Isn't interesting, and in a way, sad, how we can look back and see mistakes that had
been brewing, and the end result from a few centuries later.
The events leading up to, or paving the way for, the Reformation include:
The Conciliar movement, which sought to limit the power of the Pope in favour of councils.
The translation by Wyclif and others of the bible into English and other vulgar tongues.
The rising and persecution of various 'heretical' proto-Protestant groups, partly because of the availability of bibles in the common language. These included the Lollards, Waldenses and Hussites for example.
The rediscovery of better ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for translating the bible, which meant less reliance on the Latin Vulgate.
Political moves against the Pope by various Electors, Princes, Monarchs, and Holy Roman Emperors, and the rise of havens of relative toleration of dissent in states like Holland.
The invention of the printing press, which meant new ideas could escape and disseminate rapidly before being immediately quashed by the Church.
The rise of Christian Humanism (which predated secular humanism by several centuries) and classical study. This produced scholars like Erasmus, who although he didn't become a Reformer himself, gave fuel to their scholarly success and produced new standard Greek texts for translation.
...and on the negative side, the increasing corruption and open immorality of the Church heirarchy, which produced increasing indignation, especially in places like Germany which were also heavily taxed by the Pope.
What if the pope had made Luther a Cardinal?
Luther would never have accepted a political/ecclesiastical bribe in return for recanting. He was not interested in power and advancement, only Truth. He was not a politician like Henri of Navarre, but the son of peasant, and was not in the least bit diplomatic or machiavellian. Compromise was not in his vocabulary.
Why cannot people who disagree get together and work it out? Do we do so today? (Gaza?)
Luther (and the bible) would have called it 'sin'. That's why. We are fundamentally self-centered. And when groups of self-centered people form into a society we get the ethno-centricity that leads to war. But there is a difference between tolerating people (which we ought to do whether or not they agree with us) and tolerating ideas by doing what our relativistic post modernism does by coming up with this ridiculous idea that everyone's ideas are equally valid and true. That's nonsense.
