformation was a revolutionary phenomenon, whereas Lutheranism was reactionary.
Lutheran protestantism was also embraced by Hungarian and other central European nobles asserting feudal rights against the Hapsburgs.Japan put a motion to the League of Nations in the 1920s to outlaw the bombing of civilians in wartime, but Britain vetoed it.
They would have gone for any scapegoat, but it wasn’t much point in 1930s Germany scapegoating black people or Asians, was it?
In what am I speaking nonsense?
Hitler’s government was able, thanks to a militarization boom, to make jobs and raise living standards.
And what’s your point on Lutheranism? It was reactionary, not bourgeois. It was anti-centralisation.
What the hell is Europe playing at? Determined to drag us all into a war with Russia for the sake of a failed US-Russia proxy war that the US has already abandoned?
Any nationalist the capitalist class chose to employ in Germany then would have offered the workers a scapegoat, and, being central Europe, that scapegoat was certainly going to be the Jews. The developments therefrom would have been the same, even without Hitler.
The Nazis were elected by the workers, and Hitler was working class. The avowedly “anti-capitalist” working class Nazis, such as Röhm &c., who disliked Hitler’s flirting with big business, were anti-semitic too, and the SA had over a million members, all “lumpen” (in the popular sense) proletarians.
So how was the working class not full of anti-semites? The narrative that the Jews “were to blame” was an old narrative, which Hitler, like other nationalists, made use of as a rallying call. Who answers rallying calls? Those they attract!
