Any books by or about this dude that are worth a read?

What he said is true, though. The pre-Nicene church forbid the use of images in worship, and cited this as a chief difference between Christianity and paganism.

Just finished rereading pic related last week

I reckon it's worth a read, if only to provide historical context to the events leading up to and following the Reformation, as well as the political climate of the time that made it all possible

Another good book on this subject is The Reformation in the Sixteenth Century by Bainton.

>he thinks antenicenian fathers opposed iconography and not the byzantine state
wew

They must certainly did. Also there is no such thing as the "Byzantine state." What you are referring to is the Roman Empire.

I've recently taken to calling it the Roman Empire Minus

The Great Heresies and How the Reformation Happened by Hilaire Belloc.

It's just the Roman Empire. The idea that the Roman Empire, whose lingua franca was Greek, and whose capital city was New Rome (Constantinople) suddenly ceased to be the Roman Empire because it lost its western territories is ridiculous. It even got them back for a while under Justinian.

on the jews and their lies

The idea that there is a "Byzantium" or some such thing is an old propaganda tactic so that Europe could view itself as the "legitimate successor" to Rome, and crown its own "Holy Roman Emperor" (while there were legitimate sitting emperors in Constantinople), etc.. This is tied directly to the idea that the Papal Church constitutes the "Church of Rome" in some sense.

This Europe-as-Rome idea ties with false documents such as the Donation of Constantine as well.

_Three Reformers_ by Jacques Maritain diagnoses the pathologies of Luther's theology, that is to say the transposition of Luther's neurotic psychology into theology.

_The Roots of the Reformation_ by Karl Adam is a far more sympathetic but equally theologically penetrating take on the ich-ich-ich-ich-Icarus-like fall of Luther.

Q by Luther Blissett. Great read btw.

>catholic scum
End yourself, idiot. Luther never intended to divide the church.

>Luther's neurotic psychology

Scrupulosity is a perfectly rational response to the Catholic view of the sacraments.

>We are not going to be the pupils and disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges. For once, we too are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and as St. Paul boasts over against his mad raving saints [II Cor. 11:21ff.], so I shall boast over against these asses of mine. Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they dialecticians? So am I. Are they lecturers? So am I. Do they write books? So do I.

>I will go further with my boasting. I can expound psalms and prophets; they cannot. I can translate; they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures; they cannot. I can pray; they cannot. And, to come down to their level, I can use their own dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together; and besides I know for sure that none of them understands their Aristotle. If there is a single one among them all who correctly understands one proemium [preface] or chapter in Aristotle, I’ll eat my hat. I am not saying too much, for I have been trained and practiced from my youth up in all their science and am well aware how deep and broad it is. They are very well aware, too, that I can do everything they can. Yet these incurable fellows treat me as though I were a stranger to their field, who had just arrived this morning for the first time and had never before either seen or heard what they teach and know. So brilliantly do they parade about with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago, that to all their blatting and shouting I have to sing, with the harlot, “I have known for seven years that horseshoe-nails are iron.”

>...Henceforth I shall simply hold them in contempt, and have them held in contempt, so long as they are the kind of people—I should say, asses—that they are. There are shameless nincompoops among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry—like Dr. Schmidt and Doctor Snotty-Nose, and their likes—and who set themselves against me in this matter, which transcends not only sophistry, but (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 1:19–25]), all the world’s wisdom and understanding as well. Truly an ass need not sing much; he is already well known anyway by his ears.

Based Luther

Is this the spirit of Christ, or another spirit?

The answer is obvious.

>gets BTFO
>tfw to smart too argue with dumdum baka idiots
>*autistic screeching*

Have you ever read pre-modern theology? Much of it is like this, from every side. Standards for politeness in writing were quite different.

If you think that is what is being said you missed the point completely.

Tfw Luther split the church because he was too stupid to understand Aristotle and Aquinas

If heard this recommended before. Can you give me the reasons why it is a worthy read? I would also enjoy the basic gestalt of it.

This is actually true. Luther didn't like Aquinas largely because he didn't get it.

Don't blame him.

It only took a bit of effort.

take the redpill

I'm sure he read more Aristotle and Aquinas than you ever will.

Probably not, but in any case, his stupidity is one of the most tragicomical readons for a massive tragedy in history.

Best book I've read on the Reformation is The Reformation in the cities by Steven Ozment. Focuses on the appeal of Protestantism to the average catholic city dweller

It amazes me that /pol/ has not become hardcore Protestant. It aligns more with their worldview than either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Is it just because there aren't any cool clothes in Protestantism?

Both are trash, what is there to understand in trash other than that it is trash? One ought to separate themselves from trash or risk becoming mistaken for trash themselves.
It's because they can't autistically screech 'DEUS VULT' if they claim to be protestant.

>Is it just because there aren't any cool clothes in Protestantism?

yeah. Protestantism has shit aesthetics

It's anti aesthetic. It does not know what holinesss is. But the Catholics are quickly forgetting it too, due to the erranious works of the Jesuits such as Lubac, de Chardin, von Balthasar, Karl Rahner and others.

I hope your interest is as a historical phenomena...

This. We need more /pol/testants.

The 99 Luftballons/Theses