Yes, and I think the right word is "contribute". I agree with Blogger in his excellent 8,783 , which I commend to anyone who hasn't read it yet. There didn't appear to be any accountability of any kind. I'm not sure whether it is more correct to say that the people and lower clergy "forgot" their role, or whether it was simply snatched away from them by a corrupt hierarchy. In either case, under corruption, resentment is inevitable.
At the same time, I believe the Reformation was inevitable anyway, regardless of how "bad" it was at the time. We believe that the Reformation was instituted by God Himself. (If we believed it was man-made, then we would be dead before we started. :) He did not institute it because of any mistake that He made in guiding His Church, but rather as a correction to the mistakes of men over time. Of course, there is all sorts of Biblical precedence for the idea of "bringing back".
Naturally, this brings us to whether Reformed Protestantism (in terms of theology) was a brand new thing or was it a return to the original. There is no way I have the background to write a thesis on this, but it is clear that Calvin and Luther both found great favor with Augustine, especially as against the Pelagianism that both saw in the Church at that time. In addition, I think Kosta referred to us somewhere as practicing a "Pauline Christianity", in the sense that it was something new. I for one am absolutely fine with that label. :) Of course, I don't think it was anything new at all. Pauline Christianity is the same as Petrine Christianity, which is the same as Jamesian Christianity, etc. If the Church actually did see them as being different, then that tells me much about the first 1,500 years.
In the meantime, the reformers, having cut themselves off from The Church and its "oneness" and "apostolicity" and, frankly, its holiness, spun off into all sorts of directions, ...
I take it this relates to your hypothesis that while the Reformers may have had a good idea, they went too far and wound up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I suppose all I can say is that IF God really did institute the Reformation, then this would not be possible. Here, I think the "Pottery Barn" rule would apply. If God ginned it up, then I don't see how He could have left its original form in ruins from the beginning. On the core issues, we claim to follow what was from the beginning.
IF, however, God did not institute the Reformation, well then, ................. that would be bad. LOL!
That alone should put a damper on any historical aspirations, as St. Augistine is a late authority with regional appeal. fortunately for him, while he was an inspiration for the Reformers, he never actually believed anything the Reformers accuse him of believing and in fact he made sure later in life that his treatise on Predestination is not misunderstood in any proto-Calvinist way.
If you want to know what the early church universally believed, read "Against Heresies". Very easy read, two centuries earlier and universally recognized. Also hit Ignatius of Antioch, especially passages like
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Chapter 9. Honour the bishop.
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.
, and tell me if this reminds you of Protestantism.
I'm glad you reference Blogger's most excellent post. I missed it the first time around but it is right on the money.