His202

The Church - wealthy, corrupt and unwilling to understand the changes which needed to be implemented to fix the spiritual guidance.

Luther and the Protestant Movement 1500, 1517

Aims;

Examine the attitude of the Church, especially the pope, to calls for reform

Compare and contrast Luther and Erasmus

When looking at reformation Europe we shouldn't just think of Martin Luther. But we should think about a complex period extending well before the early 16th century. And that includes reformist movements since the 11th and 12th centuries, questions about the importance, primacy, power of the pope. Questions about clerical chastity, symony and ascetic life. (Lower classes were over-taxed)

What you'll see is that Luther doesn't quite chime in with the Humanist movement and this explains why some people like Erasmus who talk about some of the same things as Luther, have a difficult relationship with Luther. This is why historians can't pin the reformation solely on Christian Humanism.

Christian Humanism is not the sole reason of Protestantism.

Between 1500 and 1517 the Holy Roman Empire was not powerful enough to maintain authority during these years and this is when Protestantism really grew.

This situation began to change in part...when Charles the 5th came to the throne in 1519 and saw himself, in the spirit of Charlemagne, as the saviour of the Church.

Lots of provocative claims floating around at the start of the 16th century. Slipping authority of the Church. Lax morals of the clergy. Discrepencies between modern, mystical hermetic demotion and the traditional mediaeval forms.

The Pope took the time out to hold the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517)

The central issue at stake was indeed - reform - was indeed response to many of the intellectual issues floating around as well as the discontent with clerics generally in Europe.

But the council wasn't necessarily asking the same reform questions as Erasmus - that is reform over the devotion of the individual. That is going back to the original sources - going back to the Church Fathers. Those questions weren't being asked in this council.

Instead the council was aimed at resolving the question of authority within the Church and authority within the Church.

In 1305 when the Pope resided in Avignon the power of the Church came under the French King. And by the beginning of the Fifteenth century there were three popes. And so to resolve the issues The council of constance in 1414 resolved the issue of these popes - and one of its parting resolutions was to deny the Pope absolute authority over the Church - but the council does (conciliatory meetings)

With all this reformist talk floating around it was time, in the eyes of the conciliarists, to hold another meeting.

Conciliarist Council in Pisa in 1511

Pope Julius II calls Lateran Council in 1512

Savanarola.

In particular monasteries were calling on the Church authorities to encourage some reform to make spiritual observance more important. Think back to 11th and 12th centuries when monasteries agonised over observance of monastic life. And these communities arose to counter the lax faith and spirituality found within the Church.

And so Monastic call for reform.

Observant Franciscans and Dominicans set up strongholds in Ireland. They believed that the ascetic life of the monasteries was the key to maintaining Christian orthodoxy.

There's a lot of interest in this council and most groups are very positive, and hopeful, about what it can do.

Egidio (Giles) of Viterbo - Augustinian Monk.

Egidio defended hermetic humanists from the accusations of heresy.

Never the less, despite sitting for 5 years, the Lateran Council simply failed to achieve anything important. There was, essentially, too many invested interests in the higher echelons to maintain the status quo.

So its main resolutions were fairly mild.

Resolutions:

Rejection of conciliarists; rejections of Last Days prophecies; re-affirmed immortality of the soul; asserted authority of bishops over monasteries (emphatic opinion) [even though this brought up the problem of how the power of the bishop compares to the power of the pope].

And so the Church came under the direct power of the Papacy. Under the Pope. Who invested his power in the bishops to oversee their dioceses.

No resolution with...

the problem of engaging with the lay population.


And this is finally where Luther comes in.

Luther's protest was a new manifestation of discontent which existed during the 11th century and was only momentarily put at ease with the end of the investiture controversy.

Importantly and typically of a Friar he became comfortable with Augustine's writings.

He was also associated with a humanist organisation. The first one in Europe to be set up without the Pope's permission. It was a pure, untainted organisation. And as such - his education was a typical humanist one. (You might say, typical to Erasmus).

Luther came to the conclusion that what the scriptures really say is that God can be merciful - he need not always be wrathful - he can grant salvation to those who have lived a faithful life - regardless of being born from original sin. This theology was based on Luther's close reading of Augustine. Augustine discussed sin and salvation. Everything depended on the grace of God. As he also would have picked up on the platonic themes - that God's realm is perfect - and the material realm is fallen.

There were sentiments, debates, and ideas which were already hanging around before Luther made his move.

So you might say that this renewed interest in this Augustinian idea of Sin and Salvation is not isolated in Luther's brain but is part of a larger complex web of theological and philosophical debates which are all a part of the humanist movement.

Under the opulence of the Medici Pope, and the failings of the Lateran council, Luther thought that the selling of indulgences to build the cathedral in Rome was occurring.

Never-the-less the thesis and the letters he sent to the papacy, kicked off a protest that became a schism.

Erasmus was a fighter FOR the Church (militant christian) whereas Luther seems to have been less of a fighter FOR the Church and rather sought reforms outside the Church. At least that is what occurred.

Platonistic ideas - material is bad.

Empowerment of the human mind - guiding fortune through virtue - Erasmus believes in this and Luther doesn't.

Luther's emphasis on Augustine took him in a different direction.