Martin Luther and the Reformation

[articul8]

So, it's the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, or at least of the publication of Luther's 95 theses

So I got to thinking - why did Luther have such an impact? Or why did it take until then for a schism in the Church to happen?

His ideas weren't all that original - the Lollards and Hussites had already made most of the key criticisms of the key objections to papal/clerical authority and perceived deviation of church practices from gospel teachings (and got burnt as heretics for their troubles). Criticism of the sale of indulgences were being made by the likes of Erasmus already.

I'm guessing it has to do with the institutional framework of the University system Luther had supporting him, the development of the printing press, the relative patronage he enjoyed from the local nobility? Plus the birth of more solidified foundation for individualism with the development of early modern capitalism, mercantile classes etc.?

 

[Pickman's model]

there were numerous schisms within the church before that, which is why you have various orthodox churches, the coptic church, etc. part of it was that luther didn't get burnt at the stake as he was protected by the elector of saxony. so many of his predecessors were chopped, some after great wars like the hussite ones.

 

[articul8]

there were numerous schisms within the church before that, which is why you have various orthodox churches, the coptic church, etc. part of it was that luther didn't get burnt at the stake as he was protected by the elector of saxony. so many of his predecessors were chopped, some after great wars like the hussite ones.

true, but then most of the early schisms were done and dusted well before the medieval period [this was the first major schism inside the Roman church] So what made Luther's stance take hold and get mass expression. Agree the elector's support was v important - but also the other factors I mentioned.

 

[Pickman's model]

true, but then most of the early schisms were done and dusted well before the medieval period? So what made Luther's stance take hold and get mass expression. Agree the elector's support was v important - but also the other factors I mentioned.

tbh the support from the nobs like the teutonic knights significant: as soon as princes realised they could nationalise the churches and grab the money formerly sent to rome you saw things start to happen. the teutonic knights, who secularised themselves in 1525 turned into the duchy of prussia. it formed the basis for henry viii's foundation of the church of england. in a way luther was all things to all people, as can be seen from the wars in germany from the early 1520s to the 1550s, until the peace of passau (iirc) said that the ruler of each territory could determine the religion followed there - cuius regio eius religio, as they say.

 

[articul8]

Luther was very conservative on property rights at a secular level, so probably seemed a safe bet (compared to likes of Müntzer at any rate!)

 

[danny la rouge]

So, it's the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, or at least of the publication of Luther's 95 theses

So I got to thinking - why did Luther have such an impact? Or why did it take until then for a schism in the Church to happen?

His ideas weren't all that original - the Lollards and Hussites had already made most of the key criticisms of the key objections to papal/clerical authority and perceived deviation of church practices from gospel teachings (and got burnt as heretics for their troubles). Criticism of the sale of indulgences were being made by the likes of Erasmus already.

I'm guessing it has to do with the institutional framework of the University system Luther had supporting him, the development of the printing press, the relative patronage he enjoyed from the local nobility? Plus the birth of more solidified foundation for individualism with the development of early modern capitalism, mercantile classes etc.?

Classic Marx vs Weber territory here: was capitalism the foundation for the reformation, or did the reformation pave the way for capitalism?

Why Luther, why then, why is it that one that "took"? All these questions and more are in that debate.

 

[Sprocket.]

As above the development of the printing press was no doubt helpful in the distribution of the concept of faith only, (Sola fide) that appealed to many throughout Europe. The clarity of the Gospel in native languages instead of Latin was also a result of the spread of printing.

 

[trabuquera]

true, but then most of the early schisms were done and dusted well before the medieval period [this was the first major schism inside the Roman church] .

NO. Surely not? Cathars? Arians? Heretics and heresies all over, and well into medieval times. The Roman church is all schism all the time - wikipedia's list of popes vs antipopes has few gaps in it, they were at odds more than not from the look of it, hardly a century when someone wasn't contending papal authority (even if only contending it belonged to him and not the other guy). Could Luther's critique not be seen as just one more in a ceaseless boil, but one which has cast a particular retrospective lens on things (of Catholics and Protestants) which did not exist in his own early lifetime and which he is unlikely to have considered likely to happen?

 

[butchersapron]

Oh, I forgot this was about what great men wrote.

 

[tim]

true, but then most of the early schisms were done and dusted well before the medieval period [this was the first major schism inside the Roman church] So what made Luther's stance take hold and get mass expression. Agree the elector's support was v important - but also the other factors I mentioned.

The Church of Rome only formally separated from the Orthodox in the "Great Schism" of 1053, and you can't get much more medieval than 1053.

 

[tim]

And don't forget the Waldensians who have been doing Protestanty stuff since the late twelfth century mostly in what is now the North of Italy. I at least find it amusing that the home of the oldest Protestant is church is in Italy. They've faced centuries of persecution but are still around

Waldensians - Wikipedia

 

[Pickman's model]

The Church of Rome only formally separated from the Orthodox in the "Great Schism" of 1053, and you can't get much more medieval than 1053.

1054

 

[ViolentPanda]

Most of what Luther did was okay, but nailing his faeces to the door of a church - that's a cunt's trick.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And don't forget the Waldensians who have been doing Protestanty stuff since the late twelfth century mostly in what is now the North of Italy. I at least find it amusing that the home of the oldest Protestant is church is in Italy. They've faced centuries of persecution but are still around

Waldensians - Wikipedia

And the Bogomils. Don't forget the Bogomils.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So, it's the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, or at least of the publication of Luther's 95 theses

So I got to thinking - why did Luther have such an impact? Or why did it take until then for a schism in the Church to happen?

Schism was common, both before and after Luther. It's the only possible social outcome of restrictive religious codes in a quasi-literate society. Luther's impact was as a schism that one or more of the power blocs in the political milieu of the time could get behind, as well as which the proto-bourgeoisie - the burghers and merchants of the free cities, for example - could get behind, as could a few elements of the tied peasants and other workers. As usual, schism fueled existing social tensions and conflicts, just as Tudor schism did in Britain. The main victims of this religio-political bullshit were, as ever, the workers of their societies.

His ideas weren't all that original - the Lollards and Hussites had already made most of the key criticisms of the key objections to papal/clerical authority and perceived deviation of church practices from gospel teachings (and got burnt as heretics for their troubles). Criticism of the sale of indulgences were being made by the likes of Erasmus already.

Such objections date back to and before Insular Christianity/Celtic Christianity in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland in the 5th to 8th centuries. Here, we like to believe that most of the "church as business" shit wasn't an issue here until William the Bastard invaded, but that wasn't the case, and deviationism was a constant theme of church councils and synods from the 4th century onward.

I'm guessing it has to do with the institutional framework of the University system Luther had supporting him, the development of the printing press, the relative patronage he enjoyed from the local nobility? Plus the birth of more solidified foundation for individualism with the development of early modern capitalism, mercantile classes etc.?

Just fuck off and re-read "Q", you Fabian twat.

 

[Pickman's model]

Just fuck off and re-read "Q", you Fabian twat.

shurely "read"

but articul8 i'll save you the trouble:

Reformation - Wikipedia
Lutheranism - Wikipedia
Counter-Reformation - Wikipedia
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/frywhydidreformation.pdf ("why did the reformation succeed?", pdf)

 

[Sprocket.]

Rather than wondering why Luther was more successful than previous attempts at reform. Perhaps a more interesting question would ask was reformation necessary?

 

[articul8]

Fabian