WI: Luther was burned at the stake?

There seems to be a particularly grating idea floating about that the Reformation as we know it (or indeed, in general) is somehow inevitable.

Anyway, whether Luther burns in anywhere between 1517 or 1521 is irrelevant. Protestantism as we know it does not come to exist.

The corruption of the Catholic Church made a revolt against it inevitably. The main difference will likely be that the Reformation will be more Reformed/Low Church in nature, rather than as the early Protestantism dominated by High Church. This may change where it will be successful. Without Luther influence we may also see more Anglican style state churches.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
There seems to be a particularly grating idea floating about that the Reformation as we know it (or indeed, in general) is somehow inevitable.

Anyway, whether Luther burns in anywhere between 1517 or 1521 is irrelevant. Protestantism as we know it does not come to exist.

But something would happen. It just wouldn't look like OTL.


Which should be obvious.
 
The biggest difference was that the printing press was already there, so Lutheran ideas spread much more quickly.
Theologically, they were distinct from the previous movements - consider e.g. the Three or Five Solae, which weren`t there in the earlier reformation -, but not necessarily by depth and maturity in theology. One could say that Luther and Zwingli were really shallow in comparison to the theological discourse that preceded them, just think of Cusanus` complex, philosophically deep and politically relevant theology.
Lutheranism is pretty plain, and it is decidedly politically bland, in comparison to all the aforementioned movements. Maybe that was the key to its success: it was not such a socially dangerous tool to latch on to for the rebellious princes and the autonomy-seeking city states.

Luther theology was pretty social revolutionary, Lutheranism resulted in literacy been much more widespread, it also established the clergy as public servant, enable the states much greater control over their territory and by removing celibacy he enable to create a social class of academics, but also enable social climbing through education. Without Luther countries like Sweden and Prussia would not have been able to be major political players before the industrialization.
 
Luther theology was pretty social revolutionary, Lutheranism resulted in literacy been much more widespread, it also established the clergy as public servant, enable the states much greater control over their territory and by removing celibacy he enable to create a social class of academics, but also enable social climbing through education. Without Luther countries like Sweden and Prussia would not have been able to be major political players before the industrialization.
Lutheranism was politically transformationist, to avoid the obvious term "reformist", for sure, and most of the outcomes you mentioned were indeed much more relevant to those who sought to establish a centralised state than to any social movement ("enable the states much greater control... clergy as public servant"). It was a great agenda for princes who sought to shape their territories, because Luther not only abstained from any really socially revolutionary ideas, but even publicly condemned them.
The creation of a social class of academics and upward social mobility through education are not Protestant inventions, they were a trend ever since the medieval universities were founded in the 13th century, and the printing press "democratised" this process inevitably.
Socially revolutionary were Thomas Müntzer and many anabaptist movements. Society did indeed transform quite deeply as a result of Lutheran Reformation and the empowerment of the territorial state, but I wouldn`t say that was in Luther`s theology.
 
The corruption of the Catholic Church made a revolt against it inevitably. The main difference will likely be that the Reformation will be more Reformed/Low Church in nature, rather than as the early Protestantism dominated by High Church. This may change where it will be successful. Without Luther influence we may also see more Anglican style state churches.

It's important to remember that the Catholic Church was filled with many pushing for significant reforms itself at the time. Indeed Luther did not anticipate leaving at all when he protested at Wittenberg, but considered himself to be newly persuaded of the reforming argument he had previously opposed. Leaving took a long time, and largely resulted from repercussions he neither wanted nor controlled, like his excommunication. So it's entirely possible that corruption is addressed with internal reform, or w/e, and that something like Protestantism never happens, or is much watered down, or is an internal distinction rather than schism, etc.
 
The corruption of the Catholic Church made a revolt against it inevitably. The main difference will likely be that the Reformation will be more Reformed/Low Church in nature, rather than as the early Protestantism dominated by High Church. This may change where it will be successful. Without Luther influence we may also see more Anglican style state churches.

I must admit I don't follow the reasoning that "it happened OTL so it must happen in every TL" will lead to an inevitable Reformation. And in the case where it does happen without Luther around, I see more Anglican and Gallic style churches as the likely outcome.

But something would happen. It just wouldn't look like OTL.


Which should be obvious.

Nobody has made such a claim. A world absent Luther and the OTL Protestant Reformation would certainly and decidedly not look like OTL.
 
Lutheranism was politically transformationist, to avoid the obvious term "reformist", for sure, and most of the outcomes you mentioned were indeed much more relevant to those who sought to establish a centralised state than to any social movement ("enable the states much greater control... clergy as public servant"). It was a great agenda for princes who sought to shape their territories, because Luther not only abstained from any really socially revolutionary ideas, but even publicly condemned them.
The creation of a social class of academics and upward social mobility through education are not Protestant inventions, they were a trend ever since the medieval universities were founded in the 13th century, and the printing press "democratised" this process inevitably.
Socially revolutionary were Thomas Müntzer and many anabaptist movements. Society did indeed transform quite deeply as a result of Lutheran Reformation and the empowerment of the territorial state, but I wouldn`t say that was in Luther`s theology.

The problem are that you compare northern Germany and the Nordic countries with wrong part of Europe, when they really should be compared to Poland. 17-18th century Poland are how Catholic north Germany and the Nordic Countries would have looked. Lutheranism focus on literacy ensured that the Lurheran countries had the highest literacy in 17-19th century Europe, entering the clergy changed from a way to get rid of surplus children and became a way of social advancement for a family, often the children of priest would become lawyers, which while a sideway step, created the large academic classes of Lutheran Europe. This was not effect the princes planned but purely accidental results of Luthers theology.
 
It's important to remember that the Catholic Church was filled with many pushing for significant reforms itself at the time. Indeed Luther did not anticipate leaving at all when he protested at Wittenberg, but considered himself to be newly persuaded of the reforming argument he had previously opposed. Leaving took a long time, and largely resulted from repercussions he neither wanted nor controlled, like his excommunication. So it's entirely possible that corruption is addressed with internal reform, or w/e, and that something like Protestantism never happens, or is much watered down, or is an internal distinction rather than schism, etc.

Of course there was internal demand for reforms, and yes Luther was one of them, but even in OTL with Luther and Calvin converting Europe, they was barely able to push the Counter-Reformation, and any place they could get away with not reforming things, they didn't. While many of the common clergy could see the problems and tried to change things, Rome and the political leadership didn't see the need to rock the boat, they needed Luther kicking them in stomach theological and Charles V sacking Rome to finally getting that they needed to do something, and they still did as little as possible.
 
Even without the need to reform the Catholic church one would think that it's inevitable that such a geographically-spread religion would split at some point, even if it was caused by cultural differences between an ahistorical 17th century Catholic North America and with Europe. The precedence of the Great Schism looms in the background.

Then again Islam got away without any huge splits since 632 so I might be wrong here.
 
Of course there was internal demand for reforms, and yes Luther was one of them, but even in OTL with Luther and Calvin converting Europe, they was barely able to push the Counter-Reformation, and any place they could get away with not reforming things, they didn't. While many of the common clergy could see the problems and tried to change things, Rome and the political leadership didn't see the need to rock the boat, they needed Luther kicking them in stomach theological and Charles V sacking Rome to finally getting that they needed to do something, and they still did as little as possible.

In OTL they were 'barely able to push the C-E' in large part due to an actual schism which both represented an existential/political threat and attracted many who would otherwise have been reformers. It's like the American Revolution; many Brits were very supportive of Colonial positions and many colonials were pushing for change through negotiation, but once it became open rebellion things became sophomoric pretty fast, people were forced to pick a side and compromise was treason.
 
The problem are that you compare northern Germany and the Nordic countries with wrong part of Europe, when they really should be compared to Poland. 17-18th century Poland are how Catholic north Germany and the Nordic Countries would have looked. Lutheranism focus on literacy ensured that the Lurheran countries had the highest literacy in 17-19th century Europe, entering the clergy changed from a way to get rid of surplus children and became a way of social advancement for a family, often the children of priest would become lawyers, which while a sideway step, created the large academic classes of Lutheran Europe. This was not effect the princes planned but purely accidental results of Luthers theology.
Hm, that is a fitting analogy.
I shouldn`t let myself derail here. I was arguing that Luther`s theology was neither deeper nor more mature than that of earlier reformers. I stand by that.
Arguing that Lutheranism didn`t change society even beyond what princes planned would be foolish, I´m not attempting that. You are making fair points here.
 
I think that would be another consequence because with Luther died won't be the Luther's Bible with consequences for the German written Language. I guess that sooner or later will be translated to the German, but probably would be made for or with the HRE's Emperor support.
Also, I guess that could be some differences (beside the theologically, of course) with the OTL, version and consequences for the German written evolution/consolidation.
At least the above its my guessing because I'm not a German speaker.
 
The issue is that Luther did SO. MANY. THINGS through the sheer words he taught:
  • Adopting the Narrow Cannon (66 books) rather than the Septuagint-Alexandrian Greater cannon
  • Discrediting the idea of removing New Testament books from the cannon (Luther REALLY didn't like the book of James, to the point that the Swedish Lutheran Church at one point put it in the Apocrypha, but he never was able to remove it entirely, and because of this failure, after Luther no serious objections to books in the New Testament emerged)
  • Establishing the 66 book cannon as a protestant standard
  • "Restating" the anathemas towards Arianism, Monophysiteism, Unitarianism, Nestorianism, etc; so that Protestant churches did not openly develop along those lines
  • Beginning the "downgrading" of Saints
  • Beginning the "downgrading" of the Virgin Mary
  • Nailing the last nail in the coffin of the possibility of a true Gnostic revival
  • Disallowing true Iconography (Eastern Orthodox/OO Style Iconography)
  • Establishing the framework for Calvin's theories (Anabaptism, Predestination [TULIP Theology], the end of the Veneration of saints in much of Europe, etc)
Plus, the timing of Luther's reformation is pretty vital. Contact with Ethiopia was reestablished and the mass circulation of Byzantine Christian works only happened AFTER the foundation of Protestantism was established. Arguably the longer the Catholic church tried to stop the Reformation, the more likely it was to be absolutely radically different.

I am willing to bet that if the Protestant reformation had been postponed for just 50 years, the Book of James would have been kicked out of most Protestant cannons, and the Book of Enoch would have been added to most Protestant cannons--that is, if a united Protestant cannon emerged at all.
 
The problem are that you compare northern Germany and the Nordic countries with wrong part of Europe, when they really should be compared to Poland. 17-18th century Poland are how Catholic north Germany and the Nordic Countries would have looked. Lutheranism focus on literacy ensured that the Lurheran countries had the highest literacy in 17-19th century Europe, entering the clergy changed from a way to get rid of surplus children and became a way of social advancement for a family, often the children of priest would become lawyers, which while a sideway step, created the large academic classes of Lutheran Europe. This was not effect the princes planned but purely accidental results of Luthers theology.

That's not a fair comparison. Economics had already led Poland and Germany to split from one another socially. Already, in the early 16th century, the foundations in Poland had been laid for the Golden Liberties and the plantation-like grain economy, neither of which were present in Germany in anything like their PLC form. German burghers constituted a huge part of the urban Polish population long before the Reformation--urbanization, and with it literacy, were much more advanced even in pre-Lutheran Germany than in Poland. Mostly, this was due to Poland coming to the urbanization game late and due to its governing caste (the szlachta) holding urban life in utter contempt (also, to the alliance of the Polish aristocracy with the Jews and Armenians, whose domination of the Polish civic economy stifled the development of the Polish burghers).

There were already large academic classes in Catholic Europe, even in Poland, whose aristocratic and burgher families sent their sons to study in Italian universities and whose kings founded domestic universities. The abolition of clerical celibacy in the Protestant countries did not have much impact on this, though the widespread literacy probably did help. But then, what came first, the literacy or the heresy? A large class of burghers and a peasant class not tied to the land in a state of near-chattel slavery is already going to be more literate than its neighbors in Poland, which makes them more likely to read Lutheran propaganda.

I say the proper comparison is not with Poland (which, IMO, has more in common with Hapsburg Spain than with Lower Germany, in that both had a cultural complex about being a bulwark against the infidel, which led to the propagation of a large class of impoverished aristocracy, and rose to the peak of their strengths riding an ultimately transient source of income that they failed to leverage into real economic development) but with Flanders or northern Italy, whose urbanization and civic cultures were a better prototype for those northern German, Baltic, and English merchants who would come to dominate Europe. And mass literacy was already manifesting in those areas over a century before Luther--by 1339, half of Florence's children were learning to read. In Flanders, an organization called the "Brethren of Common Life" were preaching the importance of literacy and reading religious texts as early as the fourteenth century. Town schools, staffed by priests but secularly-focused, were present in Flanders from that time as well.

As much as Luther has been credited with accidentally inducing mass literacy in northern Europe, I would argue that he would not have been nearly so successful were he not preaching to a literate audience (consider, as a related example, the decline and eventual demise of the Polish Arians in the seventeenth century, compared to the persistence of Polish Lutherans and Calvinists in the much richer, more urbanized areas in Prussia and Livonia).

Without Luther, northern Germany and England and possibly Sweden would probably have been just as literate as IOTL--the movement toward that had already begun, and seemed to be more tied to urbanization and trade than to theology. Of course, that just makes them fertile ground for some other rabble-rouser calling for the destruction of the icons and the priest's beheading.
 
The issue is that Luther did SO. MANY. THINGS through the sheer words he taught:
  • Adopting the Narrow Cannon (66 books) rather than the Septuagint-Alexandrian Greater cannon
  • Discrediting the idea of removing New Testament books from the cannon (Luther REALLY didn't like the book of James, to the point that the Swedish Lutheran Church at one point put it in the Apocrypha, but he never was able to remove it entirely, and because of this failure, after Luther no serious objections to books in the New Testament emerged)
  • Establishing the 66 book cannon as a protestant standard
  • "Restating" the anathemas towards Arianism, Monophysiteism, Unitarianism, Nestorianism, etc; so that Protestant churches did not openly develop along those lines
  • Beginning the "downgrading" of Saints
  • Beginning the "downgrading" of the Virgin Mary
  • Nailing the last nail in the coffin of the possibility of a true Gnostic revival
  • Disallowing true Iconography (Eastern Orthodox/OO Style Iconography)
  • Establishing the framework for Calvin's theories (Anabaptism, Predestination [TULIP Theology], the end of the Veneration of saints in much of Europe, etc)
Plus, the timing of Luther's reformation is pretty vital. Contact with Ethiopia was reestablished and the mass circulation of Byzantine Christian works only happened AFTER the foundation of Protestantism was established. Arguably the longer the Catholic church tried to stop the Reformation, the more likely it was to be absolutely radically different.

I am willing to bet that if the Protestant reformation had been postponed for just 50 years, the Book of James would have been kicked out of most Protestant cannons, and the Book of Enoch would have been added to most Protestant cannons--that is, if a united Protestant cannon emerged at all.
Again, I would argue that the big difference between Luther on the one hand, and Wycliffe or the Hussite Hungarian translation on the other hand, was that in the meantime, the printing press had been invented, so Luther`s translation got printed, while Wycliffe`s didn`t. That is how he achieved impact, and all of his decisions were so important therefore. Another translator may have made different choices and that would have been an important divergence, of course. Thing is, the big impact translation would come in the 16th century, and the German one would have the most impact because the language was so widely spoken throughout Europe.

Early reformation was consistently trinitarian, too, so the no-Arian, no-monophysite point is not specifically Lutheran.

Same regarding Gnosticism. In my TL, I´ve hinted at a slight synthesis between early reformation and some of Meister Eckart`s gnostic views as a specific Reformist variety in South-Western Germany, but that was a stretch, I would say in hindsight. Valdes, Wycliffe, Hus, Chelcicky: they were all anti-gnostic, too. "Reform" was a politico-theological project, if it wasn`t, then it was OK with the Catholic Church mostly, so either you went out into society or at least your community and wanted something to change, then you were a Reformer. Or you retreated into a spiritual world of your own, shared with a few like-minded people, and that`s what gnostics tended to do, so they weren`t really ever linked to the Reform movement that much.

As for saints and icons, the Solae were indeed an innovation of the 16th century Reformation over earlier conceptions, even though the seeds had also been sown, but of course molding this into a coherent view was a Lutheran and later Calvinist achievement. Theologically, THAT was the big difference. Now you judge how much deeper and more mature this is in comparison to preceding theological reform concepts.
 
The problem with Catholicism at the time was that so many of its tenets were not Biblical. The increase in, and probable inevitability of the spread of local-language Bibles means that criticism of the Catholic Church is going to happen, because people can read it for themselves and realise that there is no mention of a Pope; of purgatory; of visiting shrines; clear mentions of not praying to angels or saints; etc.. Reform will have to happen, but of course the nature of it will change somewhat.

That was probably a supremely unhelpful comment, but there it is anyway.
 
For those that say that it would be just more violent:

Than it would loose and practically disapper. OTL it could survive because a lot of Princes decided to convert/support it. A more radical movement would find it much harder to find support on the state level. That would leave it much more vulnerable on the long run.
 
For those that say that it would be just more violent:

Than it would loose and practically disapper. OTL it could survive because a lot of Princes decided to convert/support it. A more radical movement would find it much harder to find support on the state level. That would leave it much more vulnerable on the long run.
Yes, no doubt about that.
 
The problem with Catholicism at the time was that so many of its tenets were not Biblical. The increase in, and probable inevitability of the spread of local-language Bibles means that criticism of the Catholic Church is going to happen, because people can read it for themselves and realise that there is no mention of a Pope; of purgatory; of visiting shrines; clear mentions of not praying to angels or saints; etc.. Reform will have to happen, but of course the nature of it will change somewhat.

That was probably a supremely unhelpful comment, but there it is anyway.

The problem with this is the post-Luther assumption that its being biblical or not mattered to many people at the time. The whole "biblical" thing is a Reformation meme (sola scriptura). Both the Eastern and Western churches always have based their creed and institutions ultimately on a direct line of succession from the Apostles, on Tradition, and custom (the papacy, by the way, is based on the historical St Peter's role and presence in Rome as bishop and his role among the Apostles, but is also supported by the passage in the Gospel of St Matthew); until the various Protestant figures came around, the idea of a requirement for every teaching of Christianity to be based on a sort of biblical appeal or footnote would have been entirely foreign. It's simply an ahistorical concern.

Besides, there is some support for these teachings that you mention (purgatory, vicarious satisfaction, saints, etc.) in the book of Maccabees, which was removed from the standard Protestant biblical canon by... guess who.
 
Last edited:
Top