Why do they do it, Veeky Forums?

>Start out nicely and carefully trying to have the Church change itself from within
>It doesn't work
>change methods

It's in their blood, user. They hate what they didn't create and love to destroy.

Those three to the right literally did nothing wrong, unless you consider Jan Huss and Vercingetorix destroyers of Europe too. Marx sure lived in Germany but English Engels contributed much to his ideology and it was mainly Catholics and Orthodox nations that picked it up.

But user, Luther was trash. It doesn't matter how valid some of his complaints were, he completely sold out to the german princes who wanted nothing but shatter the authority of the emperor and the unity of the empire.
Besides, his righteous complaints were addressed with the counter reformation anyway, all that's left is the bullshit like sola scriptura.

Some krauts just want a tangerine

So, why is Luther always included in these?

I'm no Christfag, but it seems silly: Luther was a fluke, a reformer who just so happened to be at the right place and right time. He was in his lifetime perpetually criticized for being "too Catholic/popish" by the more extreme reformers and figures, such as the radical Zwickau Prophets, Zyngli, Luther

The Catholic Church has no one but itself to blame for the Reformation: it brutally suppressed any group that so much as whispered "Reform" or uttered (valid) criticisms for centuries. The fact that so many groups emerged over various centuries, all challenging the corruption, abuses, scandals, and impropriety of the Church is a testament to just how bad the state of the institution was, and how badly it was in need of some reform.

>So, why is Luther always included in these?
He's the scapegoat for all the political shitflinging caused by nationalized churches under princely and kingly thumbs. It's not so much the reformation, as the selling out to the princes, which caused a separation from catholicism rather than just a reformation, which happened with the council of Trent.

>which caused a separation from catholicism

And how is this bad, again? Sorry, but I already said I'm not a Christfag, so the "the Holy Church was established by Jeebus himself!" narrative doesn't sound like anything but propaganda.

>reformation, which happened with the council of Trent.

Oh, wow, how progressive: the Council of Trent was only ever convened as a response to the Reformation. Earlier Reformist movements had all been severely persecuted and crushed - Jan Huss comes to mind instantly, as well as the treatment of Wycliffe's body. What I find interesting about Medieval "heretical" groups is that one of the things that ties them all is that they position themselves explicitly against the corruption and abuses of the Catholic Church - from the Cathars to the Bogomils, to the Waldensians and Pickards, to theTaborites/neo-Adamites, the Brethren of the Spirit.

The Church only ever considered reform once the people nominally under it took matters into their own hands. Otherwise, the Church would have never even bothered.

>And how is this bad, again?
It fragmented the foremost social anchor of the continent. I can hardly imagine anyone considering this a positive event.
>the Council of Trent was only ever convened as a response to the Reformation
Very arguable. The church at large was already very full of people who wanted reforms without branching out of catholicism.

>no Karl Marx

>Very arguable. The church at large was already very full of people who wanted reforms without branching out of catholicism.
>Only happened when several Churches had already branched off from the main body Church
>Very arguable

>It fragmented the foremost social anchor of the continent

The Catholic Church hardly served as a unifying factor. Most rulers only paid it lip service, and still engaged in conflicts with each other. One good example is that Catholic France still entered the Thirty Years' War on the side of the Protestant states, in order to combat Habsburg hegemony. The uncountable wars that occurred in Europe before the Reformation were all between Catholic states.

I don't see what you mean, concerning the Catholic Church as a "social anchor". Whatever that means, the wording is vague and it sounds like a buzzword. It's like the idiots who try to lump the Medieval "Islamic world" together, just because those states were all Islamic: it discounts the regional variations and flavor of both the culture of various actors (as well as their own personal brand of religion, which, though it is nominally the same, is colored differently by local traditions), and ignores that the religion did not particularly serve to unify these actors.

>He think that the Catholic Church wasn't a fucking joke akin the modern UN, being used far more often to push the agenda of one noble or another while leaving the very christians they were meant to insure the prosperity in misery, enjoying the luxuries of such a powerful and influential position in the world.