Requesting an unbiased book on Reformation

[TertiumQuid]

I’ve read Roland Bainton’s Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. I would suggest you avoid conceptualizing the Reformation as rotating around Luther. Theologically, Zwingli was a little earlier. Look at Erasmus (who stayed Catholic). I am Reformed, and we consider what Luther did as something independent from us - we are certainly not Lutheran. But by that I mean no disrespect to Lutherans, it’s just that there is more than one stream of thought among Protestants. The Reformation was VERY complex. Did I say that already? Probably.

I am agreed with you that the Reformation era is quite complex. Certainly how the Reformation worked out all over Europe is bigger than simply studying one man. This is why my comments above begin with, “My particular area of interest is with Luther studies.”

I’m Reformed, and would argue that Zwingli and his theological heirs cannot be properly understood without a firm understanding of the impact of Luther. There’s also significant debate concerning how independent Zwingli was from Luther. That is, Zwingli claims to have come to his reformation teachings apart from Luther. How true or not this is is debatable.

What I find interesting is that many Reformation studies typically begin (apart from information about the pre-Reformation era) with the situation in Germany, and then they move on to the situation elsewhere. Even when I studied this period closely in a well-known Seminary under the guidance of Reformed teachers, we began the main section of study (after pre-Reformation studies) with Luther and Germany, and then moved out elsewhere.

James

 

[Truthstalker]

Point taken. I don’t know much about Zwingli. Years ago I read about him in Schaff’s history, but that is about it. There is also the Hungarian Reformation (Reformed rather than Lutheran) and the White Russian Reformation, which are almost unknown in the West. I know of someone who is pursuing his doctorate on the latter. As a missionary to there he stumbled on it and got intrigued.

Politically, if in no other way, Luther certainly was the most prominent, and the dynamics around him set things in motion others had to deal with. Calvin’s France was changed by its reaction to the Lutheran Reformation. NOTHING was in isolation.

There is also controversy about the Calvin-Luther link. How much did Luther influence Calvin? We don’t know. We know they almost came into agreement but Luther rejected Calvin’s system, I think on the nature of the Eucharist.

It’s just that there is the CAF myth that amounts to “Luther was the devil and pulled away one third of the church after him”, a myth that has zero credibility in my book, being a gross simplification and misunderstanding of history. I have heard it around here too many times, I suppose. But I am sensitive to it whenever it shows up, which happens about every time I look at CAF.

 

[Nita]

I remember reading Volume 4 -** “Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700)” **of The Christian Tradition A History of the Development of Doctrine written by Jaroslav Pelikan. He was Lutheran at the time. I thought it was very good and upon finishing it I thought – “How can he write and know all this and still remain Protestant?” I was not at all surprised when I learned he later converted to Orthodoxy. I was only sorry he never made it all the way to Roman Catholicism. I can only speculate as to why.

Anyway, it’s not a quick read. It’s in depth regarding the doctrines involved, and I found it very interesting - especially as the author was a Protestant.
amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Reformation-1300-1700/dp/0226653773

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is there sucha thing? If so, have an recommendations?

How the Reformation Happened by Hillaire Belloc

 

[TertiumQuid]

How the Reformation Happened by Hillaire Belloc

The title of this thread is, “requesting an unbiased book on Reformation”. Out of curiosity, why do you think Belloc has presented an “an unbiased book on Reformation”? As far as my studies have gone, Belloc is typically considered a writer who put forth a negative caricature of Luther. Perhaps his overall approach to the Reformation fared better?

JS

 

[TertiumQuid]

There is also controversy about the Calvin-Luther link. How much did Luther influence Calvin? We don’t know. We know they almost came into agreement but Luther rejected Calvin’s system, I think on the nature of the Eucharist.

My own 2 cents is that Luther influenced Calvin. One need only compare their dates, and note the many references Calvin makes to Luther. On the other hand, while Luther was aware of Calvin, and may have even read some of his early writings, you won’t find anything of significance. You may find this of interest: Calvin’s only Letter to Luther.

It’s just that there is the CAF myth that amounts to “Luther was the devil and pulled away one third of the church after him”, a myth that has zero credibility in my book, being a gross simplification and misunderstanding of history. I have heard it around here too many times, I suppose. But I am sensitive to it whenever it shows up, which happens about every time I look at CAF.

No comment.

JS

 

[Rosinante]

Is there sucha thing? If so, have an recommendations?

THE HISTORY OF HERESIES, AND THEIR REFUTATION; OR, THE TRIUMPH OF THE CHURCH. TRANSLATED FROM THE ITALIAN OF ST. ALPHONSUS M. LIGUORI,

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/hrefute.pdf

NOTE: Alphonsus Liguori is not only a Saint–he is also one of the 33 Doctors of the Church. Coverage of ‘the Reformation’ begins on page 138, CHAPTER XI. - THE HERESIES OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. - ARTICLE I. - OF THE HERESIES OF LUTHER. - I- THE BEGINNING AND PROGRESS OF THE LUTHERAN HERESY. It should be of noted, that one need not compromise the Truth, to remain ‘unbiased’. If you’re looking for ‘kid glove’ treatment of protestantism, that would be biased imo–and, St. Liguori’s little treatise may not be what your looking for.

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Is there sucha thing? If so, have an recommendations?

" A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Irland " by William Cobbett.

Mr. Cobbett is a Protestant who lived in England but gives a sympathetic Catholic view. Preface is by Francis Cardinal Gasquet D.D. O.S.B.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

What a great thread.

 

[StMikhael]

What a great thread.

Yeah I agree. It reminds me of the adage “be careful what you wish [ask] for”. I am getting flooded with great suggestions. Only now I have to pick and choose cuz it will take me lifetime to read it all.

 

[Rosinante]

Yeah I agree. It reminds me of the adage “be careful what you wish [ask] for”. I am getting flooded with great suggestions. Only now I have to pick and choose cuz it will take me lifetime to read it all.

Sure, but please note–I actually linked the Book I recommended, in PDF–no need to fish for it, or even pay a penny.

Just saying…

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[StMikhael]

Sure, but please note–I actually linked the Book I recommended, in PDF–no need to fish for it, or even pay a penny.

Just saying…

VIVAT JESUS!

Good point, especially given my lack of time.

 

[CatholicRoots]

I haven’t read through the entirety of the responses on this thread but I would just like to suggest the book Diarmaid Maculloch - Reformation ‘Europe’s house divided’, I found it a very impartial book, well as impartiality goes. Some reviewers I have seen of his books seem to think he has a slight anti-catholic bias, in my reading this seems to be unfounded; however you would have to decide for yourself. (Even if their is a slight bias it was to me unrecognizable so that suggests, if it is there at all, it is very inconspicuous and unobtrusive.) He was an Anglican but now styles himself a candid critic/friend of Christianity so he doesn’t really have too much of a theological leaning. I would certainly recomend this book however it is fairly large and erudite so as long as you don’t mind academic reading then it’s okay. Aside from his book, I don’t fully mind books with an anti-catholic bias as long as they can at least theoretically back it up and it’s not just an unfounded tirade, since it sharpens your own mind in defending what you think the truth of the matter is and enters you into discourse with how others percieve the Church.