His202

`Attempts at Reconciliation

1.Calvin
2.Emperor Charles V
3.Zwingli
4.What was the condition of the Protestant movement between 1520 and 1540?

(There's a lot going on and there's a lot contributing to Luther's reason as to debate the lax clergy, the building of Cathedrals in a pessimistic economic time).

Luther's frustrations were shared by many and steadily he gained some followers. He gained so much attention that in 1520 he was sent a papal bull condemning him for heresy - these views of protestation against his perception of certain church attitudes and indulgences. Luther, however, ignored the demands of the papacy and continued to voice his frustrations against the church - such was the public support by the lay individuals of the community that in 1521 (Diet of Worms) a meeting that Emperor Charles the Fifth called in Worms, northern European city in Germany. Luther was invited to attend as an indication of goodwill to Luther he was offered assurances of safe passage to and from the city. At this diet Luther was offered the opportunity to abandon and deny his previous statements. He was given one night to consider his actions and the consequences. When he returned to negotiations he refused to play along - Charles then signed an edict banning Luther's teachings and labelling him a heretic. For Luther and his supporters, the edict, in 1521 only strengthened their resolve. It inspired other humanist supporters inspired others to form an alternative church in Saxony - and this is where things start to get out of Luther's control. He was in hiding after the edict, so he could not publicly lead any movement. And so others stepped in to lead with various ideas of what should be done. These are not just idiosyncratic figures - they have their armies of followers.

Erasmus, meanwhile, becoming quite dissillusioned with the occurrences, distanced himself from Luther. Discourse on Free Will - deliberately countered Luther's rhetoric on pre-destination.

What was the peasant's war? Are we talking about military action? (There were certainly military forces subduing peasants) So calling it a 'war' might be misleading. What we know is that there was a revolt in Germany against privileged classes. It involved between 50 000 to 100 000 peasants causing havoc. Just how damaging, just how penetrating it was, is a matter of debate. But the point is that we see this other dimension to what is happening in this period. We have an intellectual humanist movement, we have political interests playing out between Emperors, Popes, Dukes and of course we also have the interests of the lower classes during these difficult economic times, who latch onto the reformist interests of people like Luther and Erasmus and that manifests itself in the so called peasants war of 1524.

Saxony, Brandenburg, Hesse, Neuremburg (these principalities were part of the Roman empire but they openly declared their support of the Lutheran doctrine - their conviction was based on politics)

Diet of Speyer re-affirmed that Lutheranism is heretical. And again this only worked to galvanise the Lutherans - once again at the Diet of Augsburg. John of Saxony, wrote a letter to the Emperor - declaring their refusal to be run by divine law when it came to matters of the principality. It now looks like a politico-religious movement. Whatever we may say about Luther - there is no real protestant movement until 1530.

League of Schmalkalden - Led by John of Saxony.

John Calvin - second generation involved in this controversy. Calvin, born raised and educated in France - grounded in a humanist education in Paris. A turning point emerged in 1533 when Calvin decided to focus on spiritual salvation - this turning point probably had something to do with Francis the first negotiating to marry off his son to Pope Clement's niece. France had long held interest in Italy and highly valued this alliance. The bond between Italy and France manifested itself in this idea of evicting the humanists/reformists from France.

Calvin's book provided a very complete scheme of faith resting solely on the truth of the bible.

Part of his appeal was that he did not focus so heavily on the redemption of man (as Luther had done) instead he offered a guide about knowing God through Christ.

Calvin encouraged moral reform in the City's residence. The moral reform was based on civic change - Calvin negotiated with the City's rulers to make four different civic rulers. The intention was that the civic and religious life in Geneva was to be controlled and shared by these central religious and political administrators. So he set up an ideal for political and religious reform.

So you may say that in all the talk for establishing an alternative Church, Calvin was the first to act and to act about this, only in Geneva.

Charles V (another second generation).

Due to the death of the King of Aragon - Charles inherits all of his territory. Emperor Maximillian, duke of Austria, also died. Leaving Charles as heir to that region. Charles saw his role as the secular head of Christendom.

On top of this german principalities began to accept Lutheran principles. So we have, within his own dominion, this tradition of protest, as well as that, within the empire, the central German empire, we have of course, this league that has formed. The protestation of 1529, despite the appearance of the unity of the reform movement, with all 6 princes who had signed the documents, there was actually some disunity in the movement - there were attempts to reconcile the disunity - Huldrych Zwingli - tried to set up his own Church.

Zwingli denied the validity of good works in the material world to reach salvation. Expressed the link between man and God. To Zwingli, devotion was purely an inner personal experience in which sacraments and ceremonies played no spiritual role. Zwingli abolished the mass - the independence of the Swiss Confederacy allowed these reforms to go ahead so easily.

Zwingli's league was far more aggressive - he wanted to convert - Zwingli's campaign failed and he was killed in battle in 1531. He died but his reformer stance was continued by his followers. (Bullinger, Bucer - one might say that these are third generation contributors to this controversy). The main contentious point that Zwingli brought up - the believability of transubstantiation. In typical, anti scholastic reform, Luther maintained that the idea shouldn't be left up to such rationalising. Luther also maintained that the sacrament can only be found through the understanding and acceptance of the scriptures.

Zwingli thought that the sacrament was simply an old medieval tradition.

Luther and Zwingli met at Marburg to try and resolve their differences. They could not agree about the Eucharist - they did however agree on 14 points - the document became known as the confession of (Oxburg?).

All of this gives one an idea about the complex state of the protestant movement by the end of the 1520s and 1530s Luther and Zwingli tried to reconcile on many things but they couldn't do it - with this failure the die was cast for a fractured reformist movement. (Reformist protestants in Switzerland and parts of southern Germany) On the other side of the debate you have the Catholic Church - still struggling and not understanding.

So a fractured Europe not coming to an understanding of the sacraments.

So all of this is fuelling the disunity of Europe - which brings us back to Emperor Charles V


(the difference is whether you believe what is going on or whether you think it's just symbolic)