Protestant Reformation: Logical Conclusion to Abuses

I am not a Christcuck by any measure: however, I am still baffled as to how the Catholics on this board always speak of Martin Luther as a devil-figure who "destroyed Europe" single-handedly.

This displays an amazing lack of historical knowledge. The Catholic Church at the time had for many years been embroiled in controversies that damaged its reputation and standing (the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism, among others), and its corruption was well-known, as well as the disastrous state of the clergy.

For centuries, there had been movements rising up in opposition to the corruption and the stifling nature of the Medieval Church such as the Fraticelli and the Cathars and the Bogomils of the 13th century, all the way to the Hussite Reformers and Lollards and Waldensians. That all these movements sprung up on a base directly challenging the corruption of and the over-accumulation of temporal power by the Church is not a coincidence: it reflects the views of how many saw the Roman establishment.

Luther was merely another reformer, remembered more than Jan Huss or Wycliffe because - for whatever reason or the other - he was successful in dismantling the Church establishment in areas and instituting his reformed church among princes sympathetic to him.

To call Luther a "devil-worshiper" is to engage in historical revisionism and to deny that the Church was incredibly corrupt and that it had - by its own actions through the centuries - shattered its own reputation in the eyes of many people.

The whole "upon this rock I will build my church" thing supercedes all actual conversation. It doesn't matter how corrupt the church actually was to catholics, because anything it does is automatically justified by way of that verse. So Martin Luther is evil not because of any of his other actions or moral statements (many of which are legitimately shady) but because he embarassed the church and seemed to have caused a loss of power and majesty.

Catholic church wasn't unreformable, Gregorius VII managed to do it

>but because he embarassed the church and seemed to have caused a loss of power and majesty.

The Church caused that itself. Luther was not alone: as I said, he was merely the most successful of all the reformers. Others before him had made similar - if not the same - points concerning the extreme corruption in the Church, the state of its clergy (infamous for their misconduct), and the Church's accumulation of and intervention in temporal power and affairs.

Luther is merely one in a long list of people who throughout the Medieval - Late Medieval period criticize the Church's state.

>loss of power and majesty

The Church was considered to have lost most of its power and majesty during the years of the Avignon Papacy, in all seriousness,

Was it necessary to reform the church by starting a movement directly focused to sow disunion in christian Europe in a time that was threatened by the Ottomans?

Yes.

There had been previous attempts at reform. Were they heard by the Church authorities? No - in Bohemia, they were crusaded and their leaders burned at the stake. This was a Church that had shown since the time of the Albigensian Crusade that it was not willing to compromise or to even accept that its problems were very real.

That it was incidentally a time of Turkish expansion is irrelevant and inconsequential: the want for reform had already been postponed several centuries, and by failing to address these in any meaningful way, the Church merely caused the resentment to bottle up until it finally exploded.

Martin luther didn't want to start a movement against the church, he wanted it to reform.
When it wanted him prosecuted for hereshy and most likely burned he changed his mind though.

You can see in the thread he was not the first heretic of his time, so he clearly knew the consequences of his actions.

>"heretic"

This is exactly why the Reformation happened. Anyone who tried to bring attention to the underlying issues plaguing the Church was immediately dismissed as a "heretic".

And Luther may have known what had happened to previous would-be reformers, but it is very likely he thought the problems were so obvious and apparent by his time that the Church would have no problem but to actually listen to him and perhaps engage in dialogue, if only to appease people. It didn't - it condemned him a "heretic" once more, and fueled the Reformation.

How does that dissprove OPs point?

No Catholic historian denies that the Renaissance Church was extremely corrupt. All sincere Catholics at that time knew that it was corrupt, but they didn't abandon Christ's Church just became of corrupt members. Luther wasn't a reformer he was a revolutionary. He didn't reform the Church, he broke away from it. You can complain about the corruption in the Church as much as you like - many of the saints did - but that doesn't give you the right to invent your own church and your own gospel and your own God. The Church isn't a human institution such that you can throw it away and build your own whenever you feel like it. It is a divine institution founded by God; the scriptures and the Church fathers say that willingly separating yourself from the Church is satanic.

Legitimate Reformer: St. Charles Borromeo.
Diabolical Revolutionary: Martin Luther.

Here's the Old Testament account of the Protestant "Reformation":

>[1] And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben, [2] Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name. [3] And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord? [4] When Moses heard this, he fell flat on his face: [5] And speaking to Core and all the multitude, he said: In the morning the Lord will make known who belong to him, and the holy he will join to himself: and whom he shall choose, they shall approach to him.

>[6] Do this therefore: Take every man of you your censers, thou Core, and all thy company. [7] And putting fire in them tomorrow, put incense upon it before the Lord: and whomsoever he shall choose, the same shall be holy: you take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi. [8] And he said again to Core: Hear ye sons of Levi. [9] Is it a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath spared you from all the people, and joined you to himself, that you should serve him in the service of the tabernacle, and should stand before the congregation of the people, and should minister to him? [10] Did he therefore make thee and all thy brethren the sons of Levi to approach unto him, that you should challenge to yourselves the priesthood also,

>[11] And that all thy company should stand against the Lord? for what is Aaron that you murmur against him? [12] Then Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab. But they answered: We will not come. [13] Is it a small matter to thee, that thou hast brought us out of a land that flowed with milk and honey, to kill us in the desert, except thou rule also like a lord over us? [14] Thou hast brought us indeed into a land that floweth with rivers of milk and honey, and hast given us possessions of fields and vineyards; wilt thou also pull out our eyes? We will not come. [15] Moses therefore being very angry, said to the Lord: Respect not their sacrifices: thou knowest that I have not taken of them so much as a young ass at any time, nor have injured any of them.

>[15] Very angry: This anger was a zeal against sin; and an indignation at the affront offered to God; like that which the same holy prophet conceived upon the sight of the golden calf, Ex. 32. 19.

>[16] And he said to Core: Do thou and thy congregation stand apart before the Lord tomorrow, and Aaron apart. [17] Take every one of you censers, and put incense upon them, offering to the Lord two hundred and fifty censers: let Aaron also hold his censer.

So how exactly was Luther supposed to both not try to reform the Church and not get burned at the stake?

>[18] When they had done this, Moses and Aaron standing, [19] And had drawn up all the multitude against them to the door of the tabernacle, the glory of the Lord appeared to them all. [20] And the Lord speaking to Moses and Aaron, said:

>[21] Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may presently destroy them. [22] They fell flat on their face, and said: O most mighty, the God of the spirits of all flesh, for one man' s sin shall thy wrath rage against all? [23] And the Lord said to Moses: [24] Command the whole people to separate themselves from the tents of Core and Dathan and Abiron. [25] And Moses arose, and went to Dathan and Abiron: and the ancients of Israel following him,

>[26] He said to the multitude: Depart from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sins. [27] And when they were departed from their tents round about, Dathan and Abiron coming out stood in the entry of their pavilions with their wives and children, and all the people. [28] And Moses said: By this you shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all things that you see, and that I have not forged them of my own head: [29] If these men die the common death of men, and if they be visited with a plague, wherewith others also are wont to be visited, the Lord did not send me. [30] But if the Lord do a new thing, and the earth opening her mouth swallow them down, and all things that belong to them, and they go down alive into hell, you shall know that they have blasphemed the Lord.

>[31] And immediately as he had made an end of speaking, the earth broke asunder under their feet: [32] And opening her mouth, devoured them with their tents and all their substance. [33] And they went down alive into hell the ground closing upon them, and they perished from among the people.

Many holy men reformed the Church. The difference between them and Luther was that they were humble and did not challenge the Church's authority or doctrine. Luther undermined both the Church's authority and doctrine, which is why he is rightly called heretic and schismatic. Read up on Martin Luther's life; he was a raving lunatic, he was extremely arrogant and proud; the Church tried to communicate with him but he wouldn't have it.
The Church did not put Luther to the stake; the Church put very few people to the stake; the Protestants burned more people at the stake than the Church did.

>No Catholic historian denies that the Renaissance Church was extremely corrupt


The issues started in the mid 13th century and did not really stop. In fact as the church moved into the 14th century it only got worst. It took a secular noble, Sigismund of Hungary, to do any reforms of the church. When he died in 1437 the church started to backside rather quickly.

> Luther wasn't a reformer he was a revolutionary.

He did not start that way, and became that when he figured out he would he get burned alive for his efforts. Just like his much beloved Jan Hus. He he took steps to prevent history from repeating itself.

>Many holy men reformed the Church.

Name one from the years 1378 (start of the Western Schism) from 1405, or from 1437 to 1520 (after Luther breaks fully with the church) and tell us what they manged to achieve .

Why I am cutting out the years 1405 to 1437? Because the church came under the influence of Sigismund of Hungary during that time frame. From the years 1414 to 1423 he effectively controlled the Church.

>The difference between them and Luther was that they were humble and did not challenge the Church's authority or doctrine.

Of course they challenged the Church authority, you fucking mong: the entire issue WAS the fact that the Church had too much temporal power and wealth, in seeming opposition with the NT's decrying of wealth and Mammon.

Burn at the stake and die a righteous man and with his zeal inspire reform. Christ himself can be seen as a reform, He Himself was crucified and this inspired zeal in His followers to conquer the world, or at least Europe.

But that had happened to a bunch of men before Luther and nothing was happening.
Why not become a more live-long reformator like Moses?

>But that had happened to a bunch of men before Luther and nothing was happening.

Because they were schismatic and heretical, and their underlying message and desire of reform was drowned out by this. If Luther advocated for reform alone, and was burned for believing in reform alone, perhaps it would have turned out differently.

As for him being a life long reformer, I have literally 0 problem with this. My problem with this is when his reform turned into heresy, and then from heresy into pure schism, and then proceeded to destroy Europe.

The Church from its inception has always used violence against its opponents, particularly fellow Christians that it suspected of not not towing the party line. And this was true from the time of Constantine, when the church became sufficiently powerful to use force.

It is true though that the Catholic Inquisition did get the civil authorities to do its torturing and burning for it, though under its supervision, so as not to dirty its hands. St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica one of the foundation of Catholic theology gave his full support to execution of heretics.

Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake in the Campo de Fiori in Rome after being tried by the Roman Inquisition in 1600 . The then Pope , Clement VIII, expressing himself in favor of a guilty verdict.

You know, saying that the reformation "destroyed Europe" is quite the exaggeration. It destroyed Germany for a couple generations, damaged France, and weakened the continental grip of the Hapsburgs.

You could argue that it did destroy the dream of a United Christendom, but papal influence was already on the wain before Luther.

Not only that, but Christian Europe was not permanently weakened, and went on to reach it's greatest heights in the centuries after the reformation. some 400 years later, and lands that had been held by the Muslims for centuries were now European territory, not to mention the spreading of Christianity, in all it's myriad forms, across the globe.

Erasmus had all the same complaints about abuse that Luther had, but he didn't introduce heresy and set the stage for two centuries of horrible wars of religion.

The catholics are right though.

It's just that they're part of the problem anyways.

This makes me want to play EU IV

...

> there wasn't orthodox heresies and sects
nice meme

I never claimed there never were orthodox heresies and sects.

I mean, just look at catholicism.

I'm speaking more than just the thirty years war. The balkanization of faith in Europe along with the Religious toleration brought about by the Treaty of Westphalia in my view led directly to modern Europe's absurd stance on Islam.