Luther Did Not Start the Reformation

[SojournerOnEarth]

Well, he didn’t. Some people want to give him glory for doing so, but it is not accurate.

To say that he did indicates that the speaker has hardly any understanding of the situation in Europe in the late 1400s and early 1500s, and the speaker is simply parroting what he has heard elsewhere.

It is time to destroy the claim that Luther started the reformation.

 

[Maximilian75]

Then who did?

Blame must be assigned! bangs gavel

Spoiler

I am being mildly sarcastic, but still…

 

[7_Sorrows]

Jon Hus started the Reformation then?

I think Luther gets credit because he got the ball rolling with the statements he posted on the church door.

 

[Kei]

Well, he did.

Some may try to take the shame off of Luther for starting the reformation and splitting Christendom, but to say he did not shows the speaker has hardly any understanding of the situation in Europe in the late 1400s and early 1500s, and the speaker is merely parroting what he has heard elsewhere.

It is time to destroy the claim that Luther did not start the reformation.

(see what I did, mere claims without a counterargument or evidence, especially when against common historical knowledge, comes across as vacuous and an attempt to demonstrate a nuanced view without actually explaining it; calling those who disagree with ignorant simply falls flat).

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Well, he did.

Did not.

There.

Some may try to take the shame off of Luther for starting the reformation and splitting Christendom, but to say he did not shows the speaker has hardly any understanding of the situation in Europe in the late 1400s and early 1500s, and the speaker is merely parroting what he has heard elsewhere.

It is time to destroy the claim that Luther did not start the reformation.

(see what I did, mere claims without a counterargument or evidence, especially when against common historical knowledge, comes across as vacuous and an attempt to demonstrate a nuanced view without actually explaining it; calling those who disagree with ignorant simply falls flat).

Ah. We now have an opening round.

I bring as witness Alistair McGrath’s Chrisitanity’s Dangerous Idea, chapter “The Gathering Storm” There were reforming movements all over Europe, discussing how the Church should be reformed. It was not one monk in an obscure monastery but EVERYONE was talking about what needed to be done.

And we often have to parrot things we have learned from others, because we don’t have time to learn them on our own. I put that strongly to stimulate debate and after your post, @Kei, I considered changing it, but elected not to.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Jon Hus started the Reformation then?

I think Luther gets credit because he got the ball rolling with the statements he posted on the church door.

I agree with the idea that the currents that started the Reformation began long before Luther was born.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Then who did?

Blame must be assigned! bangs gavel

Spoiler

I am being mildly sarcastic, but still…

At the moment I am partial to the suggestion that the Medici popes decided to make an example out of Luther to suppress further attempts at “reformation” and used mainly political means to do so. We are still living with the results of their policies.

 

[phoage]

Luther did not start the Reformation and Columbus did not discover America, but both men were in the right place at the right time when technology and communications and world events came together and what they did became a self-sustaining chain reaction. Those before them did not have the right circumstances.

If they had not done what they did, when they did it, the events they began would have probably happened anyway because the time and circumstances were right.

I object to saying Luther gets all the glory. What glory is there in splitting Christendom?

Patrick
AMDG

 

[Kts1816]

Of course Both of them werent alone.
But they became most famous in the time

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Luther didn’t start a reformation, Luther started a rebellion. There have been reformatioms in the Church prior to Luther, but these were actual reformations. These people didn’t attempt to start a new Church.

Your popes refer to it as the Reformation. Are you aware of that?

Please provide documentation that he attempted to start a new Church. I don’t think he did.

 

[misstherese]

Christianity did need to be reformed during the time. That’s what happened at Trent. That’s all it needed. Though you may claim that Luther didn’t “start” the reformation; he did spread dangerous ideas and led others into error. I am also certain his ideas were what influenced most others to split.

I suggest reading this here: Reformation: Definition and History | HISTORY.com - HISTORY

Most credible historians date the beginning of the Reformation to the 1517 publication of Martin Luther’s “95 Theses”.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Brittany:

Luther didn’t start a reformation, Luther started a rebellion. There have been reformatioms in the Church prior to Luther, but these were actual reformations. These people didn’t attempt to start a new Church.

Your popes refer to it as the Reformation. Are you aware of that?

Please provide documentation that he attempted to start a new Church. I don’t think he did.

But that in the end is what happened.
Many churches were started eventually.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

Brittany:

Luther didn’t start a reformation, Luther started a rebellion. There have been reformatioms in the Church prior to Luther, but these were actual reformations. These people didn’t attempt to start a new Church.

Your popes refer to it as the Reformation. Are you aware of that?

Please provide documentation that he attempted to start a new Church. I don’t think he did.

But that in the end is what happened.
Many churches were started eventually.

He was accused of attempting to start a new Church.

Most Protestants do not consider themselves as having started new churches.

 

[Kei]

The pope didn’t make an example of Luther. He was invited to change from his position and even invited to the Vatican if I recall correctly, but he ripped up and I think even burned the Papal Bull.

Several reformations had occurred in the Church, and at this particular point in history, after being ravaged by the black plague, those priests and clergy that tended to the sick often died themselves. Simony occurred. The education wasn’t so good to priests. Something needed to happen, but not a break from the Church that would split Christendom. Look at St Francis of Assisi, he was a reformer, but he is not a heretic but a saint.

The Protestant Reformation differed in that Luther denied authoritative correction and so split from the Church. He had political power. As you can imagine, politically speaking, several countries would be glad to have the burden of the Pope lifted away from them (later, the PR became a further power grab when it was decided that a prince’s religion was the religion of the land, and in general the ability of widespread books and reading in addition to a denial of authority led to the peasant revolt and a general revolution in terms of societal relations, but that’s another story). He couldn’t be just arrested or killed as he was protected by royal power.

Yes, a lot was happening around him, but that does not mean he was not a principal actor in the ordeal. Without his actions, history would have been drastically different.

 

[Jas31784]

It’s true sort of however he had the most lasting impact.
Jan Hus, Peter Waldo, and John Wycliffe were precursor reformers but their impact was minimal.
The reformation wasn’t just Luther. The Church had issues. The Schism where there was three popes kind of made a loss of respect for the Papacy. This and the Avignon debacle contributed to it.
Let’s remember the Church is always in need of Reform. Not a revolution. Luther had he been more humble in his criticism say like Catherine of Siena, could have been a wonderful historical figure in Church history but his insecurities and pride got to the best of him.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Christianity did need to be reformed during the time. That’s what happened at Trent. That’s all it needed. Though you may claim that Luther didn’t “start” the reformation; he did spread dangerous ideas and led others into error. I am also certain his ideas were what influenced most others to split.

I suggest reading this here: Reformation: Definition and History | HISTORY.com - HISTORY

Most credible historians date the beginning of the Reformation to the 1517 publication of Martin Luther’s “95 Theses”.

Thank you for the article. I agree that most historians date the start of the Reformation to 1517. But that was the result of a long historical process.

And from the article

But the Reformation’s positive repercussions can be seen in the intellectual and cultural flourishing it inspired on all sides of the schism—in the strengthened universities of Europe, the Lutheran church music of J.S. Bach, the baroque altarpieces of Pieter Paul Rubens and even the capitalism of Dutch Calvinist merchants.

Not all bad.

And we are still not done with patching up the damage from those days.

 

[misstherese]

If Luther only desired a simple reformation of the abuses that were taking place during the time, he would not have started a new church. But he did.

As @Brittany’s link states,

The reform of abuses was not their [Luther, Calvin, Zwingli] fundamental concern. The attempt to reform an institution, after all, suggests that its abuses are temporary blemishes on a body fundamentally sound and beautiful. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not believe this. They attacked the corruption of the Renaissance papacy, but their aim was not merely to reform it; they identified the pope with Antichrist and wished to abolish the papacy altogether. They did not limit their attack on the sacrament of penance to the abuse of indulgences. They plucked out the sacrament itself root and branch because they believed it to have no scriptural foundation. They did not wish simply to reform monasticism; they saw the institution itself as a perversion.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

The pope didn’t make an example of Luther. He was invited to change from his position and even invited to the Vatican if I recall correctly, but he ripped up and I think even burned the Papal Bull.

Several reformations had occurred in the Church, and at this particular point in history, after being ravaged by the black plague, those priests and clergy that tended to the sick often died themselves. Simony occurred. The education wasn’t so good to priests. Something needed to happen, but not a break from the Church that would split Christendom. Look at St Francis of Assisi, he was a reformer, but he is not a heretic but a saint.

The Protestant Reformation differed in that Luther denied authoritative correction and so split from the Church. He had political power. As you can imagine, politically speaking, several countries would be glad to have the burden of the Pope lifted away from them (later, the PR became a further power grab when it was decided that a prince’s religion was the religion of the land, and in general the ability of widespread books and reading in addition to a denial of authority led to the peasant revolt and a general revolution in terms of societal relations, but that’s another story). He couldn’t be just arrested or killed as he was protected by royal power.

Yes, a lot was happening around him, but that does not mean he was not a principal actor in the ordeal. Without his actions, history would have been drastically different.

It would have been different, maybe even better.

It is noteworthy that the popes had run things in such a way that people did not want to be under their authority. Telling, that.

Yes, I think Luther was invited to Rome. But then Jan Hus was promised safe passage to the Council of Florence, where he went in good faith and they arrested and burned him. And Luther was under a sort of arrest in Germany. They had that in mind, I think.

A principal cause of the Reformation was that in their long dealings with the papacy, many had come to realize the popes, cardinals, bishops and the Vatican were utterly, completely, absolutely unworthy of any kind of trust.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

If Luther only desired a simple reformation of the abuses that were taking place during the time, he would not have started a new church. But he did.

As @Brittany’s link states,

The reform of abuses was not their [Luther, Calvin, Zwingli] fundamental concern. The attempt to reform an institution, after all, suggests that its abuses are temporary blemishes on a body fundamentally sound and beautiful. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not believe this. They attacked the corruption of the Renaissance papacy, but their aim was not merely to reform it; they identified the pope with Antichrist and wished to abolish the papacy altogether. They did not limit their attack on the sacrament of penance to the abuse of indulgences. They plucked out the sacrament itself root and branch because they believed it to have no scriptural foundation. They did not wish simply to reform monasticism; they saw the institution itself as a perversion.

Do you really think there was nothing going on that would cause people who were loyal Catholics to suddenly change their minds? That all monks were holy, for example?

There were reforms, some admirable, at Trent.

 

[StJoseph8]

The intellectual climate was ripe for the Reformation it seems. Remember that at this point Scholasticism, thr bedrock for Cathopic theological study was on the decline, so people looked to new ways to do theology and areas of study in general like history. It seems Luther lit the match