what was the condition of the catholic church in 1500?
103608
1500 was right before the start of the Protestant reformation.  Martin Luther's 95 Theses were written in 1517.\n\nThere were a couple of specific issues facing the church that started this process.  The first would have been the sale of indulgences, specifically by John Tetzel. Wikipedia has a great definition of indulgences:  "An indulgence is the remission (either full or partial) of temporal punishment still remaining for sins after their guilt has already been removed by absolution."  Someone could purchase an indulgence for himself or for someone else.  The church was using indulgences as a way of raising funds to build St. Peter's in Rome.\n\nSimony was another issue facing the church.  Simony can be defined as the sale and purchase of church positions such as priests.  This led to unqualified people having positions as both priests and bishops.  Remember, the mass was read in Latin, however many priests at the time did not know Latin, and were just speaking gibberish.  The practice of simony also led to the sale of indulgences as a way of paying back the pope back for a position.  The pope would issue an indulgence for the priest to sell, but the pope not only received the payment for the position, he also got a percentage of the indulgence.\n\nThe church was in a mess.  There were many in the Catholic Church who knew it needed to be reformed.
590075
Early Modern Europe is a big window.  Please Elaborate.  Are you referencing the period after 1500, or before?\n\nIn terms of numbers and percentages, there actually were few cases of witchcraft and few people accused.  The majority of people accused were heretics, and also midwives.  Logically speaking, there are several possibilities.\n\n1.  They were witches.\n2.  They were political enemies of their accusers, or the handlers of their accusers.\n3.  They had wealth, and their death allowed its capture.\n4.  They were ideological opposed to the belief structure, and suffered the fate of all iconoclasts.
228090
The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
1005209
Please visit :\nhttp://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Francis/\nYou'll get the whole picture !
1020338
He wanted a divorce. Plain and simple. Hence the birth the Church of  England. He had added power with controling the Church of England because the Pope gave him the title "Defender of Faith". And he wanted his wife Catherine to give him an heir . She only gave him a daughter.\n\nSource Wikipedia\nHenry maintained a strong preference for the traditional Catholic practices and, during his reign, Protestant reformers were unable to make many changes to the practices of the Church of England. Under his son, Edward VI, the church became theologically more radical, before rejoining the Roman church during the reign of Queen Mary I, in 1555. The settlement under Elizabeth I (from 1558) of a mildly protestant, catholic, apostolic, and established church (i.e. subject to and part of the state) that accommodates a wide range of theological positions has essentially been its character since.
903263
Tudor Architecture in England 1500-1575\n \nTypical half-timbered Tudor house \nOne of the most startling transformations in the history of English architecture took place in the Tudor period. It was not, however, a transformation in style. Buildings were still largely Gothic in form; at least during the first half century of the Tudor period. Instead the transformation was a social one; building effort now went towards secular, rather than ecclesiastical buildings.\n\nThere are several reasons for this change. One is simple; there were plenty of churches for the needs of the population of England. More profoundly, the church was no longer the force it had been in the medieval period. The growing unpopularity of the church, with its perceived worldliness and wealth, meant that those with money to spend now spent it on themselves. \n\nThe Dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII meant that there were large areas of land freed up for exploitation by the newly wealthy gentry class. New farms were built upon former monastic lands, and labourers' cottages for tenants who worked the land.\n\nCuriously, changes in architectural style resulted in buildings shrinking; becoming more intimate. Rather than the move towards spaciousness so evident in the late Gothic period, Tudor architecture focussed on details. Windows and doors were smaller, but more ornately decorated, more complex. The smartly pointed arch of the Gothic period gave way to the flattened Tudor arch. The most striking window treatment to emerge in the Tudor period is the oriel, a projecting, multi-sided window cantilevered out from an upper floor, and supported on a bracket or corbel from beneath.\n\n \nTudor Chimney \nChimneys and enclosed fireplaces became common for the first time. Indeed, the Tudor chimney is one of the most striking aspects of this period. One of the reasons for the increased use of chimneys was the widespread adoption of coal as fuel. Previously wood smoke was allowed to escape from the interior through a simple hole in the roof. Now, the increased smoke from coal made necessary evolved forms of fireplaces, flues, and chimneys to get the smoke away from the living space. Chimney stacks were often clustered in groups, and the individual chimney columns were curved, twisted, and decorated with chequerboard patterns of different-coloured bricks. \n\nAnd that brings up a second noticeable characteristic of Tudor architecture; the use of brick in building. Spreading from East Anglia, where it had been introduced from the Low Countries in the late medieval period, brick became one of the most common building materials. Some bricks were imported into England, brought back in ships that exported English wool to the continent. Others were made in brickyards established in East Anglia by Dutch immigrants. \n\nIt may seem strange to the modern reader, but brick was originally a luxury item. Only those at the top of the social and economic spectrum could afford to build in brick. The most remarkable Tudor brick building is Hampton Court Palace, but a multitude of smaller estates and country houses made use of this newly fashionable luxury material.\n\nIn several areas of England, notably Cheshire, Lancashire, and Warwickshire, wooden houses, generally in oak, are more numerous than brick. Wood was used to create a skeleton which was filled in with brick or plaster. Bricks were often laid in a herringbone pattern, made possible because they had no structural responsibilities; the wooden posts took the strain and the bricks served as decorative infill. A hybrid form saw the lower story built in stone, with wood used for the upper stories.\n\nWhere bricks were too expensive plaster was the infill of choice, resulting in the typical "black-and-white" small Tudor house, whitewashed plaster set between blackened oak timbers. Often the upper stories of these houses projected above the lower floors, particularly in towns, where ground-floor space
165751
Hard to tell, seeing as how much time has passed. I bet Latin America wouldn't be Catholic, since Spain would probably have been taken over as well. \n\nProbably no Protestant Reformation, either. The world would be quite different.
408517
Well, let's start with Christianity. Before Jesus died on the cross, he said to Peter, "On you I will build my church." So Peter essentially became the first Pope of the Catholic church, and from then on the "first church" continued to appoint popes. Then comes Martin Luther into the picture. He saw some real problems in the Catholic church that he wanted changed. He demanded change, but was excommunicated instead. Still, he had followers. They became the Lutheran church. And so they were the first to "protest" the Catholic church, thereby becoming "protestants." Then there were the Catholics in England. The king didn't like the fact that he could not divorce, so he broke away from the church too and made his own, the Anglican church. \n\nSo to keep it short and sweet. Different religions form when a group in one religion breaks away from the original and it's like a domino effect and they just evolved into what you see today: the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Pentecostals, etc.
22469
The Eastern Orthodox Church broke with the Catholic Church in the 11th Century, over details of the governing of the church, especially whether or not the pope was the head of the church. The source below has detailed information on its beliefs and the formation of the church.
433367
:}\nthe catholic church   \nthey can be  ordered
661751
Given that 51% of the world's Christians are still Catholics, and another 28% are Orthodox, I wouldn't worry about Luther having destroyed all that much - especially given that the Lutherans have become the most Catholic-like of all the Protestants... theology in a Lutheran seminary would not seem all that alien to a Catholic seminarian these days.
220336
Historically speaking that would be the Anglican church. When Henry viii wanted to divorce Catherine to marry Anne, he left the church. Their daughter Elizabeth was forced to fully convene the Anglican church so that she could continue having the  backing of religon so as to appease her people and prevent civil war. \n\nMartin Luther did not want to break away from the Catholic church. He only wanted the people who were the leaders to reform from practices such as papal indulgences etc.
1163985
Being a priest in the middle ages wasn't what we consider it now.  It was mostly a politcial position bought for second sons.  Like being a politician today there were some people that took their job seriously, and then there were the people who were spoiled and corrupt.  There was almost no accountablity, so those that broke the Church's rules paid their way out if they got into trouble, or did what they wanted.  The widespread corruption was what eventually lead to the breaking of Church authority.
551241
I heard some where about 1500, sad isn't it.
73500
Agree with the above, except I believe it was so successful because the Kings of Europe wanted to throw off the control of the Church, so they encouraged the religious reformation to their political and economic advantage.  If they had not, it probably wouldn't have been successful.
384089
Well, along time ago, before we had all the new fly by night purse stealing money grubbing preachers, we had the Holy Roman Catholic Church. We also had this nice King Henry the 8Th.\nNow old Henry loved to party, drive his Maserati and just have a good time, but the problem was his WIFE.  She wasn't going to have it in HER house, so she continually nagged him, locked him out of the house, took his keys, and wouldn't let him have any money for beer.  So old Henry got pissed off one day and called the POPE and asked for a DIVORCE. Pope said "Cant happen, you gotta stay married to the B---H forever cause that's the rule".\nWell Henry didn't like that answer, so he went back home and laid down (without his wife) cause she went to stay at her girlfriends house for the night, and thought about what he should do.  Well low and behold he came up with a bright idea,  "I still love drinking wine, singing hymns, and eating those crackers, but I hate this NO DIVORCE rule, So I'm going to make me a church with different rules" and so started the Church of England (Protestant) and Henry got his divorce and lived happily ever after and a Bunch of wives later.
519728
Just a note, both Protestants and Catholics actively persecuted one another.  It was not instigated by Catholicism, rather the process was a civil war and the Protestant Princes set the events in motion for both sets of persecutions.  Luther committed what amounted to genocide on the baptists, the baptists would kill entire towns if they didn't become baptists, Catholics would level whole cities that they considered in religious revolt.  Luther burned around 20,000 baptists at the stake.  Protestants persecuted each other and Catholics.  It unleashed existing hatreds in monstrous proportions.  One leading Protestant reformer, who was previously a member of the Inquisition wrote of his horror at the methods of the reformation.  Believe it or not, the Inquisition had rules of restraint on torture, which was culturally accepted as a positive thing at the time by everyone.  The Reformation, in rejecting canon law was free from the restraints.  Both sides acted hideously, as did Americans during our own Revolution, though we were not quite as bad because the populations here were not so dense and the war was between us and them, whereas the Reformation would be though of as closer to the Afgani Civil War.\n\nAs to the consequences, I think there were several both positive and negative.\n\nFirst, the saddest and the most obvious even on these boards is that when you start killing people it is very hard to get people to go back and forgive or say "sorry."  The anger from 500 years ago spills onto these boards, and the angriest rarely understand the real issues or have a real grasp on what is actually being fought over.  We have deep splits on what are really non-Christian issues, but we have Christianized the issues.\n\nMost Americans have not spent any real time in Europe.  That is a shame.  If you went to Germany and followed the geography of the split between the Reformation and Catholicism, you would notice something interesting.  It follows the old Roman line of advance.  Protestant areas are those areas that retained Northern European pagan theologies as Christianized theologies.  Catholic areas are those areas that retained Roman pagan theologies as Christianized theologies.  You even see it in the physical housing today of people.  For example, if you are in Northern German, it is visually very spartan, but has great oral and musical components.  If you are in Bayern (Bavaria), the houses and structures are visually very appealing, but there is less in the music and less emphasis on the spoken.\n\nIn Protestantism, you have an anti-visual symbolism emphasis.  It emphasizes the "word," and the bardic traditions of singing, witnessing and storytelling.  The visual is distrusted.  A good early Calvinist church wouldn't have even had cushions and nothing to see.\n\nIn the Catholic areas you have a distrust of individual witness, a distrust on non-scriptural hymns, and a distrust of using stories in teaching.  Instead you have a rich painted or statuary tradition.  It was believed that since Jesus was both God and Man, he had to be picturable.  As such, while it is wrong to paint a picture of God the Father, it is essential to paint images of God the son with halos to affirm his simultaneous divinity and humanity.\n\nThis division ultimately lead to a number of positive cultural components.  Art and literature improved dramatically as they were now in greater competition.  Religious toleration gradually became a new cultural concept.  It did not previously exist almost anywhere at any time.  There are what have been considered unusual examples in history but they were not the norm.\n\nAn anti-religioussness sprang forth and became the Enlightenment.  Without it, we would not have the United States.  As John Adams said, "in the best of all possible worlds, there would be no religion."  It permitted a growth in science independent and indeed completely separate from religion.  Science now exists