How the Renaissance Led to the Reformation (Part V)

(This is the fifth and final installment of a five part series on the Protestant Reformation)

The definition of the word Renaissance is "rebirth" and while it is true that the era was highlighted by man's awakening from a spell of stagnation known as the Dark Ages, the Renaissance helped give men the will that was needed to stand up to the church. It seems quite interesting that, prior to the rebirth, we had so much death. This death came about from the great plague of 1348-49, along with the smaller more isolated ones to follow. These devastating plagues effected every aspect of society throughout Western Europe.

So was all this devastation just a mere coincidence? Maybe, but throughout history great achievements have always followed a time of strife, destruction, and mass loss of life. One just has to look at the positive affect the destruction of Israel's Northern Kingdom, and the eventual dispersion, had on the fullness of time as the best example. The plagues that struck Europe throughout the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries left men with a sense of their own mortality, and a feeling of destiny. This feeling gave them the will to stand up to the feudal lords when they were forced into working harder with no benefit or reward. Just as there were guild revolts in the cities in the late 1300s, so we find rebellions in the countryside. The Jacquerie in 1358, the Peasants' Revolt in England in 1381, the Catalonian Rebellion in 1395, and many revolts in Germany, all added to the feudal lords loosing there grip on the peasant class.

Eventually the Feudal lords capitulated to the demands of the peasants. This new freedom of movement and choice of employment allowed the most industrious and hardest working peasants to advance from the lower class to the new middle class. Many would join the ranks of what would be known at the time as " The Universal Man". The universal man of the Renaissance was a mixture of noblemen, wealthy merchants, bankers, shippers, country gentlemen, and even members of the clergy. Along with their new opportunity to get an education without joining a monastery, these men began to understand the philosophical arguments of what we call humanist philosophy. The Southern Renaissance man used this education to advance his own personal wealth and prestige. Except for a brief superficial conversion under Savonarola in Florence, the Italians decided to live and die in the wilderness of the.....

(Excerpt) continue reading this article at ChicoER/Gate...

....we should not be surprised to find that the Calvinists took a very important part in American Revolution. Calvin emphasized that the sovereignty of God, when applied to the affairs of government proved to be crucial, because God as the Supreme Ruler had all ultimate authority vested in Him, and all other authority flowed from God, as it pleased Him to bestow it.
The Scriptures, God's special revelation of Himself to mankind, were taken as the final authority for all of life, as containing eternal principles, which were for all ages, and all peoples. Calvin based his views on these very Scriptures. As we read earlier, in Paul's letter to the Romans, God's Word declares the state to be a divinely established institution.
History is eloquent in declaring that the American republican democracy was born of Christianity and that form of Christianity was Calvinism. The great revolutionary conflict which resulted in the founding of this nation was carried out mainly by Calvinists--many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian college of Princeton....
....In fact, most of the early American culture was Reformed or tied strongly to it (just read the New England Primer). Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a Roman Catholic intellectual and National Review contributor, asserts: “If we call the American statesmen of the late eighteenth century the Founding Fathers of the United States, then the Pilgrims and Puritans were the grandfathers and Calvin the great-grandfather…”
-- from the thread John Calvin: Religious liberty and Political liberty

Interesting thesis. The basis of it, found in Part I, This thinking was influenced by the concept of humanism, which emphasizes the worth of the individual, is something that no Catholic would argue with (although it would likely be phrased in a slightly different fashion).

I would be interested in seeing your bibliography for this series of essays. Could you post it?

Also, I was curious to hear your opinion on the conflict between Phillip IV and Boniface VIII in regard to the reformation? Corollary to that, I didn't see a serious discussion on potentially ulterior motives of nobles who decided to support the reformers. Of course, I'm not saying that this was a universal condition, but face it: if the Catholic Church is kicked out of a principality, the monasteries and lands associated with those monasteries become fair game. That amounts to a lot of dough that can be spread around.

Finally, although you give the Renaissance good coverage, you did not mention that radicalized followers of Calvin and Zwingli actually engaged in iconoclastic behavior that resulted in the destruction of countless works of priceless sacred art throughout the areas under their control.

But otherwise, not a half bad work!

I will attempt to get to you on the conflict between Phillip IV and Boniface VIII in regard to the reformation, but I will need some proper investigation before I reply, because I really have not given it much thought. As I said in my original introduction of Part I,

I do not mean to diminish the contributions of any of the many individuals or events that will be left out of my series, but in order to be as concise as possible I will inevitably fail to give proper credit to some.

The conflict between Phillip IV and Boniface VIII would be one of those instances that I failed to address even if I do agree it had bearing on the reformation itself. I was pressed by the amount of time one would spend reading the essay and thus the reason for my disclaimer.

As for the followers of Calvin and Zwingli.

My intent of the thesis wast to bring to light what I thought was the major and primary events that led to the Reformation, not the events that would follow the moment when Luther nailed his thesis to the doors of the Wittenberg Church. So it only makes sense that I would not touch upon either Calvin or Zwingli. Although in my closing conclusion I did momentarily mention the brief superficial conversion under Savonarola in Florence of the Italians. However that was more or less to point out the failure of the Italians to grasp the full importance of the Reformation.

History shows that all the nations who embraced the changes of the Reformation wherever they happened and by whomever introduced the changes to their geographic area prospered immensely.

History also proves that the nations like Italy, Spain, Portugal, and others who disregarded the Protestant Reformation changes, ended up being stagnated to the point of being barely above third world country status, especially at today's standards.

( By the way, the stagnation of non-reformation accepting nations is something which very few individuals will even mention, if they even noticed at all.)

The conflict between Phillip IV and Boniface VIII would be one of those instances that I failed to address even if I do agree it had bearing on the reformation itself.

I gave that example as it is emblematic of the interplay between the papacy and political leaders during the medieval times. The resentment that the temporal rulers had with the papacy likely was as responsible for the success of the reformation as anything else. Having said that, I think that this has a lot to do with the "freethinking" characteristic you assigned as a precursor, but in a different perspective.

History shows that all the nations who embraced the changes of the Reformation wherever they happened and by whomever introduced the changes to their geographic area prospered immensely.

Does it?

I will grant that the US is very prosperous. But I never really noticed much difference between largely Anglican Canada and its largely Catholic province Quebec. Likewise, I don't think that one could easily distinguish between the economic health of the German states that were Protestant and those that remained Catholic.

On the other hand, England (largely Anglican), had a huge amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few in the wake of the industrial revolution, but the condition of the working class could hardly be called "prosperous." On the other hand, Scotland (largely Presbyterian) could hardly be called a prosperous place.

Having said that, I will gladly admit that the Scandinavian states of Norway and Sweden (Lutheran) have always had a high level of prosperity. As has the Netherlands and Switzerland.

But Belgium (Catholic) has also been relatively prosperous. And France (Catholic), while not as prosperous as Germany (mixed), it hasn't really been that much of a slouch, either.

Here's one thing to factor in, as well: you should also take a look at the fact that almost every country that remained Catholic in the wake of the reformation had some sort of anti-clerical revolution in the 18th through early 20th century.

The other factor you should consider is the condition of the working class, which gave rise to labor unions, which were almost immediately infiltrated by Socialist forces. And those forces changed the face of Europe from around the beginning of the last century.

The point I'm getting at is that you would need to do your analysis back in the 18th Century or earlier to make a good comparison.

But I think the oft-repeated axiom, History shows that all the nations who embraced the changes of the Reformation wherever they happened and by whomever introduced the changes to their geographic area prospered immensely, may be a little flawed.

Thanks for your input.

In was basically speaking of the Northern Renaissance country’s all of which you pretty much point out goers right inline with my statement.

Where as the Southern Renaissance nations are the ones to slowly mutter along in an almost Third world state of economy. England was not part of my Thesis because it was brought about more from the desire of the King to get divorced from the sister of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles. So England came into the Reformation under much different circumstances.

Circumstances that led to the desire of religious Freedom in America away from the clutches of the Church of England. England became as much if not more of a problem for Christs Church as the Catholic Church was.

I also agree that with the advent of Socialism all countries even America eventually stumble and fail.

I was wrong about Henry's wife being Charles sister, however, allow me to present this to you. This is a small bit that I have awaiting my future work on England's Reformation, which as I said was actually completely detached from the reformation one which Luther set off. It is not nearly complete, and if anything it is just a short overview of where I plan on going when I do set forth on my desire to write a book on the Reformation.

A King Beheads the Excuse, for His Church Reform

“To Jesus Christ I commend my soul; Lord Jesus receive my soul.”

With her last words still lingering in the air, a skilled swordsman, brought over from France, beheaded the reason for England’s reformation. King Henry wanted an annulment from his wife, who had not given him a male heir, so he could marry Anne Boleyn. In time she too would fail to give the King a son. Interestingly, shortly before her execution on charges of adultery, the Queen's marriage to the King was dissolved and declared invalid. One would wonder then how she could have committed adultery if she had in fact never been married to the King.

Henry the VIII’s desire for a male heir to his throne led England on a path that would eventually lead to what English churchman would call a “Via Media”. Henry wanted freedom from the Popes authority but he still insisted his kingdom follow the Catholic doctrine, with only two changes. He wanted an English Bible used in all churches, and the suppression of the unpopular monasteries. The King eventually put forth regulations that only the wealthy and aristocrats could read the Bible, and confiscated the property of many small monasteries adding their money to his royal treasury.

Upon the death of Henry’s son Edward VI, Mary Tudor, known in history as “Bloody Mary”, would attempt to restore Roman Catholicism in England. After almost three hundred executions, including that of Archbishop Thomas Crammer, Queen Mary had reversed most of what Henry and Edward had done. Mary died after only reigning five years and the daughter of the beheaded Anne Boleyn would assume the throne.

Queen Elizabeth, whom Mary’s cousin Charles V warned her to execute, not only reversed all of Mary’s policies against the Protestants, but she went farther in her reforms then Henry did. Elizabeth had a policy of theological inclusivism that had no room for Roman Catholicism or extreme Protestantism. Her ideal church was a state church that practiced uniform doctrine that united the kingdom in common worship. Elizabeth’s “Thirty-nine Articles” was essentially Protestant but worded in such a way that satisfied both Catholic’s and Protestants or, “Via Media”.

With the end of persecutions many Protestants who fled during Mary’s reign returned to England, only to find Elizabeth’s religious reforms did not go far enough. With Bibles such as Tyndale’s, Wyclif’s, and others that were written with the help of the newly acquired Greek documents, a new group of believers would emerge. This new group influenced also by Calvin and other reformers from the mainland, believed in restoring the pure practices and doctrines of the New Testament thus their name the “Puritans”. These Puritans would eventually become a driving force in English religious life and lead the way to religious freedom and the “New World”.

Interesting usage: discriminating between "Christs Church" and the "Catholic Church."

I say this is interesting because I was taught and can discern from history that the Catholic Church is the church established by Christ.

Now I am not trying to start an argument with you, but I point this out because if you are trying to convince Catholics with your writing or if you intend to engage in serious conversation with Catholics, little statements like that are a turn-off. A HUGE turn-off.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to affirm Protestants in their beliefs and could care less what we Papist B@st@rds think (after all, we're all going to h3ll anyway, so who cares), then, by all means, include little zings like that.

(It would be as if I, as a Catholic, was to post something that directly called you all a bunch of heretics and instantly condemning you to eternal flames. Sure, if I am writing something for Catholics' consumption that would be one thing...but I wouldn't be able to expect anything but flaming from Protestants, would I?)

Just a suggestion.

As to the rest of your statement:

In was basically speaking of the Northern Renaissance country’s all of which you pretty much point out goers right inline with my statement.

Where as the Southern Renaissance nations are the ones to slowly mutter along in an almost Third world state of economy.

Glad we can agree on that point. Perhaps it is actually more a matter of climate, then, rather than religion.

Have you ever been to Italy? Interesting place. The northern part of the country has a temperate climate, very similar to that of France, while the Southern part of the country has what we would call a Mediterranean climate, similar to that of Spain or, in fact, Portugal. Northern Italians generally have a disdain for Southern Italians as being lazy, while those from the South believe that the Northerners are more German than Italian and believe that they don't know how to live. Both are equally Catholic (in fact, out of the last 12 Italian Popes, 9 came from Northern Italy and none came from any farther south than Rome)

Pius VII - Cesena (Forli)
Leo XII - Spoleto (Perugia)
Pius VIII - Cingoli (Marcerata)
Gregory XVI - Belluno
Pius IX - Senigallia (Ancona)
Leo XIII - Roma
Pius X - Riese (Treviso)
Pius XI - Desio (Monza)
Pius XII - Roma
John XXIII - Sotto il Monte (Bergamo)
Paul VI - Castel Gandolfo (Roma)
John Paul I - Canale d'Agordo (Belluno)

But the North is almost a separate country to this day as far as the amount of economic activity and industrialization as compared to the South.

And you can see this elsewhere. Take, for example, Latin America. You can see that countries that are in the more temperate regions, such as Chile and Argentina, are far more advanced than those from the tropics and subtropics. Even in this country, you can see that historically the North was more industrialized than the South (of course, socialism has utterly corrupted the Northeastern states, driving industry to the more conservative and business-friendly South, but, historically, that was not the case)

A couple of points on this nascent work.

First, you need to look up Mary Boleyn and her relationship with Henry (you will find that he had to get a dispensation to marry her sister Anne...and this, more than anything, was the reason for the Pope's refusal to grant an annulment to allow Henry to marry Catherine)

Secondly, Elizabeth and her successors did nothing to satisfy Catholics. In fact, Elizabeth easily exceeded her sister in the number of martyrs for the Faith she created (any Papist priest and any laity who assisted or hid said priest would be subject to execution by hanging along with drawing and quartering). In fairness, it must be stated that Elizabeth may have seen Catholics not only as a religious threat but as a political one, as well: Pius V issued a Papal Bull against her, Regnans in Excelsis, in which he not only excommunicated her, but also absolved all Catholics from having to honor any oaths to her. This was done after her initial persecution of Catholics...but it provided a really good reason for her to carry on and intensify her efforts.

You should look at the acts of supremacy, acts of uniformity, oaths of abjuration, and other official acts taken beginning with Elizabeth. Frankly, it was a crime to be a practicing Catholic in the UK up until the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829.

Religious persecution was the norm in those days and all were guilty of it, including Catholics, Calvinists, and so on. Even the peace-loving Anabaptists (look up what they did in Münster as an example). So nobody is truly innocent in those days.

Bottom line is that as you edit and revise your work, you should probably take the above into account...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.