A few of these "mystics" were heretics and were pointed out as such by church leaders. Most were wonderful Christians and contributed to the spiritual growth of many other Christians. Visionaries are not the same as mystics. There always were some who had the gift of prophecy, ever since the daughters of Philip in the New Testament. The medieval church leaders also understood that prophecy can be counterfeited by the devil, so formal processes existed to distinguish genuine from false prophecy. Indiscriminate use of the term "mystic" usually indicates that the author doesn't know what he's talking about.
The same applies to repentance. A wide variety of ways of expressing one's heartfelt sorrow for sins were practiced. Some people gave up career and marriage to live a life of repentance, both within monasteries and as consecrated lay people. Some lived "normal" lives in business and agriculture, repenting of sins sometimes soon, sometimes long after but caring about their eternal destiny. Some people lived utterly unrepentant lives and were scoundrels--at all levels of society.
But belief in Jesus Christ as God Incarnate dominated the culture, and belief that one was saved by Christ's work on the cross was taught without exception. Did everyone follow this, did everyone act on this? No. But this articles charges are totally without merit. Belief in Christ and his teachings, for instance, on marriage in Mt. 19, totally transformed a Germanic culture in which women were "married" by being snatched up by whichever man was strongest (the term was raptus, abduction) and then discarded for the next woman--transformed it into a culture where married women were protected by insistence on monagamy and had more rights in marriage than at any time between 1500 and 1950. Christianity totally transformed a Germanic culture of sheer power and warfare into a culture in which criteria for justified war were in place, even if not always followed--but bishops, at the cost of their lives stood up to kings conducting unjust wars--Hugh of Lincoln did just that agains Richard I in the late 1100s. Christianity transformed a culture in which the rule of laws emerged rather than the rule of sheer power (to which we have now reverted in many ways). A king was not free to do whatever he wanted. Both the high nobles and the bishops served as a check on the king--who, after all, was an elected ruler. Did kings sometimes ignore bishops or nobles when they pointed out that the king was doing something unjust? Yes. Did they sometimes listen and change their behavior? Yes (Henry II would be an example). At no time between the ancient world of Alexander the Great and the establishment of the American republic or perhaps the English unwritten constitution of 1688 was there such a degree of rule of law and protection of people's rights against arbitrary power domination than in the Middle Ages. This is the result of Christianity's deep embeddedness because Christianity insisted that kings were not better before God than peasants--no one was above God's law as laid down in the Bible, and Jesus set up a pretty high standard of behavior in the Sermon on the Mount. This was built into the practices of the Middle Ages. Was it often ignored and disobeyed? Yes. Were those who disobeyed these laws called to account? In many cases yes, in many cases no.
Was it a perfect society? No. Was it a Christian society? Yes. Compared to the ancient Romans or Greeks or Persians or the medieval Muslims, the deep impact of Christian faith, of the belief that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and would hold people to account for their sins is clearly evident.
Was there much needing reform? Yes. But none of the things this author mentions in his vague, useless terminology, touch on either the stellar or the despicable aspects of medieval Christian culture. What this author has done is trot out phantoms of his own prejudices as fact. I doubt that he has ever read a single actual text or historical document in its complete form.
The "selling of indulgences" was denounced by reformers of the 1400s and by the Sorbonne theologians in the early 1500s long before Luther raised the issue. Were there corrupt popes? Yes. Were all popes corrupt? No. Were there corrupt bishops? Yes. Were all bishops corrupt? No. Powerful voices were raised calling for reform of the corruptions throughout the later Middle Ages. The biggest single factor (and there were many factors) inhibiting full-scale reform of the corruptions was the slow coopting of the church (the bishops) by the emerging consolidated nation state from about 1200-1500. That's what destroyed the effort to reform via church councils in the 1400s--the kings and princes tried to grab control of it to use the church to gain control over every aspect of society. This is the period in which the groundwork was laid for absolutist kingship. Henry VIII and Francis I were the first absolutist monarchs. Henry VIII, for instanced, banned all freedom of the press--you had to submit everything to the king's agents before it could be printed. He wanted to control everything, including the church.
Luther's call for reform might have succeeded in reforming the Church without splitting it had the kings and princes not chosen sides and had Luther not turned into a radical between 1519 and 1520 (he was badly provoked by doubledealing on the part of some of the Curia--he was dealt with unjustly by them and he was right to be mad at it, but his response was to launch into claims about the pope as the antichrist and to reject the very notion of the church that he held up to that point--he overreacted--which is understandable given the specific provocations of 1518 but nonetheless a fatal error on his part). In the end, however, it was the choosing of sides by the kings and princes that torpedoed any chance of reaching agreement about what reforms needed to take place and implementing them. That's what turned the Protestant Reformation from a reforming movement into the catalyst for state churches in both Catholic and Protestant countries.
Thank-you for being the voice of clarity here. This article starts out with some false premises and then just gets worse.
I suppose popularizing a German translation of the Bible was rather radical back then.
An outstanding rebuttal to the tenor and specifics of the piece heading this thread, Mr. D!
You bounce around from the late 1100 to the 1500-1600s. I can’t tell what century you’re writing about. There was a vast difference from “medieval” times to the time of the Renaissance. The middle ages are generally thought to be before the Renaissance from the 5th century to the 15th century. The Renaissance is generally thought to be from the 14th to the 17th century so there is a little bit of overlap. It’s inconsistent to give credit to “non-medieval” things that happened in 1100AD (12th century) during the middle ages.
One thing many Catholics don’t understand is the doctrinal perversion the Renaissance had on the Catholic Church from 1100-1500. The Renaissance with its man-centered humanism played an important role in not only reshaping society but reshaping the culture of the Catholic Church. By the time Luther came around the Catholic Church, with all its prominent Renaissance scientists, inventors and artists, was steeped in a humanistic belief structure where man can choose his own destiny. Many of the Catholic Church writings by prominent “saints” of this time reflect these humanistic Renaissance beliefs. The Catholic website, newadvent.com, is unabashed at proclaiming this. Doctrine was shaped by the times, not by scripture.
The great Renaissance scholar Erasmus was pals with Luther but unlike Luther who sought for doctrinal and practice reform, Erasmus in true Renaissance style placed reason above scripture and wanted only moral reform within the Catholic Church. Erasmus defined free-will or free choice as "a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation or turn away from them." which was a significant departure from the Augustinian view but not inconsistent with the Renaissance belief of humanism nor the Catholic Church at this time. The Catholic Church needed Erasmus to fight Luther. Luther had no choice to leave if he wished to be consistent with Augustine and the founding beliefs of the western church. What Erasmus got was his beliefs recorded as official Catholic doctrine at the Council of Trent.