Patito de Hule

I'm reading about the Julich-Cleves dispute as a prelude to the Thirty Years War in The Thirty Years War by Peter H. Wilson. The part that I've bolded in the following statement puzzles me.

I am guessing that a quote from the following paragraph explains what the author meant by "Julich's irenicist culture." It says, in part, that the conflicting dynastic, confessional and strategic structures inhibited polarization and the prospects of peaceful settlement looked good when Johann Wilhelm died.

What puzzles me is the opposition between "Julich's irenicist culture" and Rudolf's interference. Should we expect the Lutherans to grow alarmed at the "irenicist culture," i.e. at the prospect of a peaceful settlement?

Any thoughts? Am I missing something?

Lucius

Perhaps. I don't know if you are. Irenicism is a Christian philosophy that teaches that such questions as the number of sacraments, church organization, etc, are of no importance compared to Christian unity. That might have been in reaction to all the religious fighting that had been going on in Europe since 1520. Maybe they saw the Thirty Years War coming and didn't like it. Notwithstanding, the Princes preferred Cuius regio, eius religio("Whose realm, his religion").

Am I missing something?

Scipio

The point it is making is that

a) the princes were alarmed with political interference, not religious issues. So the Thirty Years War was caused by political considerations, not simply religious conflict.

b) One would assume that Lutherans were against Irenicism because it implies that they ought to end the schism with the Church and rejoin Rome. Clearly, Lutherans would be uncomfortable with such a position, given their belief that the pope was the Antichrist.

Patito de Hule

I don't know.

More generally, irenic is the opposite of polemic, and given the context and the following paragraph (the part I quoted) I think that is the meaning here rather than theological irenics. I am bearing in mind that irenics had different connotations in the aftermath of the Reformation as opposed to the second half of the 20th century. However, the general meaning seems to fit here.

Still, this is an author who does not waste words. The whole statement seems to read well if we just leave out the words "not at Julich's irenicist culture, but because". So why did Wilson put that phrase in there?

Patito de Hule

That makes more sense. Thanks. He is certainly emphasizing the political over the religious causes.

Lucius

OK, I got it. Yes, irenicist with the lower-case "I" would seem to indicate a non-religious use of the word.

Golly, is that a little old-fashioned for a book that came out in 2009? Or is that just how he writes?

Patito de Hule

Yeah, he uses some of those. But as I said, he doesn't waste any words.

pikeshot1600

I just read the first 81 pages of Wilson's book this morning. He seems to me to recognize that in the 16th/17th century, all aspects of life were affected by faith (or at least by "religion"). It was very difficult for many people to separate politics from religion, or to separate their own private behavior from religion.

Patito de Hule

He does. But the emphasis seems to me to be on the political causes. Look at how many of the disputes that arise are within confessions. For every one of the conflicts he describes as prelude to the war, there are Catholics and Protestants on both sides of the dispute. He devotes a lot of time to the "two brothers dispute" in Chapters 5 and 7 and again some in the 8th.

It's heavy reading, but a good book and a good analysis (so far).

(This my 1000th post. I was hoping it would be on something erudite or momentous, but I guess the first 999 weren't either.)