Jeff, I agree that the Reformation was more important -- it is the great divide that separates medieval and early modern Europe.
Certainly, there was a theological basis for the Reformation. Within the church many realized that something was rotten, but such warnings went unheeded at the top. Wycliffe's followers had been agitating since the 14th Century and influenced Jan Hus' movement in Bohemia.
Much of the criticism was not really about doctrine -- it was about corruption: Holy offices bought and sold, unqualified candidates raised to the College of Cardinals, prelates drawing (sometimes multiple) incomes from sees they'd never visited, sexual immorality and illiteracy among the clergy. (Put Savaranola in this category; the fiery Florentine preacher had no problems with church doctrine but railed against the corruption prevalent in the church. He ended up being burned -- literally.)
Politics played a huge role in the Reformation. The Renaissance popes were up to their necks in power politics; the popes were intent on maintaining their temporal authority over the Papal States and repeatedly made alliances (including with the Turks) and went to war to preserve their temporal power. Needless to say, those he was fighting might have a bit of difficulty seeing the pope -- especially Julius -- as a man of God instead of just another earthly ruler.
The papacy also was infested family rivalry at the time -- the contest between the Medicis and Borgias, for example.
War is expensive, and so were the massive building campaigns that the popes undertook to restore and beautify Rome. Which brings us to Johannes Tetzel, who went to Germany to sell indulgences -- to raise cash for the new Saint Peter's. It was Tetzel's shameless hawking of indulgences (which went beyond church doctrine) that lit the fuse for Luther's 95 Theses. (His initial complaints were much the same as Wycliffe and Hus -- especially about the fraudulence of indulgences.)
The church hierarchy, preoccupied in Rome, repeatedly ignore what was happening in Germany until it was too late.
Indulgences offended not only the theologically minded, but many of the German princes as well. They saw gold flowing out of German at an alarming rate and saw the new movement as a way of asserting their independence. Eventually, Luther obliged by agreeing that each prince should be free to determine the religion of his subjects.
Not to be overlooked is the influence of the development of movable type. Wycliffe lived in an age when his ideas could only be disseminated by preaching -- a very hazardous untertaking -- or laboriously copied books. By the time Luther appeared, printing presses were spreading all over Europe and he made good use of them by producing cheap pamphlets that allowed widespread dissemination of his views.
And one can't forget the role of Henry VIII. His lack of a male heir (and possibly some religious scruples) led him to break with Rome, although he remained essentially a Catholic in theology. But his actions (including suppressing the monasteries and divvying up the loot to the aristocracy) put England in the Protestant camp, creating a counterweight to the French and Austrian power that might otherwise have enabled the Counter-Reformation to sweep all before it. (We'll leave the 30 Years War and Sweden's Gustav Adolphus for another thread.)
Well, I've written too much, and am probably wrong about much of it. It's a massive topic, worthy of study.
I have found christianitytoday.com to be a good, nonsectarian source for articles about the Reformers.
[ February 05, 2003, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]
