1215 England / The Magna Carta

[Josh]

It's an open question, but I think the Magna Carta had very little to do with the Protestant Reformation and in particular the radical reformation as it happened in 1525. If anything, the path taken in England was a very different one that the Anabaptist took; it is apparent when one looks at the legacy, as there are virtually no "plain Quakers" left to speak of today.

[temporal1]

i wrote:
This history topic is about people and events that eventually led to, or culminated in, Protestants and Anabaptists.

F Underhill:
Not sure what exactly that has to do with Magna Carta. Other than maybe it was indicative of the rise of towns and commerce as a new and formidable power. That brought with it a new ethos of individualism.

Addendum: Well, that and the individual rights granted/implied by the Magna Carta. I suppose they were both contributing factors.

i suppose my premise may not be clear. i’ll try to clarify.

“to protest” requires something that exists to protest against. “anabaptism” is based on existing baptism found to be in error.
to make a change in history requires the existence of something to change.

when i remark that there were hundreds of years of history that resulted in 1500’s Protestants and Anabaptists, i’m not suggesting these prior folks continued in a straight line what was happening, but, from what i’ve read, ALL these in history contributed, step by step, from the earliest scriptural translaters (mostly devout Catholic monks+priests, who had education+access to scriptures in Latin+Greek) WHO FIRST-PERSON READ SCRIPTURES seeking Truth, and, had the nerve to speak about WHAT THEY READ, which differed in some ways from what they were told scriptures said by hierarchy. sometimes, 1 word would change the meaning of an entiire chapter.

all of this contributed to and led to 1500’s Protestants and Anabaptists.

(at which time, moveable type/the printing press, enabled major change in communication of what they found).
if the printing press had been available in, example, 600 AD or before, how different history might have been!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_tra ... to_English

An opposite response to something that exists is dependent on that which existed being found in error.
That’s “where Protestants and Anabaptists came from,” they READ BIBLES and were guided by the Holy Spirit to seek Truth.

This was a process/culmination of hundreds of years.
Eventually aided by the printing press.

Everyday people were then enabled to read their own personal Bibles as not before.
(The process continues to this day, the pursuit of authentic Truth.)

The early men were not trying to leave the Catholic Church, not even Martin Luther or Menno Simons.
They wanted the Church to be authentic and honest about what was written in scriptures. Which, to many, seems basic, logical, honorable, godly desire. But was viewed as threatening and catastrophic to Catholic hierarchy. Horrors resulted.

The OP video suggests this sort of connection in the Magna Carta. “What came before.”

Protestants and Anabaptists did not occur in a vacuum. They were RESPONSES to and extensions of what had been unfolding.

These were people reading Bibles and “simply” making an effort to be true to what they found therein.

The strange thing is what dramatic upheaval this caused, and causes still.

However, Jesus knew this would happen, and warned.
It’s really helpful He warned. After all, consider what He experienced!

How much worse it would be if He said Truth would be welcome on earth, everything would be peaceful and easy!
i really appreciate honesty in scriptures. Truth is no fairy tale.

[Falco Underhill]

These were people reading Bibles and “simply” making an effort to be true to what they found therein.

The strange thing is what dramatic upheaval this caused, and causes still.

Somehow, i doubt the "dramatic upheaval" was caused by mere academic arguments about the Bible. The Protestant movement lead to demands for social and political reforms that ultimately played into the capitalist/democratic vs monarchial/feudal wars. I doubt that was intended by the original Protestants, but ideas sometimes do have unintended consequences.

[temporal1]

These were people reading Bibles and “simply” making an effort to be true to what they found therein.

The strange thing is what dramatic upheaval this caused, and causes still.

. Somehow, i doubt the "dramatic upheaval" was caused by mere academic arguments about the Bible. The Protestant movement lead to demands for social and political reforms that ultimately played into the capitalist/democratic vs monarchial/feudal wars. I doubt that was intended by the original Protestants, but ideas sometimes do have unintended consequences.

I did not intend to diminish the gravity of what the many men in history found in scriptures that did not match beliefs+practices! It was more than academic rhetoric. It was God’s Word.

In contemporary times, a puzzling example (for me) was when the 1990’s priest abuse scandals were revealed.
I was confounded that Catholic Church leaders would not “simply” (do as they tell laity to do) - Confess, repent, submit, obey - God.

Jesus offers Himself “simply.”
The human condition complicates (often to astonishing and dramatic degrees).

Jesus makes the word/concept, “simply,” a profound word.

[Falco Underhill]

These were people reading Bibles and “simply” making an effort to be true to what they found therein.

The strange thing is what dramatic upheaval this caused, and causes still.

. Somehow, i doubt the "dramatic upheaval" was caused by mere academic arguments about the Bible. The Protestant movement lead to demands for social and political reforms that ultimately played into the capitalist/democratic vs monarchial/feudal wars. I doubt that was intended by the original Protestants, but ideas sometimes do have unintended consequences.

I did not intend to diminish the gravity of what the many men in history found in scriptures that did not match beliefs+practices! It was more than academic rhetoric. It was God’s Word.

In contemporary times, a puzzling example (for me) was when the 1990’s priest abuse scandals were revealed.
I was confounded that Catholic Church leaders would not “simply” (do as they tell laity to do) - Confess, repent, submit, obey - God.

Jesus offers Himself “simply.”
The human condition complicates (often to astonishing and dramatic degrees).

Jesus makes the word/concept, “simply,” a profound word.

My point is if you want to understand the political upheaval it caused then you have to take into consideration the political movements it spawned.

The Protestant movement from the first emphasized two things, not just one:

1. The Bible

2. Voluntary Poverty and simplicity of life.

You are only considering no. 1, but the reality is it was inseparable from no. 2.

When you take no. 2 (voluntary poverty) and use it as a basis for political reforms, that could - and did - lead to trouble.

Anabaptists tend to emphasize NOT doing that, but there were Protestant sects that were very political and not so peaceful as well.

[PetrChelcicky]

Just an aside about the priest's abuse scandal.
The Catholics, as perhaps other Christians, have a tradition to keep private sins private and public sins public.
This is quite understandable. You would not expect your priest to speak publicly about your private sins (even if a confession is not involved).
Now in a way I understand that a bishop cannot hold his priests to a different standard than that which the priests have to apply to the laics.

[temporal1]

. Somehow, i doubt the "dramatic upheaval" was caused by mere academic arguments about the Bible. The Protestant movement lead to demands for social and political reforms that ultimately played into the capitalist/democratic vs monarchial/feudal wars. I doubt that was intended by the original Protestants, but ideas sometimes do have unintended consequences.

I did not intend to diminish the gravity of what the many men in history found in scriptures that did not match beliefs+practices! It was more than academic rhetoric. It was God’s Word.

In contemporary times, a puzzling example (for me) was when the 1990’s priest abuse scandals were revealed.
I was confounded that Catholic Church leaders would not “simply” (do as they tell laity to do) - Confess, repent, submit, obey - God.

Jesus offers Himself “simply.”
The human condition complicates (often to astonishing and dramatic degrees).

Jesus makes the word/concept, “simply,” a profound word.

My point is if you want to understand the political upheaval it caused then you have to take into consideration the political movements it spawned.

The Protestant movement from the first emphasized two things, not just one:

1. The Bible

2. Voluntary Poverty and simplicity of life.

You are only considering no. 1, but the reality is it was inseparable from no. 2.

When you take no. 2 (voluntary poverty) and use it as a basis for political reforms, that could - and did - lead to trouble.

Anabaptists tend to emphasize NOT doing that, but there were Protestant sects that were very political and not so peaceful as well.

i’ve kinda lost my way here.
to respond, i think i’d need to view the OP video again, at least the first hour or so, to remind me where i was with this.
i’m not sure how soon i could do that. but i would be interested in doing it. (for instance, on a walk.)

Just an aside about the priest's abuse scandal.
The Catholics, as perhaps other Christians, have a tradition to keep private sins private and public sins public.
This is quite understandable.
You would not expect your priest to speak publicly about your private sins (even if a confession is not involved).

Now in a way I understand that a bishop cannot hold his priests to a different standard than that which the priests have to apply to the laics.

Imagine confessing privately to a priest, being counseled, doing penance, etc., then to find that priest was a serial child sexual predator. i’m not Catholic, have never gone to confession. but the idea. This must have happened countless times. Some bishops were revealed to be complicit/guilty, as well.

How often were victims groomed in confessionals?! Their parents lied to/manipulated?!

The answer for them (for all) is to “simply” do as you say. Confess, repent, submit, obey.
In scriptures, leadership is to be held to a higher standard. So, at a minimum, do-as-you-say.

[Falco Underhill]

to respond, i think i’d need to view the OP video again, at least the first hour or so, to remind me where i was with this.
i’m not sure how soon i could do that. but i would be interested in doing it. (for instance, on a walk.)

Okay, there's no hurry here, Temp — take your time!