Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

[King Arts]

Not really. Educate yourself about how doctrine actually was decided in the various Protestant state churches, maybe?
And about all the Dissenter folks who didn't feel any obligation to toe the line.



I think the stories of that sort of thing are over-hyped. People in the 18th Century "Age of Enlightenment" made up all sorts of nonsense about previous eras.




One of the reasons that nothing like the French Revolution happened in the UK, was the spiritual impact of the Methodist Revival. Meanwhile, Roman Catholic kingdoms whose rulers did not care if you were an Atheist, so long as you were not a Protestant, sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
In the justice of God, those nations that rejected the Reformation got the Revolution instead.

It the kings really did decide doctrine for Protestants. I mean look at the Anglicans they left the church just so some fat impotent fuck could get a divorce to get more wives.

Also while the Catholics are fucked up it seems like the Protestants have gotten gods judgment much more after all it’s Protestant churches that accept drag queen story hour.

 

[Skallagrim]

Not really. Educate yourself about how doctrine actually was decided in the various Protestant state churches, maybe?
And about all the Dissenter folks who didn't feel any obligation to toe the line.

There were people who just started doing their own thing, but that's rather missing the (valid) point here: previously, Church and Monarch had been competing powers, by their nature always warily looking at the other's abitions.

The Reformation, by and large, wrecked that balance. It made the monarchs the heads of national churches. The massive over-centralisation of unchecked power into the hands of the state can be traced to that development. It's a checks-and-balances thing. You don't even have to like the Catholic Church: the simple fact is that, out of its own self-interest, it was utomatically a check on centralised state power.

Breaking the Church was the factor that ultimately led to the overwhelming predominance of big government in the West.

I think the stories of that sort of thing are over-hyped. People in the 18th Century "Age of Enlightenment" made up all sorts of nonsense about previous eras.

Not quite. The myth that witch-burning was a mediaeval thing came from later times. If anything, those later histories try to obscure the reality: that witch-burning was overwhelmingly (although not entirely!) a Protestant fixation, and a hallmark of the Reformaion period rather than the Mediaeval period.

Meanwhile, Roman Catholic kingdoms whose rulers did not care if you were an Atheist, so long as you were not a Protestant, sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
In the justice of God, those nations that rejected the Reformation got the Revolution instead.

This is missing a shitload of context. While the Counter-Reformation was overall bad and contributed to internal resentment (leading to revolutionary impulses) in Catholic regions, it should obviously be noted that the repressive urge of the Counter-Reformation itself a toxic reaction to a toxic action, i.e. the so-called Reformation. (Which wasn't actually a reformation at all, but a schism...)

What is vital to understand is that the late Mediaeval Catholic Church was Aristotelian in its philosophy. The Reformation was, to a not insignificant degree, a Platonist counter-current. This is in no small part because the Reformation was informed by Renaissance humanism (which was drenched in Platonism) and by the Platonist influx that was carried from the Orthodox migrants who fled the fall of Constantinople and came to Italy. (Easthern Ortohodoxy, having never enjoyed Scholasticism, was always Platonist in its philosophy.)

This had already yielded such things as Savonarola. (If you want an apt comparison: he was the "Extinction Rebellion" type of his day. A fanatical, embittered lunatic who sought to ruin enjoyment of the world for everyone. That typically sour world-view, one must note, also seeped into Protestantism. And infects it to this day.)

The resurgence of Platonism also had political consequences, most of which were manifested in Englightenment thinking. Which of course gave rise to the Age of Revolutions, and thus to modern totalitarianism. Rousseau's "volonté générale" stemmed from that tradition, and by way of his (and his compatriots), it later gave birth to the core ideas of communism and nazism. When Hitler told the Germans "You are nothing, your people is everything!" -- he was referencing Plato by way of Rouseau by way of Hegel. A lineage of bad ideas!

That Platonist resurgence I mentioned, which was the root cause of all this, was carried by the Protestant Reformation. So ultimately, it is correct to say that the so-called Reformation ruined civilisation. I don't think it ruined it forever, but it surely broke the world.

None of this implies that the Church was doing fine. Indeed, had there been an actual reformation (instead of a schism), that would have been good. But that was not the case. The true course of events was far more ruinous. We live in the ruins even now. When you see wokies and commies and all sorts of made radicals with insane ideas typical of our current society-- thank Luther and Calvin for that. They certainly didn't mean to cause that, but that doesn't change that it's an inescapable latter-day result of their actions.

 

[LordsFire]

The resurgence of Platonism also had political consequences, most of which were manifested in Englightenment thinking. Which of course gave rise to the Age of Revolutions, and thus to modern totalitarianism. Rousseau's "volonté générale" stemmed from that tradition, and by way of his (and his compatriots), it later gave birth to the core ideas of communism and nazism. When Hitler told the Germans "You are nothing, your people is everything!" -- he was referencing Plato by way of Rouseau by way of Hegel. A lineage of bad ideas!

I do not understand what you are trying to do here at all.

First off, Rousseau rejected Biblical ideology.

Second off, Hegel rejected both Biblical ideology, and was influenced by Aristotelian thought, which you claim was a Catholic leaning, rather than a Protestant leaning, and was influenced by the French Revolution, which also explicitly rejected Christianity.

Third off, Marx also rejected Christianity and Biblical ideology.

Fourth off, Hitler rejected Christianity and Biblical ideology.


Protestantism is a form of Christianity.

You somehow blame Protestantism for all of these people who rejected Protestantism.

Why on earth are you trying to do such a thing?

 

[Carrot of Truth]

I mean look at the Anglicans they left the church just so some fat impotent fuck

He wasn't impotent, he just kept having daughters instead of a son.

 

[Skallagrim]

I do not understand what you are trying to do here at all.

First off, Rousseau rejected Biblical ideology.

Second off, Hegel rejected both Biblical ideology, and was influenced by Aristotelian thought, which you claim was a Catholic leaning, rather than a Protestant leaning, and was influenced by the French Revolution, which also explicitly rejected Christianity.

Third off, Marx also rejected Christianity and Biblical ideology.

Fourth off, Hitler rejected Christianity and Biblical ideology.


Protestantism is a form of Christianity.

You somehow blame Protestantism for all of these people who rejected Protestantism.

Why on earth are you trying to do such a thing?

I'm explaining how Protestantism was a vector for a large-scale Platonist resurgence in Western thinking, which caused a shitload of trouble later on. You don't have to accept Christianity to still be influenced by that Platonism. In fact, it helps a lot of you reject Christianity.

I blame Protestantism for generalising a lot of bad ideas, such as the unchallenged primacy of the monarch, which went on to shape subsequent movements. Those movements don't have to be Protestant, or even Christian. The point is that they would not have existed, were it not for the so-called Reformation.

You seem fixed on the notion that all consequences of the Reformation must be explicitly Protestant (or at least Christian), or otherwise they supposedly "don't count". So, at least, it seems from your response. Yet I argue, sed contra, that Protestantism greatly affected the philosophical, social and political direction of the West (and neither was it limited to those aspects!), and that the "outcomes" that derive from the Reformation thus reach far beyond the narrow scope that you have set.

Furthermore, I argue that while the Reformation is understandable (the Church reallyu had major issues), the overall result of the Reformation is deeply negative. In short: Protestantism was a big mistake, and I posit that we'd all be far better off if that schism had never occurred.



P.S. -- I think you're severely under-estimating the Platonist influences on Hegel's work. The fact that Hegel personally liked Aristotle more doesn't alter the fact that his thinking ultimately owes much more to Plato. (See also, for instance, Browning's Plato and Hegel, or Findlay's Hegelianism and Platonism.)

 

[Scottty]

There were people who just started doing their own thing, but that's rather missing the (valid) point here: previously, Church and Monarch had been competing powers, by their nature always warily looking at the other's abitions.

The Reformation, by and large, wrecked that balance. It made the monarchs the heads of national churches. The massive over-centralisation of unchecked power into the hands of the state can be traced to that development. It's a checks-and-balances thing. You don't even have to like the Catholic Church: the simple fact is that, out of its own self-interest, it was utomatically a check on centralised state power.

Breaking the Church was the factor that ultimately led to the overwhelming predominance of big government in the West.

Oh I agree that checks and balances are good, and that we have too much Big Government nowadays... but historically, the tug-of-war between "The Church" and the kings and other temporal rules was never as balanced as you imply. The Papacy was seriously trying to put itself above the kings, claiming the right to appoint or depose them, and so on.
The papacy was also at the same time the temporal ruler of a chunk of Italy - the Papal States. The Pope wanted to have all of the power of a the temporal rulers for himself.

Let's also remember that no monarch from the age of "Divine Right of Kings" would have claimed the degree of invasive control over ordinary people's lives that the modern "managerial" state does. The king's authority was derived from the Feudal Compact, it was a two-way deal where he had obligations and duties towards his subjects, and could have his crown taken from him if he abused his power.

 

[Skallagrim]

Oh I agree that checks and balances are good, and that we have too much Big Government nowadays... but historically, the tug-of-war between "The Church" and the kings and other temporal rules was never as balanced as you imply. The Papacy was seriously trying to put itself above the kings, claiming the right to appoint or depose them, and so on.
The papacy was also at the same time the temporal ruler of a chunk of Italy - the Papal States. The Pope wanted to have all of the power of a the temporal rulers for himself.

Let's also remember that no monarch from the age of "Divine Right of Kings" would have claimed the degree of invasive control over ordinary people's lives that the modern "managerial" state does. The king's authority was derived from the Feudal Compact, it was a two-way deal where he had obligations and duties towards his subjects, and could have his crown taken from him if he abused his power.

The Church was one of the pillars of the feudal society. What I'm pointing out is that one of the reasons (in fact, the foremost one!) why no monarch from that age usurped such absurd powers as are wielded by the state today, was... that the Church would never allow it.

And yes, the Pope wanted his own power, and had he seen a chance, he'd have been just as absusive as the temporal rulers (who -- tranks to Luther! -- did actually get the chance). He didn't get the chance because the monarchs opposed his usurpations, too. And even though the Pope had nominal primacy, he had little power over temporal affairs. Indeed, only in his own Papal States, which was frankly his own business. (Not that I think the Papal States were a good idea; in fact, temporal rulership was a corrupting factor for the Papacy.)

The balance that I outline wasn't perfect, but it was surely better than the alternative. Better to have an Emperor kneel in the snow at Canossa from time to time, or a Pope held captive in Avignon for a while, than to see a Thirty Years' War. The Reformation was the victory of chaos over order, and when chaos prevails, despots arise and impose new -- and worse -- forms of order.

 

[Scottty]

 

[Scottty]

The Church was one of the pillars of the feudal society. What I'm pointing out is that one of the reasons (in fact, the foremost one!) why no monarch from that age usurped such absurd powers as are wielded by the state today, was... that the Church would never allow it.

And yes, the Pope wanted his own power, and had he seen a chance, he'd have been just as absusive as the temporal rulers (who -- tranks to Luther! -- did actually get the chance). He didn't get the chance because the monarchs opposed his usurpations, too. And even though the Pope had nominal primacy, he had little power over temporal affairs. Indeed, only in his own Papal States, which was frankly his own business. (Not that I think the Papal States were a good idea; in fact, temporal rulership was a corrupting factor for the Papacy.)

The balance that I outline wasn't perfect, but it was surely better than the alternative. Better to have an Emperor kneel in the snow at Canossa from time to time, or a Pope held captive in Avignon for a while, than to see a Thirty Years' War. The Reformation was the victory of chaos over order, and when chaos prevails, despots arise and impose new -- and worse -- forms of order.

The Thirty Years War need never have happened, in fact most if not all of the religious wars in Europe from the 11th to the 17th century need never have happened, if the Pope had not claimed spiritual authority over all Christians everywhere, and had not then treated the very existence of any group of Christian believers who did not accept his silly claim, as a problem to be resolved by violence.

 

[Skallagrim]

The Thirty Years War need never have happened, in fact most if not all of the religious wars in Europe from the 11th to the 17th century need never have happened, if the Pope had not claimed spiritual authority over all Christians everywhere, and had not then treated the very existence of any group of Christian believers who did not accept his silly claim, as a problem to be resolved by violence.

You mean a group of tyrants who claimed their own, far more imposing, authority over all -- and promptly began to oppress Catholics in the regions they controlled. Catholics whom the Pope was sworn to serve and protect.

I strongly feel that you're completely misplacing the blame here.

(Of course, I also disagree with your description to Catholic doctrine of Church hierarchy as 'silly', since I don't personally consider the heresy you are advocating to be a laughing matter. But to each their own.)

 

[Husky_Khan]

I guess this is technically a meme. I was watching a video on YouTube and you know how it shows a bunch of recommended videos after the video you watched is done... well two of them made a pretty funny thumbnail.

Ehhh... made me chuckle anyways.

I like the idea of Yemeni Houthi Rebels being portrayed by Caesars Legion NPC's who are going to attack a US Carrier somehow in a video.

 

[Scottty]

You mean a group of tyrants who claimed their own, far more imposing, authority over all -- and promptly began to oppress Catholics in the regions they controlled. Catholics whom the Pope was sworn to serve and protect.

I strongly feel that you're completely misplacing the blame here.

(Of course, I also disagree with your description to Catholic doctrine of Church hierarchy as 'silly', since I don't personally consider the heresy you are advocating to be a laughing matter. But to each their own.)

Well look, if you're coming at this from the perspective that you believe in the Papacy and would have preferred - for your religious reasons - that Protestantism had never been allowed to exist, then all this talk of checks and balances is really beside the point.

 

[Skallagrim]

Well look, if you're coming at this from the perspective that you believe in the Papacy and would have preferred - for your religious reasons - that Protestantism had never been allowed to exist, then all this talk of checks and balances is really beside the point.

My arguments heretofore have been otherwise, have they not?

You brought up, and only in your last post, a specific anti-Catholic frame. To that, I respond on a more personal note (and as an aside, at that). Do not now attempt to twist matters as if that one line has been the entirety of my argumentation -- or indeed even part of it. That's bad form.

 

[King Arts]

The Thirty Years War need never have happened, in fact most if not all of the religious wars in Europe from the 11th to the 17th century need never have happened, if the Pope had not claimed spiritual authority over all Christians everywhere, and had not then treated the very existence of any group of Christian believers who did not accept his silly claim, as a problem to be resolved by violence.

Protestants do have a point that the Pope did usurp too much power he should not be the head leader of the church he is just another Bishop.

Though you Protestants go to far by getting rid of church authority and priests and bishops.

 

[Zyobot]

Hmm…

Might regret jumping in here, but while I can't claim to know much about the Reformation myself, there are times when I wonder if Christians who decided the Pope didn't speak for them and came to their own understanding of theology should've been free to peacefully split off into their own denominations instead of breaking off violently?

Perhaps then, Catholic-Protestant relations wouldn't have been so bloody, if the Church had respectfully wished them off and tried to tried to "still be friends", as it were. Maybe the Protestants would've reciprocated, too, rather than throw out the baby with the bath water and then try to kick it to death so many times.

 

[King Arts]

Hmm…

Might regret jumping in here, but while I can't claim to know much about the Reformation myself, there are times when I wonder if Christians who decided the Pope didn't speak for them and came to their own understanding of theology should've been free to peacefully split off into their own denominations instead of breaking off violently?

Perhaps then, Catholic-Protestant relations wouldn't have been so bloody, if the Church had respectfully wished them off and tried to tried to "still be friends", as it were. Maybe the Protestants would've reciprocated, too, rather than throw out the baby with the bath water and then try to kick it to death so many times.

I understand what you are trying to say but it's not that easy. After all Church's splitting off is a failure. Christ wants us to be one body, united. We are supposed to be together in one holy catholic(universal not Romanlol) apostolic church. Schism is not a good thing. Having denominations is not good.

And to be fair the Protestants should not have reinvented the wheel. They knew the Catholics fucked up so they should have walked back to see when Catholics innovated and made changes, then they would have seen there was a Church that still maintained the traditions of the apostles.

The Orthodox Christian Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is orthodox, but not Jewish. It is catholic, but not Roman. It is not denominational, it is pre-denominational.

 

[Skallagrim]

Hmm…

Might regret jumping in here, but while I can't claim to know much about the Reformation myself, there are times when I wonder if Christians who decided the Pope didn't speak for them and came to their own understanding of theology should've been free to peacefully split off into their own denominations instead of breaking off violently?

Perhaps then, Catholic-Protestant relations wouldn't have been so bloody, if the Church had respectfully wished them off and tried to tried to "still be friends", as it were. Maybe the Protestants would've reciprocated, too, rather than throw out the baby with the bath water and then try to kick it to death so many times.

Initially, what you propose as a solution wasn't so far from the reality on the ground. Wjat @Scottty outlined in his most recent posts isn't so much the historical reality, as an originally quite deliberately revisionist account that has over time become a received trueism in Protestant historiography.

I mean to say: the greatest objection of the Catholic authorities to the Protestant rulers was that the Protestant rulers began oppressing Catholics. Pretty much from day one. That was, in fact, the major impulse driving the political Counter-Reformation. Note here that the Church, beforehand, had very limited temporal authority. In fact, if a bunch of people had decided to functionally stop being Catholic, it can be called into question (indeed, was called into question) whether the Church had any authority to stop them. (As opposed to, say, just excommunicating them formally, with the result that per Catholic teaching, they'd be condemned to hell thereafter.)

The Protestant princes escalated the matter to a ludicrous degree, making it first and foremost a political conflict over religious rights. That's why "the Pope didn't tolerate people leaving" is such a wonky take. More than anyone else, it was the Protestants who said "this country is now protestant, time to screw over all Catholics living here".

This isn't to say Catholics were somehow all nice and good. Far from it!

 

[Zyobot]

Initially, what you propose as a solution wasn't so far from the reality on the ground. Wjat @Scottty outlined in his most recent posts isn't so much the historical reality, as an originally quite deliberately revisionist account that has over time become a received trueism in Protestant historiography.

I mean to say: the greatest objection of the Catholic authorities to the Protestant rulers was that the Protestant rulers began oppressing Catholics. Pretty much from day one. That was, in fact, the major impulse driving the political Counter-Reformation. Note here that the Church, beforehand, had very limited temporal authority. In fact, if a bunch of people had decided to functionally stop being Catholic, it can be called into question (indeed, was called into question) whether the Church had any authority to stop them. (As opposed to, say, just excommunicating them formally, with the result that per Catholic teaching, they'd be condemned to hell thereafter.)

The Protestant princes escalated the matter to a ludicrous degree, making it first and foremost a political conflict over religious rights. That's why "the Pope didn't tolerate people leaving" is such a wonky take. More than anyone else, it was the Protestants who said "this country is now protestant, time to screw over all Catholics living here".

This isn't to say Catholics were somehow all nice and good. Far from it!

That's really too bad.

Not sure if the people who left before things spiraled into outright war began to think of themselves as their own unique denominations right away (or were more just "permanently lapsed Catholics" who never went back).

But even in a "Peaceful Reformation" scenario, I imagine separate denominations with their own liturgy, theology, and so on would've cropped up eventually as time wore on. Maybe that'd have been a better timeline, actually, both to avoid so much "Killing for Jesus" and to mellow out the Protestants, who'd feel less need to throw out the baby with the bathwater and kick it to death if it was still alive.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

Though you Protestants go to far by getting rid of church authority and priests and bishops.

you kicked us out because we asked you to not fleece your flock

 

[Skallagrim]

That's really too bad.

Not sure if the people who left before things spiraled into outright war began to think of themselves as their own unique denominations right away (or were more just "permanently lapsed Catholics" who never went back).

But even in a "Peaceful Reformation" scenario, I imagine separate denominations with their own liturgy, theology, and so on would've cropped up eventually as time wore on. Maybe that'd have been a better timeline, actually, both to avoid so much "Killing for Jesus" and to mellow out the Protestants, who'd feel less need to throw out the baby with the bathwater and kick it to death if it was still alive.

A true reformation would have been a much better alternative to the OTL schismatic ruination (which wasn't even driven by genuine faith -- Luther had actually wanted a true reform, at least originally -- but by base political ambitions on the part of temporal princes). This would have kept things fairly united on theology, too. The primary matter was corruption within the Church. Had that been addressed earlier and more comprehensively, there would have been little support for more violent reform proposals. (And only very few would, at the outset, have signed on for openly schimatic ventures.)

So then the Church would still be one, at least in the West, and a lot of grief would have been avoided. The lesson is that all of it only happened because of crass greed and other unworthy motivations-- on both sides. The Church was infested with corrupt leaders, and Protestantism was chiefly successful because it became a very useful tool for power-hungry princes who wanted absolute control.

Perhaps there was no other way, because man is so flawed. But that doesn't make this bitter tragedy a good thing, as some (most?) Protestants appear to believe.