Lotherington, Mullett and Randell all mention the abuses of the Papacy to some extent. They all agree that the papacy’s spiritual concerns were very low. Popes engaged in sexual activities, even fathering children, and engaging in numerous wars. Mullett argues that Popes were more politicians and Warriors than Popes, using the example Pope Julius II. He also argues, however, that the Popes were respected, even Luther, for some time, treated the Pope with uttermost respect. Randell also seems to support Mullett’s view, as does Lotherington.
It must be argued though by Lotherington, that many people were, where frauds such as indulgences and relics were provided, content with this practice. He also states that many abuses were part of the natural order of things. People in the middle Ages never knew what a pure church was. Mullett agrees with Lotherington on this statement with the evidence of the Great Schism, in which the church was split as one Pope was in Avignon while one was in Rome.
Therefore, Lotherington believes that the internal weaknesses of church were an important reason for the German Reformation, on the evidence that many Catholic scholars such as Erasmus did call for a reform, but it was other factors, such as social and economic factor that forced people to realise that corruptions in the Church were not right. Randell agrees to an extent with Lotherington that the ungodliness of the Popes conduct and the Church was one of the factors involved in the Reformation, but also states that many people did not have any knowledge about the majority of the corruptions of the Church, and clearly argues that the faults of the papacy were a real cause of the Reformation. Mullett seems to agree with Randell that it was not the state of the Church, as it was not widely known and there is little evidence to support many claims about the Popes misconduct. Therefore, I find that the argument put forward by Randell is the most valid and there were other causes for the occurrence of the Reformation.
Randell states that ‘Religion was culture and culture was Religion`. There was only one church in Western Europe and this was the Roman Catholic Church. The Church was the life of the people and there was no alternative. Therefore, what the church adapted was the culture. Lotherington and Mullett also agree on this evidence, and Randell even goes as far to argue that it was cultural causes that were a factor of the Reformation. One cultural cause that Randell argues which is very important is the role of the printing press. He bases his argument on the evidence of Luther’s Ninety Five Theses. In the 14th Century, it was not unusual for someone to pin up grievances on a door of a Church, but it was only through the printing press that Luther’s ideas were spread. Lotherington also agrees with Randell, stating that the development of the printing press helped to spread new ideas, theological thinking, and nationalism.
However, Lotherington argues that although the printing press did contribute to the reformation, it was only three to four percent of the population of Germany who were literate, and also argues that it was only traditional books that were entirely traditional until around the early 1500s, therefore, the printing press was not a major cause for the Reformation, but rather affected the “pattern of continuity and change”. Mullett agrees with Lotherington’s view that the printing press was not a main cause but just an apparatus to print documents.
Randell also argues that the period of the Renaissance was a cultural reason for the Reformation. The Renaissance may be linked with the invention of the printing press, but it was the thinking of the Renaissance that inspired scholars to think about the Church and others matters. Randell argues that, scholars, such as Erasmus and the Humanists were a short-term cause. Through new thinking, he launched a series of attacks on the Church, but only wanted a reform, not an alternative. Lotherington and Mullett both accept Randell’s argument, but do not stress it as a reason for the Reformation as much as Randell does. They argue, that the Renaissance was an age that had to occur so should not be questioned. They support Randell’s argument in a sense that the Reformation encouraged thinking to grow and the acceptance of other ideas contrary to those of the Church.
Social causes can also be identified as a reason for the Reformation. Randell argues that social causes were so important that this was actually a social revolution more than a Reformation. He bases his argument on the evidence that the development and spread of Lutheranism only occurred because a large minority of the population especially townspeople and laymen resented the way in which the Church laid down strict regulations on their daily lives, such as the daily fasting, and people only joined Luther’s alternative to ‘free’ themselves of these petty rituals. Lotherington argues that the social cause was more to do with peasants and cities. The peasant’s felt that the burden of taxes, such as the Tithe, were extremely hard to bear. Not paying this tax would at least relieve them from paying ten percent of their already mere wage to the Church. He also argues that the German nation felt exploited by the Church as it was taking money from them, and not even investing it back into the State. Lotherington agrees with some of Randell’s view to an extent. Mullett, however, disagrees with both Lotherington’s and Randell’s interpretations of the reasons for the Reformation. He argues that that society was unstable due to ‘Germany’s’ division into many states. He then refers back to Luther stating that it was Luther who had to unite the States together for society to be stable.
Lotherington, Mullett and Randell all agree to an extent that economic problems were a reason that could have resulted in the Reformation.
Mullett argues, that for the Reformation to occur one man was needed and this man was Luther. Mullett even goes as far as saying, “ As far as any one man can be responsible for a great movement, Martin Luther was responsible for the Lutheran Reformation”. Therefore, Mullett is arguing that Luther was the sole proprietor and cause for the German Reformation. He bases his argument on the evidence of Luther’s protest over the Indulgences, the spread of his ideas, and his defiance over the Church. Mullett argues that Luther’s action and the consequences of his actions was the real reason of the Reformation.
Lotherington agrees with Mullett to an extent in that it was Luther’s protest over indulgences that triggered the Reformation, However he maintains that it was the corruptions of the Church that inspired Luther to protest, therefore Luther can not be interpreted as the sole cause. Randell also disagrees with Mullett as elucidating Luther as the sole cause. He argues, like Lotherington that Luther was only a trigger. Scholars knew that the Church would have to reform soon. People just listened to Luther purely because his works were printed fast. Therefore, Luther cannot be seen as a cause of the Reformation but a counterpart, as the Reformation was not a contingency, especially during the age of the Renaissance.
Overall, it must be argued that the conditions of the Church were not the central cause, but rather that the abuses within the Church were only exaggerated by many Lutheran reformers and in fact Luther himself. Yes, the abuses were there but as stated by Lotherington, they were a natural order, and as Mullett and Randell state, most of the population did not know about the abuses. Therefore, the internal weaknesses of the Church cannot be acknowledged as the real reason for the German Reformation. Rather than one main factor, it was rather a number of factors behind the German Reformation.
