When you have an institution as large as the Catholic Church, you will magnetically attract power-grabbers & money-grabbers. Such persons have no conscience. In as much, the Number One person who wants to takeover the Catholic Church, and use it for his own purposes, is Satan.
Well, during the Protestant Usurpation, a lot of Catholic Churches were literally stolen. Meanwhile, Lutheranism was imposed up entire nations by writ ... decree ... law. Henry VIII imposed his will in the same dictatorial way. Allowing freedom of thought was NOT on the Protestant Installer's things-to-do-list.
Iceland, Scandinavia, and Lapland
Iceland would be forced to embrace Lutheranism at the hands of Denmark's King Christian III. Then, in 1537, Norway would also be forced to officially become Lutheran, at the point of the military swords of the exact same Christian III.
Sweden's Gustav I attempted to establish Lutheranism as the official Swedish religion in 1527, even to the point of "nationalizing" all Catholic Church property in Sweden, and putting its maintenance into the hands of Lutheran leaders. But, he had insufficient success at his goal.
His son, John III, became brother-in-law of the Roman Catholic king of Poland. This meant that John's son, Sigismund, was raised a Roman Catholic. So, John was a sympathizer who did whatever he could for his wife's and his son's religion. As a result, he tried to fuse the two religions together and make a new religion; Lutheranism & Catholicism, that is.
Next came John III's Roman Catholic son ascending to the throne of Sweden. He was also the head of state of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, dating back to 1587. He was zealous for Catholicism. Actually, he was zealous for tradition, being that it was traditional to be a Roman Catholic Swede for a few centuries. He ascended to his Swedish father's throne, in 1592, being crowned Sigismund III Vasa. He was also titled, Grand Duke of Finland and Grand Duke of Lithuania.
Do not be deceived. Lutheranism was spread by the sword and the shedding of blood.
Sigismund created the Polish-Swedish Union. So, he would spend time in Poland that needed to be spent in Sweden. Next in the timeline came a 1593 declaration by certain clergymen by which Sweden was declared to be a Lutheran nation. (See: Uppsala Meeting.) Sigismund's uncle was in attendance, and he would become Sigismund's greatest opponent, even taking the Swedish thrown from Sigismund, in 1599. The People of Sweden did NOT have a vote on the issue.
When Sigismund was deposed, he was given six months to send his son, Ladislaus IV, to Sweden, provided that the boy would be raised Protestant there. Well, Ladislaus' policy was Religious Tolerance. While king of Sweden, he spent his time as founder of the Polish Commonwealth Navy, patron of the arts, and Czar of Russia. He was elected by the 7 Boyars, after his army captured Moscow. His immediate successors would be Roman Catholic, none the less.
Then came the ultimate Catholic-Protestant war, in 1618. After the Thirty Years War,
the Swedish monarch Christina abdicated and eventually converted to
Catholicism (at least on the exterior). She would end up leaving
Sweden. Anyone involved in that war could be assumed to have suffered
from post-traumatic stress syndrome, including Christina. Actually, it
should have been called, the Thirty Years War Crime. It also should have been called, Luther's Legacy. If not for Luther, it would never have happened.
Now, until the Tolerance Act of 1781, some Swedes were executed for simply being Catholic. Others were deported. None the less, even after the Tolerance Act, each monarch of Sweden was required to be a Lutheran, until 1995.
The bottom line is that, wherever there was the Legacy of Martin Luther, there was the OPPOSITE of freedom of thought. There was heartless suppression and oppression. The propagandists made Luther out to be a saint, when he was actually a very ornery person. Plus, you could tell that he didn't know what he was doing, when venturing off in the philosophy of civil government. He should not have been regarded as anyone's advisor.
Then came Finland, a Lapland territory . . . and reindeer country
During
the 16th Century, Finland was Lutheran in name only. It had a
population that was 90% rural, and its "farm folk" were very much
devoted to the Virgin Mary. Finns continued to believe in the existence
of Purgatory, as well. None the less, their main concern was surviving
the Arctic conditions of Finland, during the well documented Little Ice
Age of 1280 to 1840 CE.
In summary, the propaganda which states that the Protestant Reformation was a liberating time, where people were allowed to think freely, was a complete and total lie. The Protestants were outright oppressive, and they did put their religious competition to death, time after time after time and again.
Yes,
Protestant executed Protestant, in the 16th Century. In fact, in 1529,
Luther and Zwingli did meet in Marburg, and they almost came to a
friendly alliance. They had a decisive difference in the doctrine of
holy communion. So, this would impede Zwingli's ability to have
someone cover his flank, in the upcoming Catholic-Protestant warfare in
Switzerland. Zwingli was killed in a surprise attack, due to the
complete absence of Lutheran allies.
And for the record, Zwingli was a military chaplain BEFORE the 1521 creation of Lutheranism. In fact, he was a chaplain in Italy. However, after 1521, he became the warring party. He carried the same armaments that today's Swiss Guard carries at the Vatican, namely the Halberd. Such a weapon is a combination ax and spear.
Yet, even going into 1530, the Protestant founders, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Catholic bishops hoped for a reconciliation of differences and a re-unification. After all, the Protestants were all raised Catholic, in the first place.
This openness to reconciliation existed in those who
realized that a real threat existed in the Ottoman Empire ... of yet
another Muslim invasion upon Christian Europe. The most famous three
thus far were in: [1] Tours France, in 732, [2] Constantinople (now
called Istanbul) in 1453, and [3] Vienna, in 1529. Yet, more massive
attacks were coming. One would occur in 1571, where the survival of
Christian Europe was put to the task. The other notable one was yet
another attack on Vienna, in 1683.
Yet, the result was that the Augsburg Confession was published in 1530, and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V had to deal with the warring Turks without the alliance of Protestant Europe. He also had to deal with the warring French in the 1526 to 1530 Cognac League War. He even had to deal with the warring Republic of Florence, in 1529. So, no unification of European Christians would occur.
A major historic fact to point out is that it was only the Roman Catholics who would put up a fight against the invading Muslim forces. In fact, in latter centuries, Protestants would team-up with Muslim forces, as allies. In fact, Suleiman the Magnificent sent a letter to the Lutherans of Flanders, stating that he felt close to them. The Lutherans should have realized that he was attempting to use them as his useful idiots in destroying the Catholic Church. None the less, a Swedish Protestant king teamed-up with Ottoman Muslims against the Russia Orthodox Peter the Great. In fact . . .
.
. . Luther appeared conciliatory toward Muslims, even in showing
similarities between the Lutheranism and Islam. Meanwhile, Luther
called the Pope the Antichrist, and he literally called the Jews "the
Devil Incarnate."
The asininity of Protestant negligence is that, if the Ottomans ended up beating the Catholics of the Holy Roman Empire, they would have destroyed all the Protestant jurisdictions there, as well. Therefore, brave Roman Catholics saved Protestants from certain death, certain pillaging, certain sexual slavery, and other types of slavery.
Yes, the Roman Catholics payed for the Muslim-Catholic wars of the 16th Century in blood, the loss of life, and in financial debt. Meanwhile, the Protestants got their safety entirely for free. In fact, they kept trying to destroy their protectors, the Catholics. And of course, the Protestants got their Bible from the Roman Catholics without being charged for it. Yet, the Protestants of today damn the Catholic Church who gave them freedom from the tyranny of Muslims. And concerning the Bible, it is not correct to state that the Catholic Church gave the Protestants the Bible. The Protestants stole it from the Catholic Church.
Protestants didn't even get along with each other
Protestants would disagree with each other in the 16th Century, even within their own sects. In Lutheranism, it was a matter of the Philippists vs the Flacians, etc. Even the Swiss Consensus Tigurinus of 1551 was merely a token gesture, in the attempt to unify and consolidate the Protestant doctrine of holy communion between the newly founded Protestant religions. Protestants executed other Protestants, none the less.
Next came the warring Lutherans, aka the Schmalkaldic
League, who directly opposed the Holy Roman Empire. Martin Luther
needed armies and war to accomplish his objective. On the other hand,
St. Francis of Assisi, three centuries prior, accomplished decisive
changes in the Catholic Church without a single soldier, and without
being excommunicated. If you want to effect changes in the Church,
study Francis of Assisi ... or ask for the intercession of Francis of
Assisi, during prayer. You may always pray for great things.
One more point to make here:
The 1530 Lutheran publication of Philip Melanchthon needs to be called,
the Augsburg PROFESSION OF FAITH, not "confession." That will prevent
confusion in the minds of modern-day beginners who are clueless about
the 16th Century wars of religion.
Thus far, we have a pattern here:
Hard-working folk embraced Catholicism, while the office worker ... the
carriage rider ... the inkwell & quill administrator ... embraced
the much easier Lutheranism. Historians basically recognized the
pattern as Country folk staying Catholic, and 16th Century city slickers
becoming Protestant.
At this point, it's important for humanity to see that the "Protestant Reformation" was nothing more than a political movement which necessitated Protestants to force their new religion on Northern Europeans, at the point of a sword. Do you want historic proof of this accusation? It's really easy to point it out:
In Scandinavia, the Roman Catholic priests were on the side of the Peasant Rebellion there. In Germany, Martin Luther thoroughly condemned the rebellion, defaming the very character of hard-working & heavily-burdened peasants.
As was previously mentioned, in 1524 & 1525, after Luther published his condemnation of the German peasants, 90,000 to 100,000 peasants died. Some scholars placed the death toll at a quarter million. This, alone, illustrates that Martin Luther was not pious & peaceful, in any capacity. And he as sure as Hell did NOT believe in freedom of thought ... or in taking time to think things out. He was often in a rage, and it resulted in the loss of life, due to his political influence.
That's the tale of the tape. Catholicism always had a fraternity of kind-hearted folk who looked after the poor ... after orphans ... after captives of Muslim pirates, in contributing money to a Catholic religious order dedicated to paying ransom money, for the release of the kidnap victims of the Muslim pirates. It's Catholicism who had Francis of Assisi, Dominic Guzma, Mother Fontbonne, Mother Drexel, Mother Cabrini, and ... Mother Teresa. Protestantism had very rich men clad in business suits, while on stage and in front of TV cameras, becoming all the more rich with each television broadcast.
This also illustrates that, for the most part, Americans are easily deceived people, falling for whosoever is on mainstream TV network broadcasts. Maybe now you can realize why and how the Germans were so easily deceived in the 1930s. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. The big mouth gets the broadcast time.
England and the alternating current of political power
As far as went the British Isles, both Catholicism and Protestantism took turns going through the same revolving door, in London's governmental buildings. This is evidenced by the fact that Protestant Elizabeth had no natural heir. Plus, the ultimate Catholic killer, Cromwell, would be declared a criminal at the hands of the British government, posthumously. One monarch would be Protestant. The next one would be Catholic, etc.
The death penalty for Catholics in England was a painful fad, in the early stages. Then punishments were reduced to fines, the forfeiture of governmental posts, the inability to inherit land, and even eviction. For example, under Cromwell, every Roman Catholic was ordered to be evicted from Dublin.
Then came 1834, exactly 300 years after Henry VIII made Catholicism illegal. The same Duke of Wellington who defeated Napoleon became the British prime minister who saw to the complete legalization of Catholicism everywhere, except for the crown of the UK, itself. The UK's monarch was still required to be a Protestant Anglican, even during the reign of Elizabeth II. This is why she would not accept the marriage of Charles and Roman Catholic Camilla Shand. Charles was told to go find a substitute for Camilla. That ended in disaster, as we all know. If you are not going to marry the one you love, then don't get married.
**********************************
This way, if you please, to Part 6 of 7 parts:
****************************************************
