Reformation book

  • Thread starter Thread starter tominbako
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tominbako

Guest
I am looking for a great book to outline exactly what happened at the reformation. I would like to understand what was happening in the Church at that time that precipitated Martin Luther to do what he did. I would also like to know how Luther changed his theology when he revolted against the Church. And lastly, I would like to know what the immediate fallout was for the Reformation 30 to 50 years later. Any suggestions?
 
I am looking for a great book to outline exactly what happened at the reformation. I would like to understand what was happening in the Church at that time that precipitated Martin Luther to do what he did. I would also like to know how Luther changed his theology when he revolted against the Church. And lastly, I would like to know what the immediate fallout was for the Reformation 30 to 50 years later. Any suggestions?
There are many good books, but I’ll give you a 10,000 foot overview, if you like.

The real problem started with the black plague hit Europe. It would start in the morning with a small cough. By lunch time, the victim was coughing up blood. By night, they were a goner. What this did, though, is kill off like 95% of the priests, since whenever someone was dying the first person they would call would be the priest. He would go, get sick, too, then die. The Church, in response kind of panicked, and began ordaining men to replace them without fully training them. In some cases, the men couldn’t even read or write. They would memorize the Mass in Latin so they could say Mass. The problem is that these untrained priests didn’t know all the doctrines of the Church, and most hadn’t gone through spiritual formation sufficient to support their ministry. So, some began illicit practices of charging for indulgences. Indulgences are a valid doctrine of the Church, but there is never a “charge” for them. This practice was corrupt and should’ve been caught and corrected.

Martin Luther, a Catholic priest (Augustinian monk), took issue with this and other similar things, and wanted them corrected immediately. Keep in mind that this was in the Middle Ages. No one did things “immediately” as he wanted. He got frustrated, posted his theses to the church door, etc., and things went downhill from there.

Add to this mixture, the fact that there were many German feifdoms where the princes thought if they could back Martin Luther, they might be able to grab the nice Catholic monasteries with their rich vineyards, etc., and increase their wealth. Their desire had nothing whatsoever to do with doctrine. And without their backing, the Reformation would’ve gone nowhere. Eventually, the Church excommunicated Martin Luther and those who followed him, and Protestantism began to splinter even while he was still alive. John Calvin came on the scene, and while not as violent as Martin Luther in his approach, he was much more well-spoken and written.

Martin Luther, for his part, began ti disassemble the doctrine which the Church had held for 1500 years up to that point. His reasoning ran along the following lines: Selling indulgences is wrong, therefore indulgences are wrong. If indulgences are wrong, then we don’t need the Mass where indulgences can be granted. And if we don’t need Mass, we don’t need priests to say Mass. And if we don’t need priests, we don’t need bishops to ordain them. And speaking of the head bishop, the Pope, we don’t need him either. He ended up with two things: the Bible, personally interpreted and faith alone. These ended up as the two foundational doctrines of Protestantism, Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone is the source of our faith) and Sola Fide (we are saved by faith alone). Interestingly enough, neither doctrine can be supported by the Bible.

Anyway, there’s a lot more to it than this. This is but a overview.

You might want to read the following book, if you have time:

catholiccompany.com/how-reformation-happened-p1001382/
 
Thanks Scooby…wonderful 10,000 foot overview! I will purchase the book and dig in.
 
Belloc’s book is essentially Catholic propaganda. You won’t find it recommended except by very conservative Catholics. It’s generally better to inform yourself on history by reading primarily books that are respected by folks with very different opinions. Plenty such books exist. Not that you shouldn’t read Belloc–Belloc is entertaining at worst, and he did a lot to demolish the vicious nonsense of the “Whig theory of history” that ruled English views of the Reformation 100 years ago. I just don’t think Belloc should be your first or main source unless you are determined to read only a dogmatically and triumphalistically Catholic perspective.

I mentioned several good surveys of the Reformation in my post on the thread about Protestant scholars who are fair to Catholicism. I’ll repeat here: Euan Cameron, Carter Lindberg, Diarmaid MacCulloch, and R. Ward Holder are all serious scholars who are worth reading. They all have biases, but they are all trying very hard to be fair. I can’t think of a Catholic survey of the Reformation that I can recommend as confidently, but not because I think Catholics are more biased or less learned than Protestants, but because a lot fewer of them are studying the Reformation in the first place. Daniel-Rops is seen as too much of an apologist by most scholars, but he’s probably a much better choice than Belloc. Janssen’s mammoth study of the impact of the Reformation on Germany definitely had an axe to grind, but it ground that axe with great learning and in great detail, and it remains a highly valuable resource.

Heiko Oberman’s interpretation of Luther is one of the best out there in my opinion. Martin Brecht’s three-volume biography is detailed and a very good reference source but far too biased in a Lutheran direction.

Louis Bouyer’s Spirit and Forms of Protestantism is more of a theological critique than a historical survey, but it’s very thoughtful and fair-minded. Eamon Duffy’s book on the English Reformation is a much more scholarly reworking of many of the things Belloc was saying earlier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top