The 100 years war involved France, Burgundy, Iberia, and England

Never any parts of Protestantism

Those were the states involved in the war itself, but it affected the rest of Christendom as well.

How?

The War of the Roses impacted it more

Because the various kingdoms throughout Christendom were all united due to the way their governments were structured. The kings only ruled over each respective one, but the Church ruled over all of them by ruling over each king.

Besides, even if the Church was corrupt and Luther wanted to fix it, all he had to do was report it to the offending clergy's higher-ups in the hierarchy and thus get them expelled. The fact that he didn't do that showed that he clearly had something else in mind, as his own writings show.

I really hate defending Luther

But he “attempted” to reform the church

No he didn't.

Idk why you deny the church was corrupt at the time

Simony is not a good reputation to have

Because it wasn't. I've seen his own writings before.

Nepotism is a horrible thing in general

He never talked about the Church being corrupt.

He complained about how he thought that free will is a fairy tale.

He started a revolution.

That was his later works I thought

He never had any goal of reforming the Church because there was nothing to reform in the first place. He wanted to weaken the Church and form his own church, which is exactly what he did.

In his paper, De servo arbitrio (On the Bondage of the Will), Luther considered that "the dogma of free will" has no foundation in scripture and, therefore, has to be "completely abandoned and counted amongst fairy tales". In a letter to Erasmus of Rotterdam, Luther praises Erasmus for not afflicting him "with those strange things about the papacy, Purgatory, indulgences, and the like," but instead "detecting the CARDINAL POINT," and "attacking the MAIN THING itself." What is the "main thing" that Luther is talking about? It is Luther’s opinion "that free will is a pure lie."

He started it because he generally wanted to reform the church, he only attempted to create another church after the diet of Worms

Mainly because he pope excommunicated the bastard

Another reformations happened before him but are mostly not talked about at all anymore

Which had most justification than he could ever

There is no evidence for the claim that the Church was corrupt and Luther wanted to reform it. If you actually look at what Luther himself said, you see no mentions of that stuff, just complaints about how he disagreed with the Church's doctrines. It wasn't until centuries later that people started claiming that the Church was corrupt and Luther wanted to fix it.

@Deleted User I meant in the context that Saints come around in the church in the Medieval Era

No there have been saints all throughout Christian history

Yeah but they werent “officially” proclaimed until much later

And iirc early theologians didnt really speak of them much

@Deleted User what did he mean by indulgences then in his 95 theses?

An indulgence is the removal of temporal punishment for sins that have already forgiven. It is not, and never was, a "get out of hell" card.

It wasnt free tho

so if someone commits adultery and asks for forgiveness, despite already having committed that sin before many times, they would be clean if they paid money or actually repented...

No, that's not actually what happened.

Why did the Catholic church also remove Simony and those indulgences at the council of Trent?

That's not an indulgence. The fact that protestants literally have to make up strawman arguments instead of criticizing the Church for what it really said/did just goes to show that they don't really have an argument, just whining.
Like I said, an indulgence is the removal of temporal punishment for sins that have already forgiven. It is not, and never was, a "get out of hell" card.

What about Trent tho?

It doesn't matter, an indulgence is what it is, and I told you what it is. You can't redefine it just to make it look bad. If you're gonna criticize it, criticize it for what it actually is.
Never has the church taught that giving money to clergy will result in the forgiveness of sin, nor has it called that concept an "indulgence". You know what it calls that? Greed and deception.

So did they not address it at Trent?

No, they didn't. They may have talked about indulgences but they didn't talk about "get out of hell free" cards because that's not what an indulgence is, it's just a rumor made up by protestants long afterward.

>ned, asking why they got rid of indulgences in response to the allegations if said allegations were false
>'it doesn't matter you're wrong'