# What If Martin Luther Had Decided not to be a Rebel ?



## BAYLOR (Nov 3, 2014)

What if he decided that was okay with the how Pope Leo the X was running the church and decided not to write or post his 95 Thesis? What would a Europe without a Protestant Reformation have been like? How might it have impacted History from the 16th Century on? 


What do you think the world would look like today?


----------



## Vertigo (Nov 3, 2014)

It would have happened sooner or later. The Catholic church of the time was so corrupt and so disconnected with the common people it was inevitable. Remember that Henry VIII was vehemently opposed to Luther and yet he still broke from Rome and, whilst his reasons may not have been the most religious, that split never would have stuck if it wasn't for the fact that much of the population already mistrusted Rome.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 3, 2014)

The Reformation was happening anyway. Plenty of other people.
Erasmus had a lot of sympathy with Luther and turned down promotion. He warned Luther that the German Princes were being political, not religious about their support.

The Anglican church wasn't really anything to do with Luther either.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 3, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> The Reformation was happening anyway. Plenty of other people.
> Erasmus had a lot of sympathy with Luther and turned down promotion. He warned Luther that the German Princes were being political, not religious about their support.
> 
> The Anglican church wasn't really anything to do with Luther either.



In The case of England would Henry have risked breaking with Rome if there had been no Luther or Protestant Reformation in existence  ?  Luther's revolution created Protestant states and potential allies and lessened the danger of him losing his throne. Without that Henrey might have been a bit more reluctant to break with Rome.


----------



## Vertigo (Nov 3, 2014)

Impossible to say of course, but I don't think he would have hesitated any more; he certainly wasn't a man noted for his hesitation! Also, as Ray said above, the protestant movement was certainly not restricted to Luther and Henry.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 3, 2014)

Vertigo said:


> Impossible to say of course, but I don't think he would have hesitated any more; he certainly wasn't a man noted for his hesitation! Also, as Ray said above, the protestant movement was certainly not restricted to Luther and Henry.



But Popes had been known to depose monarchs in the past ?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 4, 2014)

As Vertigo and Ray have said the reformation was more than just Luther. 

Scotland became, for our sins, Calvinist not Lutheran via the agency of John Knox, who had met Calvin in Switzerland. Luther perhaps was the 'Beckham' or poster boy of the reformation movement, but there were a large number of others who were coming up with similar ideas (some going much, much further as well.)

Henry VIII would have split whether there was a strong protestant movement or not IMO. Popes might have deposed monarchs, but then monarchs deposed popes as well. And even if the pope wanted you dead monarchs could live with that - Elizabeth the first steered England through a golden age despite being under excommunication and a bit of a fatwa from the papacy.


----------



## The Judge (Nov 4, 2014)

Luther's theses might have been pivotal in the Reformation, but they were only a continuation of a debate that had been going on for years -- both Jan Hus and John Wycliffe had drawn attention to the church's failing in the 15th century, and other thinkers such as Zwingli were coming to much the same conclusions about the need for deep-seated reform.  Perhaps a question of rather more significance is what if the Pope had accepted the criticsm and taken steps to deal with corruption and the sale of indulgences etc -- how long would that have kept the lid on the theological differences which evolved?

I also don't see any connection between Henry's actions and the growth of Protestantism on the continent -- he (or, rather, Cromwell) played off the French against the Emperor when he disposed of Catherine, and the major revolts against Spanish rule in the Netherlands didn't come until after Henry's death.




Vertigo said:


> Remember that Henry VIII was vehemently opposed to Luther and yet he still broke from Rome and, whilst his reasons may not have been the most religious, that split never would have stuck if it wasn't for the fact that much of the population already mistrusted Rome.


I don't know I'd got so far as to say the mass of English people mistrusted Rome, not before the split.  I can well imagine there were grumblings, and the stories of licentious nuns and monks living in the lap of luxury no doubt went the rounds, but the would-be protestants were mostly in the towns and the south-east, among the merchants and journeymen workers.  The great majority of people lived in the countryside and were almost certainly conservative in their beliefs.  If you look at the victims of the Marian persecution some years later -- ie after the protestant teachings had been promulgated even further under Edward, and therefore when more people would have been exposed to the ideas -- most of them were in London and the south/south-east.  The split with Rome stuck during Henry's lifetime simply because he was ruthless in dealing with anyone who spoke against him as shown not only in his actions against More, but eg in the aftermath of the pilgrimage of grace and other uprisings which were based, at least in part, on religious concerns (though undoubtedly they also arose from social/economic issues, which themselves may have arisen from the dissolution of the monasteries).


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 16, 2014)

The Reformation forced the Roman Catholic Church to reform itself.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Nov 19, 2014)

Religion was more about politics than anyth


Vertigo said:


> It would have happened sooner or later. The Catholic church of the time was so corrupt and so disconnected with the common people it was inevitable. Remember that Henry VIII was vehemently opposed to Luther and yet he still broke from Rome and, whilst his reasons may not have been the most religious, that split never would have stuck if it wasn't for the fact that much of the population already mistrusted Rome.



This. It was always more about politics than religion. As soon as a monarch realised he could rebel against the Catholic church and survive, he did.


----------



## Faisal Shamas (Apr 7, 2015)

Someone else would have done it. As mentioned Vertigo, the situation was calling for someone to man up, firstly there was art and poetry promoted by Medicis, then was influx of Greek writing,  the age of reason was on the brink, first thing that a man would question in such a situation is injustice, it was bound to happen, I would say Catholics brought it upon themselves


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 10, 2015)

John Calvin perhaps?


----------



## svalbard (Apr 11, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> John Calvin perhaps?



There were plenty of candidates.


----------



## JoanDrake (Apr 26, 2015)

One interesting AH possibility is what if one of these candidates was Islam? What if one of the alternate reformers was an Imam with a new muslim message for both the Faiths?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 26, 2015)

JoanDrake said:


> One interesting AH possibility is what if one of these candidates was Islam? What if one of the alternate reformers was an Imam with a new muslim message for both the Faiths?



Interesting, but I don't think such a person would have survived very long if such a person has appeared in the Christian West. Just a few years after the start of the reformation the Ottoman Turks were at the height of their expansion into Europe with Suleiman the Magnificent and much feared. Surely a muslim preaching some sort of action that might break up the Christian church would only be taken in a very negative manner!


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 26, 2015)

@JoanDrake
Just look at what Islam generally thinks of Bahai faith. The Founder was an Iranian Moslem I think. The Iranians (Medes & Persians of Persia then) decided it wasn't a new religion, but Apostate Mohammedanism. The Prophet himself believed that Islam was in a way a reformation, the ultimate expression of Judaism and Christianity. He expected them to become his followers en mass. Later Persia was conquered by Islamic army. The whole history of Islam is forced conversion, conquering and treating Jews & Christians as second class citizens. Anyone not Islamic, Jew or Christian basically had no rights.

Not Catholic, Egyptian Coptic, Syriac, Indian, Chinese, Greek or Russian church is ever going to listen to an Imam, or vice versa. Ultimately the idea that Islam, Christianity and Judaism can peacefully co-exist is a western liberal fantasy. It's not because of the Palestinians that the State of Israel's very existence is opposed by so many.   

Islamic groups want special dispensations in the West that don't exist for non-moslems in many Islamic countries.

The Ottoman Empire was more secular than purely Islamic of course, about similar relationship of C of E to the Britiish Empire. So provided the bribes and taxes paid, it was far more enlightened that Saudi Arabia or Iran today in terms of cultural or religious freedoms. But not Political or National freedom. If it hadn't been checked as well as rotted from within, there would be no West with a Christian background today. Just one corrupt vaguely Islamic state.


----------

