Luther’s first attempts at reform were very mild
There was never anything mild about Luther’s soteriology, which was the core of his “attempts at reform.” Certainly his initial practical moves were very moderate. But by about 1520 he was calling the Pope the Antichrist and criticizing the traditional understanding of the sacraments. This didn’t look very mild to contemporaries. Furthermore, Luther’s early rhetoric was far more hostile to tradition–including the Church Fathers–than the rhetoric of many other Reformers. The idea that Luther was more respectful of tradition than the Reformed, as a whole, is in my opinion a myth. He had more specific, selective interests in challenging tradition. He was less wholesale. But he was arguably quite a bit more radical on the narrow range of issues (focused on soteriology) where he did challenge tradition.
by comparison (as opposed to Calvin, Zwingli, the Anabatists, the Enthusiasts, and so forth,)
“Enthusiasts” can mean a lot of things. (Are you talking about the Zwickau Prophets and people like that?) But Calvin, Zwingli, and the Anabaptist tradition were all closer to Catholicism than Luther on some of the key soteriological issues. All of them made a closer connection between good works and salvation than Luther did. The Anabaptists were in fact criticized by Luther and other Reformers for their “new monkery.” It all depends on which issues you are looking at. And the Reformed tradition generally paid a lot more attention to justifying their position on the basis of the early Church than Luther ever did. (Other Lutherans were another story–I’m contrasting these Reformed theologians with Luther particularly, and not necessarily with the emerging Lutheran confessional tradition as a whole.)
which is why the Augsburg Confession is the base root document of the Anglican 39 Articles
I think that’s overstated.
neither the early Lutherans nor the Anglicans intended to leave the Catholic Church.
That’s a trite bit of tautology. Of course none of the Reformers intended to leave the Catholic Church as they understood it (are you seriously suggesting that Calvin and other Continental Reformed theologians did? Based on what?). But quite obviously they *did *intend to break communion with the Papacy.
If one digests the history, Lutherans were hunted down and killed for proposing ideas like letting the laity read the Bible in the vernacular, or allowing priests to marry, or focussing preaching on Christ rather than indulgence procurements.
Please name the Lutherans who were killed for teaching the things mentioned, and *only *for the things mentioned. The closest you might get would be someone like Constantino Ponce de la Fuente, who would not have considered himself a Lutheran and who was imprisoned, not executed (though he died in prison and of course one could speculate as to how he died). And even in his case it wasn’t a matter of “focusing preaching on Christ rather than indulgence procurements” (a straw man if I ever saw one), but of focusing preaching on faith in Christ rather than on such matters as the Eucharist, Marian devotion, etc. Another example would be Thomas Bilney, who was burned at the stake, but again not for the narrow range of issues you mention–the big thing that seems to have gotten him in trouble was rejection of saint veneration. I am mentioning the people who were persecuted even though they clearly did not intend to break with the Church, which appears to be your point even though your list of issues is inaccurate (or at least incomplete).
The Lutherans got more extreme as they were hunted down and burned,
Luther was calling the Pope Antichrist not too long after the Leipzig Disputation late in 1519 (I don’t have Brecht’s biography in front of me, with its detailed timeline, so I can’t give you the exact date when he started doing this, but it was certainly before his excommunication). The first Lutherans were burned at the stake in 1523, I believe. Certainly this did not tend to make Luther more moderate. But your excuse is threadbare and unhistorical. He was plenty radical before any of his followers had been killed.
even though many of their reforms have been established in the Roman communion since Vatican II.
The dominant theology at and after Vatican II would be, from Luther’s perspective, Pelagian heresy. Luther said that the primary issue was justification by faith alone, and he understood this doctrine in a way intrinsically tied to a radical doctrine of total depravity and predestination. Later Lutherans did not entirely follow him here, and I think that’s a good thing, because I think Luther was wrong on a lot of points. But the fact is that what Luther was saying is not something that the Catholic Church accepts today. You are trivializing the issues.
The Anglicans intended to remain Catholic, too… only they had the benefit of the protection of their entire country to implement reforms.
Not of “their entire country,” but of a despotic monarch (if you’re thinking of Henry VIII) who brutally suppressed popular rebellions calling for the restoration of the old ways of worship. Of course, you may be thinking of Elizabeth. Much the same applies. Maybe the English Reformation wasn’t as completely a top-down affair as modern “revisionist” scholarship argues (I think this scholarship is onesided, in reaction to the older “Whig” interpretation), but it certainly was not something embraced by the “entire country.”
I agree that nuance is needed. I don’t see a lot of nuance in your post.
Edwin
