Hi Dream —
If I leave out rumors of burnings, uprisings, and hot-headed politicians -- what, in your opinion, caused so many people want to leave the Roman tradition?
I don't think there were movements or feelings among the people on such a scale. It all started with individuals, remember, not with social movements.
The big error is assuming that these movements were 'grass-root', they were not, and the burnings and uprisings were caused in the majority by hot-headed politicians ... they followed the Reformation, they did not precede it.
In Germany, for example, Luther protested against indulgences/funds being raised on German soil to build the basilica in Rome ... he had no problem with indulgences/funds when the money went to his own bishop.
When the German people took his words to heart, and tried to throw off their leaders as he had thrown off the church, it was he who spoke most vociferously against them, and their slaughter followed.
Be under no illusion — this 'will of the people' thing is a crock — no-one was going to hand over power to the people, mob rule followed and the result would be disaster. The founders of the Reformed religions were no different, they held the power and they made the decisions, and the people did what they were told, as they had always done.
In England we learned of the 'dissolution of the monasteries' — we were taught that the church was corrupt and the monasteries were dens of vice and corruption. What a pile of crap! Pure Protestant propaganda — the result of what today we call a 'black-ops' exercise.
Examinations of parish and county records now show that the Monasteries and Convents were invariably well run, well ordered, and well liked. The emerging aristocracy wanted power and money, and the key to that was land. They convinced Henry VIII that if he seized the church's assets, he'd have money enough to fund his wars in Europe. He believed them, but as a result of the assault on the great religious houses, hardly a penny founds its way into his coffers. Instead the new upstart nobility took possession of the land, and ensured their personal wealth thereby.
And the peasantry? They suffered bad management, greed ... they were worse off now than before, and more than a few suffered for making the point.
What has changed to improve that?
Nothing. The situation after the Reformation was often worse.
The bloodshed that followed was nothing to do with religion, it was all to do with power. Catholic v Protestant was just the excuse — in England political machinations left the heirs of Henry VIII powerless, even Elizabeth I has come down to us as a 'complex' character — strong-willed, but ever at risk because of it.
I also was assigned to read a short biography on Tyndale, John Bunyan, and several others Protesters/Reformers and had to write something about them.
I'm not saying there were no good people. There were, on all sides ... but the real 'movers and shakers'? They had their eye on the prize: Power.
In Switzerland, for example, where Calvinism held sway, the reformed image of the 'justified of God' bore a marked resemblance to the emerging Swiss urban elite ... because calvin knew where his power lay, and where the money came from.
I got a grim picture of the Roman Catholic Church from it, too. I think here in the States there's still some anti-Catholic sentiment, and other than doctrinal disagreements it is mostly because of the things we're talking about right now.
Anti-Catholic sentiment goes hand in hand with the English language. In Europe it's not so pronounced because Catholic countries survived in places to counter-balance the Protestant.
One thing: The Reformation only took hold in countries that had weak national leadership — it was this weakness that was exploited and thus the cause of the bloodshed, as the opposite sides fought it out to get to the top of the heap.
Thomas
