What went wrong?
Clearly nothing.
Luther's true goal was to convince the Catholic church to reform as a whole, which he saw the church as straying away from God's original message through the indulgence sales, sale of church positions, etc.
Well the Pope or the Council didn't budge, so the people who believed in Luther's message broke from the church and started the reformation that would end the age of a monolithic christian church.
The Catholic church did reform much in the way that Luther wanted eventually tho, but by that time the damage was done.
>What went wrong?
Catholicism.
Had some decent complaints, then he became an egomaniac. Pride alone was enough to make Satan fall, and it surely did the same to Luther.
>>505762
Shitposted too hard. His inflamed ass became the groundwork for fiery theological revolution out of what was supposed to be suggestions for reform (albeit strongly worded suggestions at that).
If not for the fact that he admitted that the way the Reformation went was a mistake, I'd say that his biggest fault after that was not going all out and siding with the commoners in the German Peasant's War: the culmination of his religious ideals expressed through mass political action. His insistence on siding with the nobility ultimately undermined a lot of the Peasant movement's authority, which in part cost them the war.
>>505799
You would be wrong.
"There are two traditional interpretations of the relationship between the Peasants' War and the Protestant Reformation. The older view is that the entire revolt stemmed from the common man's misunderstanding of Martin Luther's doctrine of spiritual freedom and its consequent perversion into a religious sanction for social and political liberty. This was Luther's own opinion, which dispassionate stuudy and wider acquaintance with the sources have shown to be not only self-serving but wrong. The second view is that the Protestant Reformation was the product of Luther's betrayal of the popular movement his agitation had helped to inspire. That Luth tried to sell his movement as preventative medicine against revolution is true enough, but it is simply not true that Luther changed his mind in 1525. His doctrine of the "two kingdoms," the foundation of his political conservatism, was clearly enunciated in his tract On Secular Authority in 1523, if not earlier.
The popular movement reached far back into the fifteenth century, and Luther created neither the demand for change nor even its religious expression. He did offer the movement two things. First, his own biblicism strengthened the popular doctrine of "godly law" as the norm for a Christian social order. Second, much more influtential than his theology was his personal example as a rebel against the two greath authorities of CHristendom, the pope and the Holy Roman emperor. Once we free ourselves of the fiction that the doctrine of justification by faith alone was the clear, evident, organizing principle of his appeal from the very start of his career as a reformer, then the catalytic effect of Luther's protest on an already tolerably well-defined popular will to change emerges into the light."
[1/2]
>>505799
"The content of that will was already far more radical than Luther's position, for it demanded the transformation of the social order in the ight of the idea of Christian equality. This fitted Luther's idea of passive justification of he individual by God far less than it did Ulrich Zwingli's much more social Christian ideal. Indeed, Zwingli had taught from 1623 onwards that the success of the gospel depended on the transforming secular laws according to the law of God, a claim that corresponded closely to peasant desires. It was this spiritual bond between Zwingli's doctrines and the movement of 1525 that lay at the heart of the subsequent Lutheran struggle to eradicate the Swiss reformer's influence in Germany.
It was Luther, not the revolutionnaries of 1525, who misunderstood. This son of the colonial borderlands had littler or no experience of Christian freedom which had been spreading in the lands of the southwest and west, and even though he lived very near one o fits sources, Bohemia. He blithely exploited every possible item of grievance in his early reform tracts, possibly without even knowing with what social dynamite he played. At any rate Luther woke up in 1525 to the fact that if the common people had their way, his reformation was doomed. He had not attacked the power of priests in order to hand it over to the common man. This, as much as his horror over the profanation of religion for mundane ends, formed the basis of his support for princely authority in church and state in 1525 and for the rest of his life. For a little while after 1525, to be sure, the Catholics were able to dampen the progress of the Protestant Reformation by linking it to the Revolution of 1525, but in the long run it was clear that, regardless of Zwingli's position, the Revolution of the Common Man and the Lutheran Reformation had become two different, largely incompatible movements." [2/2]
Did he actually eat his own shit?
>>505929
"The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants' War From A New Perspective" by Peter Blicke
In its details of the factors involved in the Peasant's War, it really demonstrates the gulf between it and the Protestant Reformation, and that it was more of a coincidence that both events occurred simultaneously, than being directly, compatibly correlated with one another.
While both concerning matters of governance and ideology in the same place and the same time, there were entirely different motivations for each. Luther's attitude towards them is simply the only logical conclusion, considering his doctrine.
>>505948
Thanks anon.
>>505961
No worries. It's an important incompatibility to remember, as tempting as it may be to reconcile the two events. I feel like saying 'Luther was at fault' for fundamentally disagreeing with the peasants is like saying it's the circle's fault for not fitting into the square hole.
The most valuable thing about that book is the divergence from the popular Marxist perspectives that previously dominated the study of the subject.
>>505762
>>505942
Nope, Catholic slander.
>>505942
What do you think?
>>505942
PROBABLY NOT, BUT IT IS OVERLY INTERESTING THAT FECES ARE ALWAYS SUBCONSCIOUSLY ASSOCIATED WITH HIM; EVEN THE ORIGIN OF "PROTESTANTISM" ITSELF CAN BE TRACED TO THE ACT DEFECATION, SINCE THE CONCEPT OF "PROTESTANTISM" OCCURRED TO MARTIN LUTHER WHILST DEFECATING —THIS, OBVIOUSLY, IS OFFICIALLY REGARDED AS FICTION.
MANY "EPIPHANIES" THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE OCCURRED EITHER WHILST SHOWERING, OR BATHING, OR WHILST DEFECATING.
>>505762
Somebody told me that Luther believed that he was haunted by a Physical Manifestation of the Devil and he sometimes would end up shooting at shadows in his apartment, is this true?
>>506010
IMAGINE THE EPIPHANIC POWER THAT MAY BE DERIVED FROM SHOWERING WITH, OR BATHING IN, FECES.
Modernity. The Roman Catholic Church had a fabric to withstand commercialization and degeneration (to an extent) while the various Protestant churches did not have such a fabric.
>>506066
>casting stones
>>506030
dude u r gay
>>506066
>The Roman Catholic Church had a fabric to withstand commercialization
Agreed.
t. Johannes Tetzel
>>506066
Not anymore. If Luther didn't go all cray cray with sola Fide and sola scriptura, he would do just fine. Too bad of course, he went full cray cray
A protestation movement became an official heresy. Protestant were never supposed to definitively cut ties with the Church of Saint Peter.
>>505762
Sola Scriptura.
It's stupid think than anyone can interprate ancient texts written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
Also:
>Traduttore, traditore
>>506712
>If Luther didn't go all cray cray with sola Fide and sola scriptura
That was tactical though as it took power away from the institutions he was trying to undermine
>>505762
autistic germans
>According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland."
What did he mean by this?
>>507504
Mercenary joke.
>>507121
If anyone want to see the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ztOV2wrrkY
>>507737
thank you based nobleman
i saw this webm on KC awhile ago and had it saved but my harddrive crash, i havent laughed so hard at autistic shit in a long time
