I find the history of the Church/church to be extremely complex that takes into account more than theology. You have to trace the social and political developments that were occurring at the same time as the Church was evolving.
There were major events happening throughout history that directly impacted and helped develop Protestantism. The eastern church never followed the bureaucratic structure of the western church let alone being at odds with each other over major doctrinal issues. The eastern church held to John Cassian (semi-Peligium) while the western church started with Augustine but slowly drifted away towards the eastern view. This drift, going back to the Council of Orange, IMO sowed the seeds of Protestantism which I feel is the true western church. Roman Catholicism is really evolving into the church of the east.
Major historical events such as the lost of lives during the failed Crusades, the major capital drain from the poor people building great cathedrals and the Vatican, the development of humanism during the Renaissance and the political unrest among countries all contributed to dissatisfaction with the Church who, up until this time, was the political driver. Granted doctrine had become corrupted but one has to wonder what would have been the history had the Pope simply stated to Luther, “You know, you have a point about those indulgences.” The Roman Catholic Church would have been reformed and that would probably have been that.
The simple fact is the Roman Catholic Church (like everyone else) was steeped in humanism. While the (future) Protestant movement was advocating more freedom, humanists within the Church such as Sir Thomas More was advocating consolidation of the political control into the hands of a few people for the people’s good. The RCC was stuck with paying the rising costs on the building of the Vatican after their coffers were devastated by the Crusades. Luther’s stance against indulgences were too much to bear and they made the wrong decision.
I don’t mean to suggest that doctrinal issues didn’t have much to do with the birth of Protestantism. You can trace from the Council of Orange throughout history when people started slipping away or stop attending the Church, the Church would pass a new “doctrinal belief” based upon some obscured flawed belief in order to drive the people back to the Church. I’m not going to be specific here so no one might as well ask me for one of these beliefs. The Catholics will forever argue that all these activities were always part of the Church and they’ll pull out Saint So-n-So who stated back in 850AD what he believed. If I posted any charts, as some have in the past, verifying this claim I’ll be meant with a 100 rabid Catholics saying I’m lying and Doctrine X actually happened 50 years earlier. So suffice it to say this is my opinion and leave it at that.
The history of the Church is far too complex for one article or even perhaps a book. But the “Traditions of the Fathers” as established by the Council of Trent was a simple humanistic trapping to empower the Vatican leaders (and I might add given the people’s response here it seems to have worked somewhat). Luther rightfully left and steered the church back to its basic concepts. But, as the many people I have bored to tears realize, I believe that most of Protestantism has headed east with Roman. But that is a different history.
ping for later read