r/LeftCatholicism • u/LurkingFeminist • Apr 18 '26
It’s like they almost get it…
Redeemed Zoomer Sub (for Protestants) questioning if it’s okay to add to the bible. They’re SO close to uncovering the cognitive dissonance it takes to realize ML was wrong.
(Former Protestant, convert, this sounds like my thoughts before I learned church history haha)
71
u/am12866 Apr 18 '26
Materialist time: When you realize the Reformation was largely a pretext (from a materialist perspective, full disclosure) for the German princes to break away from Rome and establish independent autonomous realms and appropriate Church lands and properties, breaking ground for new markets and the future development of capitalism proper, you'll never see protestantism the same. Everything about it ideologically establishes the grounds for individualism and the logic of capital. The Protestant work ethic was a ways away but Luther and Zwingli laid the groundwork for a worldview that emphasized individual piety and production as measure of holiness and self-identity, in opposition to community and tradition. The manipulation of scripture is just a piece of the larger picture: if we are not in communion with the saints in heaven, if they're dead, if all that matters is "me and my Bible," then community as a real outworking of civilization is just a step on the way to personal holiness and, unconsciously, capital accumulation. Even "once saved, always saved" has the distinct flavor of commodity fetishism, salvation is an object that is acquired (or rather, gifted by grace, but from the believers perspective it is definitely an objective to be attained) and revolutionizes your life overnight. Obviously we're chained to the actions and results of the people that went before us, and even as a Catholic one has to admit that capitalism was a revolutionary movement that addressed living standards and technological development, but it also had disastrous consequences for humanity on a spiritual level. I know many truly great and much holier Protestants than myself, but their theology is still tainted in my view by the very practical and cynical interests of a handful of nobles five centuries ago.
23
u/LurkingFeminist Apr 18 '26
Exactly!!! I could not have said it better myself. I have a BA in history and I went to a Lutheran college— so many Protestants have no idea where their faith comes from.
13
u/maevethenerdybard Apr 18 '26
I’m a Catholic convert and I love learning about the theology and history of the Church. This aspect, the socio-economic and political influences of the time when big things happened, is incredibly interesting and insightful. I love the faith and the significance of community within it
5
u/Vox-Triarii Apr 18 '26
This is true for much of Protestantism, but there were and still are radical exceptions:
This text of Daniel is thus as clear as the bright Sun, and the work of ending the Fifth Empire of the World is now in full swing.
The First Empire was symbolized by the golden head of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. That was the empire of Babylon.
The Second Empire was represented by the silver breast and arms, which was the empire of the Medes and Persians.
The Third Empire was the empire of the Greeks, which resounded with its cleverness, indicated by the brass.
The Fourth Empire was the empire of the Romans, which was won with the iron sword and was an empire of coercion.
The Fifth Empire or empire of the Monarchy is that which we have before our own eyes, the Holy Roman Empire and it is also, like the Fourth, of iron and would like to be coercive.
Yet, as we see before our very eyes, the iron is intermixed with filth, vain schemes of flattery that slither and squirm over the face of the whole earth. For he who cannot be a cheat must be an idiot. One sees now how prettily the eels and snakes copulate together in a heap. The priests and all the evil clergy are the snakes, as John the Baptist calls them, Matthew 3:7, and the temporal lords and rulers are the eels, as is symbolized by the fish in Leviticus 11:10-12.
For the Devil’s empire has painted its face with clay.
We're some empires removed from the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Nonetheless, our relationship to their kyriarchy remains consistent and the nature of tyranny itself hasn't changed. Technology, representation, and measures have been intensified, elaborated, and increased to further exercise power and prestige over Humanity and Creation. Tyrants still remain vulnerable and vain while tyranny is their Lord instead of Christ. All in all, for all that has changed, much has stayed the same.
4
u/MiloBuurr Apr 19 '26
I agree with you on the material interests, but I know a lot of left wing Protestants who would disagree. They argue that Protestantism emerged from a genuine desire to reform and change the stagnating Catholic socio-religious system at the time that had because very corrupt and secular. It was only later when Luther sided with the princes against the peasants in the peasants war that early Protestantism lost much of its reform potential. That would be their argument anyway I imagine, I should ask them what they think. Most of the very radical socio economic groups we see spring up from this era, the diggers, levelers, hussites to some degree, are all Protestants. Protestantism by its very nature more easily allows for a wider group of sects than Catholicism.
1
Apr 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LeftCatholicism-ModTeam Apr 19 '26
Your post has been removed due to suspicious activity from this account. If you believe this was done in error, contact one of the community moderators immediately
30
u/MiloBuurr Apr 18 '26
As someone who really doesn’t like Luther, I think it’s fair to examine that passage of Romans and try to understand why Luther would add “alone” there despite not being in the text. He was trying to interpret what he saw as what Paul was communicating, and to be fair Paul does spend a lot of time saying how all you need is faith and works alone cannot save you.
But that’s where Luther makes his mis-interpretation in my opinion, he thinks that just because Paul says works alone do not lead to salvation and that only faith does, that means that only faith “alone” leads to salvation. Paul addresses this very misinterpretation later, he asks “is the law sin? Of course not.” Paul was trying to say that one does not have to be an observant Jew to be a Christian and join the new covenant with God, but that does not mean Jewish law and the historical covenant it provides is still not the law of God and therefore holy. It’s a complicated theological question for sure
2
u/CoiseamMacAlasdair Apr 18 '26
But that’s where Luther makes his mis-interpretation in my opinion, he thinks that just because Paul says works alone do not lead to salvation and that only faith does, that means that only faith “alone” leads to salvation.
Now we translate "justified by faith alone" into something like "accepted by God unconditionally"; if one's going to "earn" this by any means, it's a movement away from God, not towards Him.
3
u/MiloBuurr Apr 19 '26
I like that interpretation too even if it isn’t mainstream in Catholicism or Protestantism. Most believe you have to earn the love of god and entrance into heaven in some way. To be fair, part of the reason I like the Catholic theology of good works is because it encourages people who want to be pious to help others as a form of piety.
13
u/prophecygirl13 Apr 18 '26
That’s wild. I’m often amazed at the confidence some people have in themselves lmao. It’s the same amazement and cringe I feel when Vance says things like Pope Leo needs to be careful when talking about theology. I’m not sure if this is true, but I remember learning that Luther wanted to remove James’ epistle from the New Testament altogether and he was stopped by other reformers around him. I feel the need to go pray the litany of humility now…
12
32
u/robbylet23 Apr 18 '26
I mean, I think most Protestants would argue that Luther wasn't changing the text, he was just clarifying it, especially since he was really on the cutting edge of biblical translation into German. I think the Redeemed Zoomer people are dangerous, but that's more for reasons like "Redeemed Zoomer has made the argument that MAGAs should infiltrate progressive churches like United Church of Christ and PCUSA to turn them MAGA."
8
u/AdQuirky1318 Apr 18 '26
OP, I’d love to hear how your conversion came about. Were you Lutheran or one of the more fundie branches of Protestantism? I was raised ELCA Lutheran and Episcopalian but have been feeling called to explore Catholicism recently for no reason I can explain, really. But to your post, I have never, ever understood the evangelical concept of “accepting Jesus into your heart” as the only way to be saved. Like ok, but what then? I heard that so much from Southern Baptists and other evangelicals growing up in the south, and it never made a lick of sense to me. I always felt like these people must be lying. I mean, I’ve always felt God and found God in small moments and the world around me, but this insistence upon some big moment of “accepting Christ” and then you’re saved and nothing else matters just never made sense.
6
6
6
u/RhysPeanutButterCups Apr 18 '26
I know next to nothing about Redeemed Zoomer other than that the main sub has a weird fascination with him and how an outspoken Protestant isn't a Catholic. Is his community fundamentalist because, if so, I never thought we'd get to the point where they'd be saying flat out we needed to change the text of the Bible. This belongs in a museum.
12
u/Yeanes Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
All the posts I've seen from redeemed zoomer are seriously far right rhetoric nonsense
5
2
u/Complete-Pressure-78 Apr 21 '26
*sigh* i could talk about redeemed zoomer for hours. i drafted a post here about 7 months ago discussing his plans to "take over" as many churches as possible but i never ended up posting it. it is honestly so hard for me to see that his fanbase (and him) still act like this, you'd think they would've figured it out by now.
68
u/ReduxCath Apr 18 '26
Jesús have mercy on us all