''Luther, more than anyone, was to blame for the schism.''

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

How valid is this assessment of Luther's role in the

schism?

It is fair to claim that Martin Luther's appealing arguments and truculent nature were largely to blame in ending the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Pope in Western Christendom, thus sparking off the German Reformation. He set in motion substantial changes to the culture and politics of 16th century Europe that, albeit unintentionally, helped shape the course of European history. However, we must remember that although the movement dates from the early 16th century, when Luther first defied the authority of the church, the conditions that led to his revolutionary stand had existed for hundreds of years. It is equally fair to argue that had the Catholic church not moved so drastically away from the teachings of Christ, the schism would not have happened at all, since there would have been no cause for it to. The papacy had become vulnerable to attack, because of the greed and ignorance of many of its officials. We must, therefore, thoroughly explore the condition of the Catholic church during Luther's challenge. It is also crucial that we acknowledge the many other interwoven factors and leading figures that played a part in the development of the Reformation. Thus factors such as the printing press, which allowed the rapid spread of Reformation ideals, and encouraged literacy, the strong feelings of resentment festering within the German populace at the corruption of the Catholic church, the prevalence of the Renaissance mindset, and finally the work of the humanists cannot be ignored. Without all these factors, the strength of Luther's character alone was not enough to propel this religious movement.

The worldliness of the Roman Catholic had reached its zenith during this period, and was at the heart of Luther's attack on it in 1517 when he wrote his Ninety-Five Theses. The church was a rapacious institute, whose major interest seemed to be the acquisition of wealth, rather than the spiritual welfare of the population. It had become extremely powerful, but internally corrupt. The relationship between people and church was essentially based on money, and many methods of raising revenue were adopted. Keith Randell effectively summarises its worldy nature in his book, ''Luther and the German Reformation 1517-55'', when he states that 'the Pope, who was meant to be the good sheperd, devoted much of his energy to fleecing his flock. One such method of raising revenue was through the sale of indulgences, which had become a popular form of obtaining papal income. These were certificates that held the power to reduce or remit a person's punishments in purgatory. By purchasing an indulgence you would be seen by the church as commiting a Christian act and this would elevate your status in the eyes of God. Rome had now become a holy supermarket of merits, for pilgrims interested in getting to heaven without a detour through purgatory. Moreover, these 'spiritual coupons' could soon be obtained not just for the purchaser, but for their deceased relatives in purgatory. Unsuprisingly, ordinary Germans felt exploited, since they felt compelled to either pay or risk damnation, and this bred anamosity. As a result a powerful notion of anti-clericalism had swept through Germany. There was also strong opposition to the clerical hierarchy of the church, since it was under the control of foreigners in Italy; it's head was the pontiff in Rome. The majority of Germans saw their country as being taken advantage of, for the benefit of the Italians, interfering with German politics. Consequently, the development of German nationalist sentiment led people to passionately approve of his theses.

Thus it is evident that the deplorable state of the church in 16th Germany played a major role in paving the way for early reformers such as Luther thus creating the subsequent schism. All these factors undermined the divine right of the church, and created an environment in which attacks on the church were likely to be endorsed by the discontented rank and file. As Sinclair Atkins writes, 'When the church would not put its own house in order, was it not time for the state to do so instead?' The Catholic Encyclopedia supports this view and declares, 'The soil was thus ready for the growth of revolutionary movements in the religious sphere.' The church was already fragmented from within thus any weakness was bound to be exploited, making an attack more inevitable. In his book, 'A Short History of the World', H. G. Wells states, 'The Church was confused and divided and not in a position to defend itself effectively'. The papacy was excessively obsessed with materialistic issues. So great was their preoccupation with material matters, they failed to notice the tell tale signs of a revolution until it was too late. Randell supports this view and comments that the Popes of the period 'seemed to be most concerned with personal pleasure, the advancement of the interests of their families, and the extension of the political power of the Papacy.'

The following sources outline how the church were architects of their own misfortunes.

The Times Atlas of World History - The Reformation and Counter-Reformation:

This secondary source states how the Catholic church had become 'complacent' and had failed to satisfy the 'spiritual hunger' of the early 16th century. It explains that the Reformation occured as a result of a materialistic church, thus supporting the previous assertion that it would not have occured had the church been less worldy. He writes that it was the conjucture of a 'spiritually bankrupt yet materially acquisitive church' which explains why a religious revolution occured in the 16th century. In his letter to the Elector of Saxony, Ulrich vun Hutten supports this viewpoint and he writes, 'We see that there is no gold in our land.....What is thus squeezed out of us is put to the most shameful uses....' This source is secondary, so is likely to be accurate since it will have been repeatedly checked for errors. No hints of partialness are evident and there is no reason to dispute its reliability. The book was printed in 1997 so is fairly recent, but since then it is likely that ideas have been updated and further evidence discovered. Also, since this is a general history book, it has not entered into extensive detail regarding the Reformation, so there may be important information unaccounted for, for pragmatic reasons.

Document 35:

This source is highly critical of the Catholic church pre 1519. The writer describes how very few of the lower clergy were well educated and ridicules their 'lack of studying' and 'practice of all luxuries'. He details the numerous abuses within the churches, where holy morals had deteriorated into perversion. He refers to the scandals present in monasteries, implying that monastic life was no longer respected. The 'bottomless sacks' the clergy posses directly refers to their inexhaustible need for valuable goods. The source is a fresh piece of primary evidence so provides us with a valuable insight into the nature of contemporary views. It is written by Zwingli's son-in-law therefore the balance is likely to be tilted in favour of the Protestants. However, other sources such as Document 45 below give further substance to the claim, and prove that criticisms of the church, however excessive, are more or less justified.

Document 45:

This source highlights the non-spiritual nature of the church. It is written by Pope Adrian VI, whom one would suppose to be an apologist of the papacy and its practices. However, his viewpoint is not pro-Catholic in the slightest. He accuses the church of a reluctance to tolerate any deviance from its teachings, since it feels, 'faith is to be believed on account of divine authority and is not to be questioned'. The Pope acknowledges that there has been 'for several years great abomination', thus indicating the extent of evil practises within the church. These abuses were almost certainly open to an external attack. He states 'how eagerly the world desires reform', referring to the great dissatisfaction of the majority concerning the church's shortcomings. This is a powerful and convenient extract, since not only is it the view of a contemporary, but the view of a contemporary who is prepared to criticise his own institute. It clearly proves that the poor state of the church required immediate reform. However, although this source is largely correct, there is most definately an element of bias present, since this is a Pope who may have been susceptible to a personal attack by these revolutionaries. He may have purposely exaggerated the faults of the church to defend himself.

Let us now look at the character of this rebellious monk from Wittenburg, whose Protestant view of Christianity made him the leader of the religious reformation in Germany. The strength of Luther's character revealed itself early in priesthood, whereby he took his religious vocation very seriously. His piety and total commitment in the pursuit of salvation is best expressed when he declared, ''I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that if ever a monk got to heaven by the way he practised his religion it was I. If I had continued any longer, I would have killed myself with vigils, prayers and other works.'' It was his thirst for personal salvation that led to his departure from traditional belifs of the church. Countless rituals and penance which Luther religiously performed brought him no personal peace. He was adamantly certain he was a sinner and he continuously suffered from remorse. This was exacerbated when in 1517, a Dominican friar John Tetzel was empowered by the Pope to sell indulgences. This particular episode was symptomatic of what any referred to as the perversion of the Catholic church. It was widely believed that the money obtained from the proceedings of the sale of these papal indulgences, was going to pay for the restoration of buildings in Rome, primarily St. Peter's. In actual fact, the money was being used by the archbishop Albrecht of Brandenburg, to pay a banking firm and the Pope a fee, for permitting him to hold several offices at once (pluralism), even though this was meant to be illegal. In response to this action by Tetzel, Luther wrote 'The Ninety-Five Theses', which denounced the indulgence trade. His main point was that indulgences were being used as a substitute for faith, since they lessened the necessity for true repentance. He felt that people were being offered false security and this ran counter to Luther's new understanding of salvation, 'sola fide'. So, on All Saint's Day 1517, he pinned the Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Through these theses he effectively challenged the beliefs of the church, which was a bold step for any person to take in those days. However, he had not furiously and defiantly nailed his protest to the church door, fully determined to create a schism. Nailing documents was not a provocative act of wrath, but was simply the customary way of invoking an academic debate amongst scholars. Besides, the theses were written in Latin, so it could not have been understood by anyone other than an academic. If Luther's aim had been to overturn the established system at this moment in time, he would have written it in German. To win a revolution, one clearly needs numbers on their side. Thus at this stage, the factor that facilitated the wide distribution of Luther's text was the printing press, which quickly turned his traditional appeal for a debate into an appeal to the people, and propelled all of this new knowledge into the hands of the masses. Once his controversial ideas were out in the open, they could not be suppressed. In the book ''Luther and his World'', Graham Tomlin writes, 'printers in Leipzig, Nuremburg and Basel published copies which began to circulate widely'. We must also bear in mind that the church is also to blame here, for stirring up sentiments of anger and kindling the fire in German populace. Had these intense emotions been non-existent, Luther would not have felt compelled to write his theses at the outset. Also, once he had written them, his ideas would not have circulated so rapidly if the German people had not been able to empathise with his viewpoint and identify with Luther as their saviour.

Document 2

This document provides us with excerpts of Luther's theses. It shows that it was not a radical, shocking piece of work, and Luther had not written them for the sole purpose of creating a schism. He was merely defending the papacy by pointing out a corrupt practice which may have further damaged the church's reputation. The theses had such a remarkable effect because they were written at a time when church morale was at an all time low. The church was evidently perverted to such a degree that the people were crying out for reform, hence the large scale support for the theses. Some of the them are translated in this document. Theses number 1 states that when Jesus said 'repent' he meant that believers should live a whole life repenting. Number 27 berates the changing nature of indulgences and disagrees that a dead soul in purgatory can be saved by money. Number 42 reiterates his principal assertion that the buying of indulgences does not compare with being forgiven by Christ. Finally number 48 criticises the Pope and states that he should have more desire for devout prayer than for ready money. Thus this is an exceptionally useful source, since it provides us with a good approximation of what Luther meant in each of his 95 points. However the translation may be misleading, and his theses should preferably be studied in their original context.

WJEC Document Pack No. 2:

This source outlines the thrust of Luther's principal argument concerning indulgences; that people were being offered false security. It refers to his denial of the power of indulgences to absolve all sins. The Ninety-Five Theses evidently focused on the changing nature of indulgences, since Luther had complained before to no avail.

These indulgences could guarantee the release from purgatory of not only the purchaser, but also of a friend's or relative's soul already in purgatory. This source is of relative usefulness, and there is little hint of bias. Johnston is an academic historian and a specialist in the field, therefore there is no reason to dispute the credibility of the extract. However, it merely recycles known facts and fails to provide us with up-to-date information regarding Luther's criticism of indulgences. This should be expected though, as the book was not written recently but 12 years ago, in 1991.

WJEC Document Pack No. 4:

This is Albrecht's Instructio, which accompanied and explained an indulgence. It shows us the differing nature of indulgences over the years leading up to the Reformation. In the 14th century, indulgences were granted to those who 'are truly penitent and have made their confession'. However by 1515, 'there is no need for the contributors to be of contrite heart'. This extension of salvation meant increased revenue for the church. It shows how with the progression of time, the church were becoming ever more worldly, and devising new ways to exploit the German people. Since Albrecht was the ultimate instigator in the theological expansion of indulgences this is a useful source when acquiring an opinion on the nature of contemporary opposition facing Luther and his supporters.

WJEC Document Pack No. 7:

This is a sample of the letter Luther wrote to Albrecht of Mainz, questioning the power of indulgences. He does not reveal his wild ''boarlike'' side as yet; in fact the letter is rather timid; he writes 'May your Electoral Highness graciously permit me, the least and most unworthy of men, to address you...' This was partly because he was unaware of Albrecht's role as the prime mover behind indulgences, and also because he feels that he is merely bringing the happenings to Albrecht's notice rather than implicity attacking the papacy. This is a primary source and is extremely useful when acquiring an opinion on Luther's criticism of indulgences. He comments on the danger of these indulgences in deceiving people when he writes, 'The poor souls believe that when they have purchased such letters they have secured their salvation'. He also condemns the luring rhyme Tetzel used to further tempt people to purchase an indulgence. He mildly attacks Albrecht when he writes, 'How then can you, through false promises of Indulgences, which do not promote the salvation of their souls, lead the people into carnal security...?' This was to be his main argument throughout; that only God has the power to forgive and that an indulgence will not save a man. This is a valuable extract which demonstrates two things; firstly, that the church was indeed sinful, and secondly, that Luther was not intent on unhinging the church at this stage, confirmed by his mild tone.

Document 1:

This is an extract from the 'History of the Reformation' by Friedich Myconius, a German reformer and a contemporary of Luther. It mentions Luther's letter to Albrecht, stating that he'd specifically requested of him to prevent the abuse of God's name, as this was his episcopal obligation. This indicates the evil existing in the church and Luther's early desire to correct it. Myconius supports the general view that Luther was not attempting to court popularity through his theses, since 'he merely wanted to enter into a debate with the faculty of the University of Wittenburg'. On the theses he writes, 'it almost appeared as if the angels themselves had been their messengers and brought them before the eyes of all the people'. This statement alludes to his inevitable partial nature, in that he assuredly presupposes that he is on the 'right side', since he associates the angels with Luther's theses. He states that they were 'quickly translated into German and everyone was highly sympathetic, with the exception, of course, of the Dominicans and the Bishop of Halle, and all those who daily benefited from the Pope.' This provides us with an insight into the grievances of the common people and confirms that the theses meant something to everyone who was being taken advantage of by the papacy. It also demonstrates the swift transmission of Luther's ideas to every part of Germany. This source is comprehensive, however, since Myconius is a Protestant he is likely to be sympathetic to Luther's ideas and may demonstrate unwarranted bias. Also, the responses of the Catholics are unrepresented in this extract, thus it is lacking in balance.

Document 37:

This is another document from Myconius' book, which shows how indulgences were implemented to fool the German people, ultimately for the Pope's benefit in Italy. He reproaches the modified indulgences, writing 'If a Christian had slept with his mother, and placed the sum of money in the Pope's indulgence chest, the Pope had power in heaven and earth to forgive the sin'. He states that the indulgence was highly prized to the extent that people of all sorts welcomed the commisionary with songs and procession. Indeed, although some ordinary Germans felt exploited, the main body of people gullibly accepted the possibility of salvation through money, hence the high demand for indulgences. It was this misleading nature of an indulgence's potential power that had inspired Luther to pen his theses. This source provides us with a useful case study on the secular nature of the Catholic church; but may be slightly biased, since Myconius detests the Catholic church and supports Luther an his ideas.

We can also partly attribute the blame to the humanists at this stage. Graham Tomlin writes, 'Although the Reformation was triggered by Luther, the way it turned out is unthinkable without the influence of Renaissance humanism.' This is because the humanist movement had broke with the tradition of unquestioning obedience stipulated by the Catholic church. They had been seeking a 'spiritual regeneration' of the church for at least a century and Desiderius Erasmus had already attacked church corruption. He had condemned the church in failing to teach people to live Christ-like lives, but instead teaching them to seek salvation through the practise of 'empty formalities'. Thus support for reform was already fairly widespread pre 1517, and for these people Luther's Ninety-Five Theses were a mere stepping stone in their stance, and increasingly reinforced their tough approach. This climate of renewed interest provided Luther's ideas the ideal environment in which they could flourish, and an environment in which a Reformation was possible. As Randell states, 'The work of the humanists created an intellectual climate in which the teachings of Luther were likely to be acceptable.'

Document 41:

This is an excerpt from Erasmus' letter to Pope Leo X, written in 1520. Although Erasmus advocated amendment, he had pushed for admendment from within, and this is where his approach clashes with Luther's. He writes, 'No one has ever hated uproar more than I.' Erasmus was prepared to lose his life rather than renounce his allegiance to the church. However, that does not lessen the significance of the humanists' ideologies in preparing people intellectually for Luther's ideas and influencing Luther greatly to write his theses. Erasmus' satire, 'In Praise of Folly' had already lead the way in attacking the irreligion of the higher clergy. In this letter he praises Luther, 'From what I saw, he seemed to be well qualified to expound the Scriptures in the manner of the Father's'. Thus Erasmus is supporting Luther's claim that it is not in the Pope's capability alone to interpret the Scriptures. Although their aims were dissimilar, the humanists must have indirectly contributed to Luther's popularity and must therefore take some of the blame for the eventual split with Catholicism. This primary source is not very reliable, and is unlikely to be neutral. Erasmus is rather obsequious in his letter, since although he agrees with Luther's hatred of the church's evil practices, he pretends to appear slightly disinterested when he writes, 'I do not know Luther, not have I ever read his books, except perhaps ten or twelve pages, and those only superficially.' However, this lack of boldness is inevitable, since had he violently expressed his dislike of the church, he would have almost certainly been burned as a heretic.

In the meantime, the pro-Luther mood had been escalating rapidly in the empire, and the papacy endeavoured to neutralise this. However, the speed with which the papacy responded to Luther's work is a controversial issue amongst historians. Randell believes that Leo X reacted quickly given the long distance between Germany and Rome. However in ''Reformation Europe 1517-1559'', Elton fails to agree and writes, 'The Pope....a soft and kindly man, did not wake up in time....such an institute could hardly take seriously the vapourings of an obscure German professor.' Thus he feels the Pope reacted too mildy at first. This quote is unequivocally laying the blame on the church, for being so presumptuous in their approach, and dismissing the affair as a minor quarrel between a few argumentative German monks. As Grimm declares in ''The Reformation Era 1500-1650'', 'But Leo X, considering the controversy merely a monastic quarrel between the Augustinians and the Dominicans, refused to intervene.' The church underestimated Luther's character emboldening him enough to seize the opportunity. Johnston writes, 'There is little doubt that if Leo X had immediately corrected the worst abuses surrounding indulgences, the affair could have been settled quickly.' However the response was too late and Luther had gained more valuable time to spread his ideas further. In April 1518, Pope Leo took a rather paternal approach by safely delegating Luther to his order, the order of Augustian friars, so that they could attempt to deal with him. Unfortunately for him, his plan recoiled, and Luther's stance was supported amongst the monks.

Yet another six long months passed before the Pope finally acknowledged Luther seriously, and summoned him to Rome. It is now that the significance of Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony, comes into play. He was the most important supporter of Luther and his teachings. When Luther was summoned to Rome by Pope Leo X he could refuse on legitimate grounds, as a result of Frederick's veto. Leo X was reluctant to estrange himself from Frederick the Wise, since he was one of the electors holding a critical vote. This in itself is an indication of Leo X obsession with earthly issues. Frederick's position in the political realm was a force to be reckoned with and as a result, he was able to supply Luther with a proper political shelter many a time, which will soon become apparent in the course of these events.

In October 1518, Pope Leo X forced Luther to appear before Cardinal Cajetan in Augsburg. Here the Cardinal demanded Luther to take back everything that he has said in his Ninety-Five Theses. Luther refused to, insisting that he only would if his theses could be proved incorrect by use of the Bible, whereas Cajetan asserted that it was within the Pope's power and no one else's to construe any message from the Bible, since he was the spokesman of God on earth. We are able to see the incompatibility of the two arguments. Both sides are accountable at this stage, since neither were willing to make concessions on the wording. Cajetan's strategy of 'sweet reason' had collapsed and though Luther was on dangerous ground, his compelling moral vision prevented him from altering his original opinion. While Luhther continued to argue for the supremacy of the Scriptures, to which he believed everything, including the church, must be solely accountable to, Cajetan, naturally, argued for the authority of scripture as interpreted by the church. As Randell puts it, ''The two sides were arguing at cross purposes with no real point of contact.' Soon after, Cajetan, having failed in his mission, wrote a letter to Frederick requesting that he hand over the heretic monk straight away. Frederick refused this request. It is almost definite that Luther would have been declared a heretic just as his precurser John Huss had been, had Frederick chosen to comply with the Cardinal. As John Roberts, in 'A History of Europe' writes 'Only the protection of his prince...who refused to surrender the most celebrated university professor of his dominions, saved his life'.

As well as gaining the backing of Frederick the Wise, Luther was also able to win the support of the princes, which was vital. His ideas thoroughly appealed to them, because they viewed Lutheranism as a means to expand their political power, at the expense of the emperor. The princes were well aware of the possible advantages to be gained from annexing neighbouring ecclesiastical bishoprics and land. They now had in their hands an excuse to deprive the Church of lands, enriching themselves and breaking free from the control of the Holy Roman Emperor. Their importance is revealed in his actions towards the peasants, in The Peasants' War, which occured in 1525. The rebels had labelled themselves 'Lutherans' thinking they were singing to the same tune as Luther. However radical his religious views, Luther was a social and political conservative. He was swift to denounce them and conveniently penned 'Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants' which spoke harshly of the peasants and called for very severe punishment of the rebels. Consequently, he gained support from those who mattered in society and lost support from those who mattered least. He is largely to blame here, for manipulating the situation through his work, which restored the popularity of Lutheranism, restored the crucial support of the princes, and accelerated the journey towards papal reform.

Document 38:

This is a letter from Pope Leo X to the Elector of Saxony and clearly reveals the Elector's prestige. The subservient manner Leo adopts throughout the letter is a sign of Frederick's standing with the papacy. The letter reveals Leo's distress concerning Frederick's protection of Luther. He clearly feels threatened by Luther and is determined to dissuade Frederick from supplying him with political backing. He declares Frederick a 'good Catholic Prince' and must therefore 'escape the suspicion of doing wrong'. This indicates the significant part Frederick played in giving Luther and the entire Reformation a chance to flourish. As a primary source this is largely useful when analysing the nature of contemporary views concerning Luther. It accurately portrays the church's uneasiness as to whose side Frederick would champion. However, as it is written by Leo X, Luther's principal opponent, it is likely to be one-sided. Also hints of partialness are further likely since Leo is writing in a polite tone for advantageous purposes, thus this is not an entirely reliable reflection of his thoughts and feelings.

Document 39:

This is an extract from the Pope's letter to Cardinal Cajetan, where he finally realises the danger Luther poses, stating he is a plague that must be 'quickly and easily exterminated'. It provides us with an insight into Luther's persevering character, since Luther is 'obstinately persisting in his heresy'. Thus Luther's increasing determination to follow his conscience is vital when accounting for the perpetrators of the schism. This source demonstrates the troubled nature of the church concerning Luther and his ability to 'infect the minds of the simple'. Thus as well as showing the notoriety Luther had gained due to the original slow response of the church, this source proves indirectly, that the church did recognise its shortcomings but was adamant to block attempts at reform. If only the truth had not been suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church in an attempt to protect its position then it might have been possible to truly debate the issues and just possibly have a reformation of the Roman Church from within.

As a result of Cajetan's unsuccesful attempt to convince Luther of the invalidity of his arguments at Augsburg, Luther gained increasing confidence to out. He felt his argument had been reinforced by the failure of his opponents to argue with him from scripture. In 'The Renaissance and the Reformation: A Short History' John New writes, 'Luther grew progressively bolder and his criticisms of the Church became more and more fundamental.' Luther, never one to refuse an argument agreed to the challenge of a debate. The 18 day formal debate with Johan Eck at Leipzig, began at the end of June 1519 and is of great significance in Luther's development as a reformer. Eck skillfully drove Luther into a corner by classing his beliefs as similar to those held by Huss ( a heretic condemned by the council of Constance in 1415). Luther admitted that he believed Huss had sometimes been correct. He had publicly associated himself with a condemned heretic, which is primarily why the Leipzig Debate is so significant. Luther blurted out; “A council may err. Neither the church nor the Pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from scripture.” It was scandalous at the time, and there would have been little hope of reconciliation with the church after this. Within a year, he had advanced far beyond this somewhat hesitant admission; 'We are all Hussites without knowing it,’ he wrote,'St. Paul and St. Augustine are Hussites.’ He came to the conclusion that the Pope was the antichrist; 'I do not know whether the Pope is the antichrist himself or whether he is his apostle, so miserably is Christ corrupted and crucified in the decretal.' This led inexorably to the threat of excommunication. He used the debate to manipulate his audience and stir anti-clerical emotions in the population, so he is largely to blame here. His case was hardly a difficult one to make. The people of Europe having seen the corruption of the church, had little difficulty in agreeing that the church could err, as he had claimed. This strengthened Luther's conviction and won him popular support, thus distancing him even further from the church. Indeed Johnston states, ''through the Leipzig debate Luther became a nationally renowned figure''. The Luther Affair had now become a public event. Randell agrees with Johnston; 'Luther had come to Leipzig with the reputation of being a rebel. He departed under suspicion of being a revolutionary.' The Schism between Rome and Luther, might be said to have taken place during this debate. If Luther had been a little more cautious at Leipzig, the Reformation may not have ever occured. We can however hold Eck partly responsible for Luther's actions, since although his aim to declare Luther a heretic had partly suceeded, he had pushed Luther to reject the Pope's authority and disgrace the church. Luther's violent reactions undoubtedly dissolved what little attachment he had with Rome.

Document 40:

This source is Eck's opinion of events that occured at Leipzig. He describes his opponents as audacious men, 'blind and undaunted in their wickedness.'' He claims that many who had been loyal to Luther felt 'frightened and alienated'. This may be true since Luther was being argued into a corner by a skilful opponent, and was forced to admit that Hus, the notorius heretic was right. Some may have been of the opinion that he had taken things too far. On the other hand he received the support of many also. Both claimed victory after the debate, however it was a further victory for Luther in that his ideas were given the opportunity to disseminate further. This extract provides us with an insight into the nature of opposition facing Luther, so it cannot be relied on too heavily for accurate information. As Luther's principle antagonist, it is likely that Eck's account will be distorted in his favour.

After the shocking occurences at the Leipzig Debate, the avalanche was now unstoppable. The church immediately issued it's ultimate weapon against Luther, ''Exsurge Domine'', or the Bull of Excommunication. As a result Luther's books were to be burned, and he was to be treated as a heretic, cast out from the church, to be delivered to Rome for sentencing. Its tone was grim, as Document 42 illustrates, where Luther is compared to a wild boar invading a vineyard. Unsuprisingly, Luther reacted in protest. He publicly burned the Bull along with the book of church law and numerous other books by his enemies on December 10, 1520. On January 3, 1521 the Pope excommunicated Luther. Historians in general feel that both sides reacted too violently with regards the issuing and burning of the Bull. Elton feels the church largely overreacted. He states, 'Leo X, taking fright rather too late and now rather too drastically, excommunicated Luther.' Likewise he believes Luther overstepped the mark also, 'Luther's reaction was both characteristic and symbolic....the three years' struggle had greatly increased his self-confidence.' Grimm agrees with this and states, 'In all the excitement that followed, Luther remained belligerent, violent, and self-confident, for he was certain that the growing support was an evidence of God's will that he should continue the struggle against the Pope.' In his book 'Luther: An Introduction to His Thought', Gerhard Ebeling comments, 'If Luther had not rejected the judgement of the Pope the course of the Reformation may have been very different....' Luther had publicly clarified his utter contempt and rejection of any authority the papacy maintained it had. This act of defiance symbolized a conclusive and irrevocable break with Rome.

WJEC Document Pack No. 10:

This shows the Bull issued to Luther in 1520. It supports Elton's claim that the church acted irrationally towards Luther, since it does appear to be rather severe. It declares and repeatedly declares that 'we condemn, reprove, and totally reject the said books and all the writings of the said Martin...' This Bull is also being used by the church to win the propaganda war, whereby it asserts 'What fatherly love have we omitted in order to recall him from his errors?' The fact that it states, 'That this should have happened in Germany is all the more painful to us.......we and our predecessors have always borne love for that nation in our hearts', is indicative of the bias present in this source. The church had continued to monetarily extract the last pennies from even the poorest person in order to satisfy their 'inexhaustible needs' and cannot falsely claim to bear love for the nation. The church were self-obsessed and secular, not concerned in the slightest regarding the spiritual welfare of the population. We can see that the church's approach was to silence Luther at whatever cost, thought they did not consider the consequences of their actions. The irony is that Luther's intentions had been to reform the church, nothing more. However firm resistance from the church towards Luther's challenge played a crucial role in creating a permanent division in the stucture of the church.

Document 6:

This is an extract from Luther's spirited letter to Georg Spalatin, a German reformer. It demonstrates Luther's increasing anger at the church, an anger which he has exhibited in public, inciting unrest constantly. He writes that 'This bull condemns Christ himself', illustrating his belief that he and scripture were on one side with the Pope and church on the other. He states 'I feel much freer now that I am certain the Pope is Antichrist.' It shows that he felt strengthened in his opinion by the failure of the theologians to answer him satisfactorily and became bolder as a result. He is bold enough to freely compare them to Satans and Roman monsters. However he also reveals his original intention to save the church from its tyrannical and corrupted regime, saying 'The faith and the church are at stake...I rejoice to suffer in so noble a cause.' This primary source is of extreme value when analysing Luther's opinion of the papacy. Since it is a private letter, Luther is probably writing freely without constraint, revealing his innermost feelings. Luther still hopes for a peaceful solution to this crisis, even at this stage, since he is relying on Charles V to intervene. However this does not stop him from reacting drastically towards the church, and must be blamed for eliciting anti-papal sentiments at every given opportunity.

Events continued to move very swiftly. Because of constant attacks and thus increasing pressure from the church, Luther was forced to shape his loose ideology into comprehendible and accessible publications. He was dedicated in his aim to win the propaganda battle and these books were written to reach the common people. During the years 1520-1521 he worked on the three great works ''On the Babylonish Captivity of the church'', ''The Address to the German Nobility'', and ''Of the Liberty of the Christian Man'', thereby emotionally cutting himself off from Rome. In ''On the Babylonish Captivity of the church'', he attacked the papacy and the current theology of sacraments. He denied the sacraments of penance and ordination and denounced the clergy. Scribner writes, 'It was the vehemence with which he expressed them in the Babylonian Captivity which shocked contemporaries.' His bitter tone inevitably intensified the schism, thus Luther must be blamed at this point. In ''The Address to the German Nobility'', he invited the German princes to take the reform of the church into their hands. This was aimed at stirring up nationalistic feelings, thus Luther skillfully manipulated his audience in order to receive their support. Finally in ''Of the Liberty of the Christian Man'', he reiterated his position on 'justification by faith alone' and good works. Thus we are able to determine the significance of these three works especially, in clarifying his ideas to the ordinary people as well as the academia of Germany. The books proved that his ideas were no longer a topic for academic staff, which was crucial when gaining the support of the population against the church. Through these works Luther magnified his ideas in a language that was without rival in clarity and force. Thus he is largely accountable for writing these books. They contained ideas so radical that it would be impossible, as Desiderius Erasmus the great humanist and historian said, to make peace with the papacy. They were only going to exacerbate the schism and were not written to heal the rift, but to further undermine the church's power.

Let us now study the actions of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, and their importance to the development. Charles V had been elected by Frederick the Wise, who had successfully persuaded other German princes to back him. Consequently, the Emperor was extremely reluctant to antagonise his supporter. It was to Luther's advantage and that of the Reformation that Charles V and the Pope were eager to keep Frederick content. Besides, both the Papacy and Charles were too busy to take adequate measures against Luther. The Pope traditionally relied on Charles V to enforce his authority but Charles could not devote himself single-mindedly to combating Lutheranism because he had to struggle with powerful external enemies. One was Francis I (r. 1515-47) of France, who attacked the empire from the west, having resolved to destroy the power of the Habsburgs. As well as having to spend time and money gathering support for the imperial crown, he had to deal with the French on the Italian front and the Ottoman Turks who were threatening Vienna. At the Diet of Worms, Charles admits to his disregard of Luther when he states, 'I regret having delayed so long the proceedings against Luther and his false doctrine.' Also, the political fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire prevented the efficient operation of any real degree of censorship, regarding Luther's work. A lack of spiritual leadership from the church is another crucial element. Militant Popes such as Julius II and Leo X embroiled themselves in Italian Wars and Popes such as Alexander VI promoted the prospects of their illegitimate children. These political priorities explained the delay in the Pope's official condemnation and excommunication of Luther. When the Pope finally acted against him, it was too late; Luther had been given time to promote his views. Thus the Pope and Charles V's preoccupation with their immediate problems gave room for Luther to breathe so they must be held largely responsible for their lack of initiative. Had they confronted Luther when given the opportunity it is unlikely that the Reformation would have materialised.

Luther, who through the church's excommunication was practically declared a heretic, was invited to Worms by the Emperor who had been pressured by a few princes. Both the church and the Emperor wanted to recant his teachings while he was there. Luther began his trip to Worms on April 2, 1521. At the time he feared for his life, despite his safe conduct, but he would not be dissuaded. 'When I came into Worms,' he wrote, 'had I know there were as many devils ready to spring upon me as there were tiles on the roofs, I would joyfully have sprung into the midst of them.' The journey to the Imperial diet did not embody the repentance the church had hoped for, it was more like a victory march; Luther was welcomed enthusiastically in all of the towns he went through. Luther's appearance at the Imperial Diet was described as objective, clever and well thought out. He had to appear before the Emperor twice, and each time he was clearly told to recant his teachings. Luther didn't see any proof against his theses or views which would move him to recant. He excused his writings as they were on good Christian morals, pointing out the ills of the Church and attacking evil individuals. He declared in his testimony, ''Unless I am convinced by Scripture...my conscience is captive to the word of God. Therefore, I cannot and will not recant, since it is neither safe nor right to go against one's conscience. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.'' During the next few days, princes and other church representatives tried to persuade Luther to submit his work to the judgment of the imperial court, but he was unprepared to retire from his ground, unless they used Scripture as a basis for their judgment. Now the threat of being placed under an imperial ban was inevitable. The official verdict formally declaring Luther an outlaw banning, ''The Edict of Worms'', appeared in May. Graham Tomlin writes, 'This made Luther's expulsion final and public'. To deny the authority of the Pope required moral courage, since it was widely believed that the Pope was God's visible spokesmen on earth. Document 7 describes Luther's appearance as 'courageous' and states how Luther feared nothing on earth. This indirectly claims that Luther was to blame at Worms for remaining firm in his stand for reform. His courage held fast. Luther was convinced that he was on the right path and would not move an inch; it was this faith in God that led to his display of courage. His bold stance in front of the Pope and Emperor at the Diet was destructive to the split with Catholicism. The scale of his popularity at Worms is clearly revealed in the wording of the Edict of Worms (26 May 1521), the resolution issued at the end of the diet which placed Luther under Imperial ban. Unless the movement is put down, the edict reads, the 'whole German nation' will be 'infected' by this 'disorder'. Luther was a 'madman plotting the manifest destruction of the holy church.' This was not just a dispute over theological niceties; it was an inversion, an 'infection', of the whole social order. Contarini, a Venetian ambassador, and thus, considered reliable by historians supports this viewpoint and writes that Luther was 'adored by the whole of Germany'.

Thus on balance of the evidence, the quote ''Luther, more than anyone, was to blame for the schism'' is questionable. Indeed Martin Luther is the champion for keeping the flame of the revolt alive through his courage and articulation of justification by faith alone. He claimed that what distinguished him from previous reformers was that while they attacked corruption in the life of the church, he went to the theological root of the problem-the perversion of the church's doctrine of redemption and grace. Father Scully said. "While one could not say that the Reformation would not have happened but for Luther, the impetus and personal direction that he gave to the reform movement of the 16th century was of enormous importance. However, although the strength of his character played a crucial part in catalysing the process of reform, thus precipitating the Protestant Reformation, other underlying factors played an equally significant role in the development towards papal renovation. Although the posting of his theses symbolically triggered the process of reform, the institutions of the Holy Roman Empire were widely thought to be in need of improvement long before he expressed his dissent.

The Reformation followed the era of the Renaissance, which saw moral and spiritual decline in the papacy. The popes of this time were ''carried away by the spirit of the age'' (Gonzalez 370). The church leadership had become so worldly, that the name of Christ was rarely mentioned. The situation was ripe for reform. Society was becoming better educated and nationalism was on the rise as Kings were able to take more and more authority from Rome. The common man was beginning to see the corruption of their church which naturally arose from being entangled in politics, wealth, and unchallenged authority. The 15th and 16th century saw a tremendous surge in the amount of new knowledge being obtained by Europeans. Also numerous technological inventions furthered the quest for more information concerning the natural world; the printing press was key in spreading reformed views.

The first mistake the church made was to underestimate the character of Luther. Pope Leo X discounted Luther's unbending intellectual moral courage and saw him as some ''drunken German who will amend his ways when he sobers up''. Luther originally never intended to form a separate church and it was largely due to the poor handling of the situation by Pope Leo X that finally led to the formation of a separate Protestant church. Added to the above elements, one of the biggest factors contributing to Martin Luther's open defiance of the Church was the prestige of Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony. This unconditional umbrella of protection that Frederick provided for Luther that largely strengthened his word, and facilitated the route to reform. Without proper political protection, the strength of Luther's character alone was insufficient to raise the seedlings of the Reformation. This is the combination that proves so crucial to the beginnings of the Reformation. These factors, and the uncompromising line Luther adopted lead to the amelioration of the church system. Hence the success of the Reformation was clearly not due to Luther's character alone, but welded together by politics and ecclesiastic factors.

By Hanan Al-Abdullah.