Luther loved his catholic faith before the reformation.
Sure. Why is this even worth remarking?
And his first visit to Rome which would later set off all the events was in his own mind one of most treasured moments in his Life.
Where are you getting this from? As far as I remember, we don’t have an account of Luther’s feelings about this dating from the time of the trip itself. Luther talked about the trip much later, as a way of making a polemical point (precisely the point you are making). This isn’t good evidence.
He may well have felt this way about the trip, but as far as I’m concerned just about everything he said later about his earlier attitudes is worthless as historical evidence. It was important for Luther to present a picture of himself as a naive, pious young Catholic horrified by the corruption of Rome. Given the stereotypes prevalent among Germans about Rome and Italy, I think it’s more likely (though not certain) that Luther found in Rome exactly what he expected.
Early sixteenth-century Christians were generally well aware of the corruption of Rome. Maybe Luther was extraordinarily naive, but as far as I can see we have no reliable evidence to that effect.
I never understood how it could change ones faith?
I don’t think it did. Experiencing corruption in one’s church certainly can help shake one’s faith, but it’s almost never enough on its own.
Luther never spoke ill of the Pope
If someone called me Antichrist and routinely used potty language about everything having to do with me, I wouldn’t particularly take it as flattery
One might be surprise to learn that Luther actually had the greatest admiration of Pope Leo X
Again, you’re taking Luther’s rhetoric at face value. This was standard boilerplate language when addressing the Pope or any kind of ruler.
He held the greatest respect for the office of Pope even calling him his father at times even while pleading his case.
His chances of getting a favorable hearing were small enough. He wasn’t going to reduce them to absolute zero by ignoring normal etiquette. Furthermore, he needed to be seen by others (particularly rulers and intellectuals) as a reasonable man who had proper respect for the established authorities.
I don’t mean that Luther had no respect for the papal office. Clearly he had some to begin with, though I’d say it was pretty much gone by 1519.
It is very interesting when reading Luther’s letter or treaties to the Holy See and the Pope. IT is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever read.
Renaissance rhetorical conventions do seem odd in the age of email and text messages.
I was amazed as I later found out that Luther was willing to give up and forget the whole deal before his excommunication.
What do you mean by that? Willing on what terms?
His Character had changed from brash and bold to humble in the trials of doctrine.
I’d like to hear more about why you think this.
Too, It’s interesting that Luther Believed the Popes Life to be in danger and that he even believed that Leo was somehow being held by corrupt people. That Leo was a captive in a sort of way.
That is, again, part of the standard way you rebuke a ruler–you always assume that the ruler is not himself responsible. But to put it in quite that extreme a form is straining the convention to the point that it’s pretty much downright insulting. He’s saying “what you are doing is so outrageous that the only way I can reconcile it with what you are supposed to be like is that someone must have kidnapped you.”
If, for instance, I say something really obnoxious on this forum, and someone says “who has kidnapped the real Contarini?” I quite rightly understand this as a stinging rebuke. We use these kinds of rhetorical devices as well, if you think about it–even in the age of the Internet!
Edwin
