The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right)

[Jaaye]

I’m traveling and not a good time for me … however, please see this link, which hopefully addresses some questions you may have … I’m not sure what you mean by “it’s implications”, but give this a read and see if that helps clear it up for you. God Bless. J

Indulgences, the Treasury of Merit and the Communion of Saints | Called to Communion

What is the basis for the "treasury of merit" and indulgences? These can be explained in the following ten steps. The Forerunners of Christ with Saints and Martyrs Fra Angelico (about 1423-24) (1) On Judgment Day, every man will be judged and recompensed for each of his thoughts, words, and...

www.calledtocommunion.com

 

[Jaaye]

The Instructions for Gaining the St. Peter’s Indulgence

Bishop Albrecht published a letter to all of the priests in each of his three Bishopics (Magdeburg, Halberstadt and Mainz) announcing a St. Peter’s indulgence would soon be preached in their parishes and outlining the conditions to be met for people to obtain the St. Peter’s Indulgence ---- which involved voluntary almsgiving to raise money to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica.

Luther, or his parish, would not have received Albrecht’s letter, as he was not in any of Albrecht’s three regions. Luther’s Bishop was Bishop Hieronymus Schulz. [Ref: Post# 368 & 369 “Luther Didn’t Know What Indulgences Were” --see Luther’s sermons on indulgences prior to the preaching of this St. Peter’s indulgence at Bishop Albrecht’s direction - The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) - #398 by Jaaye ]

As seen in previous posts, there is an abundance of indulgences always available to faithful and pious souls at any time of their choosing that do not involve any almsgiving. [Ref: Post # 379&380 – What is an Indulgence and How Does It Work? The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) - #409 by Jaaye]

The St. Peter’s indulgence, however, was different as it involved almsgiving to raise funds to build St. Peter’s Basilica.

Albrecht’s letter is attached and outlines the conditions to be fulfilled. The first three paragraphs are instructions for priests to prepare the faithful to participate in this pious act. The fourth paragraph begins outlining the conditions to be met, as well as the suggested donation amount, which would vary depending on each person’s state of life – noting that ,

> “…. let no one go away without some portion of grace, because the happiness of Christian believers is here concerned not less than the interests of the building. And those that have no money, they shall supply their contribution with prayer and fasting; for the Kingdom of Heaven should be open to the poor not less than to the rich

References: Bishop Albrecht’s Letter of Instruction for The St. Peter’s Indulgence
http://college.cengage.com/history/primary_sources/west/instructions_for_selling.htm
.....Continued

 

[Jaaye]

Continued from Above…

Remember, indulgences remit temporal punishment for confessed and forgiven sins when the four indulgence conditions are met, as well any other conditions that may be also specified. The four conditions for (any) indulgence are:
[1] No Attachment to Sin
[2] Go to Confession
[3] Receive Communion, and
[4] Pray for the Intentions of the Holy Father.
(Ref: Post # 379 and 380 – What is an Indulgence and How Does it Work?)

Albrecht’s letter outlines the four conditions of The St Peter’s Indulgence:
[1] contrition
[2] confession
[3] a pilgrimage to a local church – emulating the 7-church pilgrimage frequently performed in Rome, and
[4] almsgiving — all of which is what a person who wanted to apply the St. Peter’s Indulgence to their own soul would do.

For those who wanted to apply the St. Peter’s indulgence to a suffering soul in Purgatory, Bishop Albrecht’s letter states that the need for contrition and confession on the part of the person seeking the indulgence was waived ---- as obviously the condition of the soul of the deceased person to receive the indulgence would be the one placed before God (not the petitioners own soul) ---- but of course the petitioner would still need to perform the pious pilgrimage to a local church – and satisfy the last condition to be met.

References: Enchiridion of Indulgences:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiZxL31yZnZAhUCa60KHd-CCTIQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.basilica.ca%2Fdocuments%2F2016%2F10%2FSacred%20Apostolic%20Penitentiary-The%20Enchiridion%20of%20Indulgences.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0GJAXOx_KHVZNDVL13Mwmr

Coming Next - Where did Johann Teztler Go Wrong?

 

[Jaaye]

Where did Johann Tetzel Go Wrong?

The St. Peter’s Indulgence was a big deal! Bishop Albrecht’s letter was notice to priests in his territories and under his authority to prepare their district and their congregations for the arrival of the indulgence preacher and his contingent … which consisted of several people, including a guard for the 3-key lockbox and also a representative from the Fuggers (who held one of the keys to the lockbox and kept audit records). The lockbox had a multi-keyed lock, could only be opened in the presence of notaries and was routinely audited.

Few people (today) realize how much of an economic impact was generated in the (whole) region when the St. Peter’s indulgence was preached. People living outside of the preaching area would make plans to travel to a host city in order to participate in the St. Peter’s indulgence.

In our times it would be somewhat similar to when the Superbowl or the Olympics is scheduled to be held and the host city usually gains an economic boost to the region … ie. the Superbowl in Houston is reported to have generated a $347 million dollar benefit.

Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar and experienced indulgence preacher, began traveling within the Bishop’s territories – and usually the arrival of the contingent would be scheduled to coincide with a market day, when the towns were filled … and a “festival” atmosphere was generated. There likely would have been a procession into the city to the central Market Square surrounded by the Cathedral, Town Hall and Mayor’s Office. The mayor and his council would have perhaps sent out a military escort to accompany them into the City where they would have been greeted , speeches of welcome would have been made and more than likely holy mass would have been held in the cathedral with Johann Tetzel as the guest homilist. [Ref: See Germanhistorydocs for copy of indulgence sermon in 1517]

Per previous posts on how indulgences “work” [Post # 379-380; The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) - #409 by Jaaye – and Post # 381] we learned that indulgences can be obtained for yourself, or on behalf of a suffering soul in Purgatory (you cannot obtain an indulgence for another person still living). Specific conditions must be met in order to obtain the indulgence. [See See Post # 384-385] Bishop Albrecht’s Letter of Conditions to Be Met for Indulgences - The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) - #414 by Jaaye
Per the instructions of Bishop Albrecht, The St. Peter’s Indulgence had 4 conditions to be met: [1] contrition [2] confession [3] a pilgrimage to a local church emulating the 7-church pilgrimage frequently performed in Rome and [4] almsgiving — and this is what a person would do if they wanted to apply the St. Peter’s indulgence to themselves.

…… Continued

 

[Jaaye]

Continued from Above….

If a person wanted to obtain an indulgence and apply it to a suffering soul in Purgatory … [1] contrition and [2] confession were waived — as obviously the condition of the soul of the dead person for whom they were praying would be the one placed before God – not their own soul . The petitioner, however, would STILL need to piously perform the remaining conditions …. [3] pilgrimage to a local church, offering prayers on behalf of the grieved soul, and [4] almsgiving.

And this brings us to where Tetzel went so very wrong (on several levels). He made up what we would call today a “marketing jingle” … that when translated goes something like…”as soon as the coin in the coffer rings; a soul from Purgatory springs!” — doing so was so wrong … and misleading …and false… and certainly not sanctioned by the Church.

His teaching on indulgences for the living is correct, his “marketing” of indulgences for souls in Purgatory was promptly and vehemently condemned :

“Preachers act in the name of the Church”, writes Cardinal Cajetan, “so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray” (Paulus, “Johann Tetzel”, 165). It was this deviation from the correct teaching of the Church and the obtrusive and disgraceful injection of the treasury chest, that led to abuses and scandals reprobated by such contemporaries as Cochlæus, Emser, and Duke George (Paulus, op. cit., 117-18). “Grave abuses arose; the attitude of the preachers, the manner of offering and publishing the indulgences aroused many scandals; above all, Tetzel is in no way to be exonerated” (Janssen-Pastor, “Geschichte des deutsch. Volkes”, 18th ed., Freiburg, II, 84). [ Ref: Bio – New Advent]

When Tetzel used his marketing jingle to promote indulgences for souls in Purgatory … “as soon as the coin in the coffer rings; a soul from Purgatory springs” – people believed he was saying that almsgiving was ALL they had to do (completely forgetting about or ignoring the prayerful pilgrimage to a local church) . So, they naturally thought that by their almsgiving – they were “buying” the forgiveness for their loved one in Purgatory. The short story: Tetzler’s jingle turned a pious, penitential act into a monetary transaction, bearing a resemblance to one of our modern day vending machines …. Put the coin in … out rolls your indulgence. (Not!)

                              … Continued

References: Bishop Albrecht’s Letter of Instruction for The St. Peter’s Indulgence
http://college.cengage.com/history/primary_sources/west/instructions_for_selling.htm

Johann Tetzel Sermon on Indulgences 1517
http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=4207

 

[Jaaye]

Continued from Above….

What immediately became totally lost in the shuffle is that seeking an indulgence is a pious and penitential act of humility and faith rooted in Christ’s promise of mercy and forgiveness. The ill-advised “marketing” approach dreamed up by Tetzel reduced it to a monetary transaction … which is wrong, wrong, wrong. The Catholic Church did not sell indulgences, does not sell indulgences and one cannot “buy” an indulgence. Period.

Since the St. Peter’s indulgence was previously preached in this area within the last 20 years, it was reasonable to assume that many pious people had likely already obtained indulgences for themselves . It was equally likely that since that time several family members and extended family members had passed away and may well be in need of spiritual assistance.

So “aggressive” preaching of the St. Peter’s indulgence for the souls in Purgatory would likely result in a higher volume of purgatorial indulgences being requested for multiple loved ones, vs. the volume of requests for indulgences of individual living petitioners. The combination of these two factors … the approach of focusing on purgatorial indulgences and the “marketing jingle” was absolutely disastrous.

While Tetzel seriously screwed up by adopting the approach he did …. “History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald caricature, than Tetzel” [Ref: Bio- New Advent]

He was not an adulterer, he did not embezzle money from the alms box, he did not get a percentage of the receipts and he did not claim that an indulgence would free you from sin “even if you were to violate Mary, the Mother of God” , as claimed in Luther’s letter to Bishop Albrecht, as well as in his subsequent publications. [Ref: Bio – New Advent for citations of refutation for each of these erroneous myths]

Tetzel and Luther had several published sparring matches / debates on theology, but his health failed him rapidly. Within two years Tetzel would be dead; he was buried honorably and was interred before the high altar of the Dominican church at Leipzig.

References: Bishop Albrecht’s Letter of Instruction for The St. Peter’s Indulgence
http://college.cengage.com/history/primary_sources/west/instructions_for_selling.htm

Johann Tetzel Sermon on Indulgences 1517
http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=4207

Johann Tetzel Bio
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm

Coming Next: Did Luther Really Post His 95 Thesis on the Church Door Inviting Debate?

 

[Jaaye]

Did Luther REALLY Post His 95 Thesis on the Church Door?

Probably not. The one thing people think they “know” about Luther … that he posted his 95 Thesis on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg ….is not true, but has become an established part of the myth and legend surrounding Luther.

Below is a summary of reasons “why” it is unlikely the posting on the church door is true, (per the multiple referenced links at the bottom of the page)

1. Luther himself never comments on “nailing anything up” in 1517, never said it, and never claimed it happened.
2. This incident was never even mentioned until after Luther’s death.
3. The person who first introduced this idea was Luther’s close friend, Philip Melanchon
4. Philip Melanchon was not in Wittenberg in 1517, he didn’t arrive until a year later so he could not have been an eye-witness to this (alleged) event
5. Despite the claims the action was an “invitation to debate”, consistent with the practice of the university town at that time, no discussion nor debate took place in Wittenberg anywhere near this time on the 95 Theses.
6. Despite this idea being introduced independently by Melanchon, there was very little mention of this event at all until the first Reformation anniversary in 1617 …. 100 years later.

“ Today, the majority of Luther researchers see it as fact, that Luther did not nail his thesis to the door of the Castle Church…” [Ref: Luther.de/en/legends – see links below]

The Pieces Don’t Fit

As part of Melanchon’s formulated explanation as to the reason for the dramatic “posting” of the thesis on the doors of the Castle Church by Luther, several reasons have been given … but the pieces don’t seem to fit. The primary one seems to have been framed as a David-Against-Goliath-type protest against the catholic church for preaching indulgences … but Luther himself said this was not so…. And the 95 Thesis involve much more than indulgences.

“That this preaching of the indulgences was not the primary and immediate cause that precipitated the promulgation of Luther’s ninety-five theses may be inferred not only from his subsequent course but also from the fact that the “Annales” of Jüterbog (Hechtius, “Vita Joannis Tezelii”, Wittenberg, 1717, 53 sq.) prove that Tetzel preached there as early as 10 April; that Luther in his letter to Archbishop Albrecht (October 31, 1517) admits that he entertained the thought for a long time to preach against indulgence abuses (Enders, “Dr. Martin Luther’s Brief wechsel”, I, Frankfort, 1884, 115); that Tetzel for several weeks had already been in the district of Brandenburg (Paulus, “Johann Tetzel”, Mainz, 1899, 47). {Ref: New Advent Link]”

References re: alleged nailing of 95 thesis to the church door
http://www.luther.de/en/legenden/tanschl.html
http://time.com/4997128/martin-luther-95-theses-controversy/
Martin Luther Might Not Have Nailed His 95 Theses to the Church Door - HISTORY
Did Martin Luther really nail his 95 Theses to the church door? - Christianity Stack Exchange

…… Continued

 

[Jaaye]

……Continued From Above

As previously reported in an earlier post, [See Post # 368 – for Luther’s sermon on indulgences - The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) - #399 by Jaaye ] Luther’s preaching about indulgences in Wittenberg was met with disapproval from his prince, the Elector Frederick, as the prince’s collection of relics generated a revenue stream from pilgrims he charged twice a year when they came to view his collection of relics (an indulgenced act).

“When many people from Wittenberg ran after indulgences to Juterborg and Zerbst, I did not know – as surely as my Lord Christ has redeemed me — what indulgences were, but no one else knew either. I carefully began to preach that one could do something better and more certain than to purchase indulgences. On an earlier occasion I had already preached here in the castle against indulgences, but was not very graciously received by Duke Frederick, who was fond of his collegiate church.” Martin Luther, Wider Hans Worst, 1541

So… apparently Luther was fairly tolerant of indulgenced acts enriching his Prince, the Elector Frederick … but is somehow uncommonly incensed by Johann Tetzel? This offers a different perspective and seems to cast Tetzel in the role of (unwanted) competition for a limited amount of indulgence dollars within Elector Frederick’s territories. It also seems to confirm that at least the populace that Luther was pastoring did not appear to be confused about the necessary criteria for obtaining an indulgence: [see below … emphasis added]

“ ….There were so many relics that it is said venerating them together was equivalent to doing penance for 1,902,202 years and 270 days. Frederick had invested a great deal of money in accumulating the relics, with the intention of providing a source of income for the university he had founded in Wittenberg. Wittenberg did very well from the twice yearly pilgrims who came to see the relics, and the locals understood the religious imperative to repent, confess and receive absolution prior to viewing them.” “……Not only were Tetzel and his associates corrupting the locals, but pilgrims from elsewhere no longer needed to come to Wittenberg to see the relics. Why bother going to see the relics if one could buy full remission from Tetzel or his associates? [Ref: Christianity.stackechagne.com Link]

Another explanation given was that the 95 Thesis were not meant to be inflammatory, they were merely an invitation to debate. However, the phrasing used in the 95 Thesis was certainly provocative and several points are explicitly contrary to established church doctrine — and, church doctrine is not up for debate, — so it’s hard to understand this explanation has any validity. Further, as previously stated no debates were initiated or took place in Wittenberg about the 95 Thesis. Why not… if that was the purpose of the whole thing to begin with?
…… Continued

Reference: Did Martin Luther really nail his 95 Theses to the church door? - Christianity Stack Exchange

 

[Jaaye]

What Really Happened?
If the “posting-on-the-castle-door-story” is a cover story made up and launched after Luther’s death … WHAT actually happened in Wittenberg in 1517? If the thesis was not posted … how did it get published? Luther wrote it in Latin and sent a copy to two Bishops … his own Bishop and Bishop Albrecht … yet the published copies were in German. Did Luther also create a German copy? Did Luther circulate Latin copies amongst his friends, and one of those copies got translated and published? Luther was a bit of a control-freak, it’s hard to imagine he’d “allow” anyone besides himself to do the translation. What if the “leak to the press” wasn’t by a friend … but an enemy? Per our previous post [ # 367 The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) - #396 by Jaaye] Luther was (unjustly?) promoted in 1511, a promotion he himself questioned …

“One day in 1511 Staupitz told Luther that he was arranging for Luther to take a Doctorate in theology. Martin was incredulous. What, at the mere age of twenty-eight years?! That was something for a man of forty years or more. At the Erfurt friary, the recipients of the doctorate were nearer fifty. And how could he possibly add the work entailed to all his other tasks, now that he was sub-prior?” [Ref: Augnet – Staupitz]

Perhaps another monk who thought he was more deserving than Luther … and recognizing the inflammatory (and heretical) nature of Luther’s words arranged to have the 95 Thesis published thinking …… “Ha! Ha! … this will fix his little red wagon…”

WHY don’t we know what happened? … because for 500 years the myth and the legend surrounding Luther has suppressed the search for the concealed truth.

While Luther did not post his thesis on the church door, one thing he did do was mail a copy of the 95 Thesis inside a letter to Bishop Albrecht protesting the manner indulgences were being “sold” by Johann Tetzel. He apparently also sent a copy of this letter and the 95 Thesis to his own Bishop Hieronymius Schulz … which would be considered a breach of protocol at that time. He properly should have sent his complaint/protest to his OWN Bishop to whom he had made a vow of obedience and allowed his Bishop to either handle it, or advise him on how to handle it. That apparently didn’t happen.

Coming Up Next: Did Luther Threaten Bishop Albrecht? …and… Did Luther Himself “leak the 95 Thesis to the Press”?

 

[Jaaye]

Did Luther Threaten Bishop Albrecht?

Instead of consulting his own bishop to whom he owes a vow of obedience, Luther elects to send a letter to Bishop Albrecht directly and send a second copy to his own Bishop. In his letter to Albrecht, Luther objects to the way indulgences are being “sold” by Johann Tetzel and strongly suggests that Albrecht should stop offering the St. Peter’s indulgence within Albrecht’s ecclesiastical territories. Remember, Luther is ignorant of the indulgence loan and believes at this time that the Pope has initiated the St. Peter’s indulgence for the purpose of raising funds to build a new St. Peter’s basilica in Rome … and appears to pre-suppose that Albrecht just kind of went along with the prompting of the Pope.

Imagine Albrecht’s reaction upon receiving this letter from Luther … someone he likely has never heard of … who is not even located within any of his three bishopics (Magdebourg, Halberstadt and Mainz) … but boldly announces Albrecht should shut down offering the St. Peter’s indulgence. Trying to equate it to modern times, because of the political affiliation of the various 200 princes in the Holy Roman Empire at this time … this would not be like a priest in Houston, Texas sending a letter to a Bishop in Dallas, Texas about practices in Dallas —which would be unusual. Actually, it would be closer to a priest in Houston, Texas sending a letter to a Bishop in New Orleans, Louisiana about practices in and around New Orleans that a visiting Houstonian witnessed and verbally reported back to his Houston priest ---- which would be pretty irregular.

Also unknown to Luther is that the offering of this same St. Peter’s indulgence is slated to have a multi-year term in order to pay off the sizable loan Albrecht owes to the Fugger’s banking house (that also carries a rather high “loan-shark-level” compounding interest rate). Yes, Albrecht owes the Fuggers repayment on a sizable loan and his portion of the indulgence revenues were the means to repay that debt…. But Luther’s letter is saying “let’s just stop all of this right now”. Ref: previous post # 372 explaining the indulgence loan- The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) - #402 by Jaaye

The link below is to a copy of the Luther’s letter to Albrecht dated October 31, 1517: [Ref: Sourcebooks. Fordham]

The opening paragraph has the type of servile and deferential language customary to that time period … and then he arrives at the reason for his letter “Papal indulgences for the building of St. Peter’s are circulating under your most distinguished name…” and admits he himself has not heard the preachers directly but states the preaching of the indulgence preachers is misleading the people, and gives several examples.
……Continued

References
Internet History Sourcebooks Project (Luther’s Letter to Albrecht)

 

[Jaaye]

Continued from Above….

He reminds Albrecht that Albrecht bears the responsibility for any souls set upon a wayward path during his watch, as the indulgences are being preached under his name and within his territory. Luther’s explanation of what he thinks is “wrong” relays the confusion (and his own confusion) being generated between an indulgence sought for an individual vs. an indulgence being sought as an act of piety on behalf of a deceased soul. Ref: previous post # 385 and 386 – Albrecht’s Instructions for the Indulgence and Where did Tetzel go Wrong? The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) - #415 by Jaaye

Luther then suggests that perhaps all this is going on without Albrecht’s knowledge … and that Albrecht should stop offering the St. Peter’s indulgence … “ … that you would deign to look [on this matter] with the eye of fatherly care, and do away entirely with that treatise and impose upon the preachers of pardons another form of preaching;”

And the above sentence continues on below but it now seems to have a (more) threatening tone to it ….

“….do away entirely with that treatise and impose upon the preachers of pardons another form of preaching; lest, perchance, one may some time arise, who will publish writings in which he will confute both them and that treatise, to the shame of your Most Illustrious Sublimity. I shrink very much from thinking that this will be done, and yet I fear that it will come to pass, unless there is some speedy remedy.”

Almost as an incidental postscript … you rather expect to see a “PS” at the bottom of the letter … Luther encloses a copy of his 95 Theses with this notation: “If it please the Most Reverend Father he may see these my Disputations, and learn how doubtful a thing is the opinion of indulgences which those men spread as though it were most certain.”

Whoa… considering the accepted “myth” promoted by Philip Melanchon is that Luther posted his 95 Theses on the castle church door on Oct. 31 —which is the SAME DAY he is sending the letter to Albrecht … and several of the 95 Theses DO indeed dispute the preaching of indulgences …. and the fact that it all went VIRAL (or the closest thing to it in 16th century terms) almost overnight … this all now seems rather intentional, or purposeful on Luther’s part, doesn’t it? I mean, he certainly doesn’t seem to give Albrecht any time at all to actually receive the letter, review it, acknowledge it, engage in dialogue … or formulate any type of response … before exactly what he threatens him with …happens!
……Continued

References
Internet History Sourcebooks Project (Luther’s Letter to Albrecht)

 

[Jaaye]

Continued from Above….

Is it a coincidence that Luther appears to threaten Albrecht with public shame by PUBLISHING WRITINGS if he doesn’t “speedily” stop the indulgences and then “somehow” the 95 Theses that DO include several disputations against indulgences gets spread throughout not only the Holy Roman Empire, but most of Europe? … But golly, gee, Luther knew nothing about it, the whole purpose of his 95 Theses was merely inviting local students in Wittenberg to debate? If so …. why did he include it in a letter to Albrecht?

If we accept the point Luther makes in the letter about his own pastoral concern for the local citizenry being misled about indulgence practices …… why didn’t Luther approach his Prince, The Elector Frederick in his very own town of Wittenberg to stop displaying his vast collection of relics and collecting money for that? Frederick reportedly owned between 17,000 -19,000 sacred relics that he charged persons to view twice a year and one of those two feast days was the DAY AFTER Luther’s letter – -All Saint’s Day (Nov 1). Wittenberg University was built and staffed with funding resulting from Frederick’s exposition of his relics twice a year, so this was not an insignificant amount of revenue being locally generated by the relics/indulgences. Nor was this a secret — Luther was well aware of this. [https://www.reformation2017.ca/saint/frederick-the-wise/]

So what does Luther do? He writes a letter with his objections to a Bishop several towns away about indulgence preaching going on in that Bishop’s outlying territories. Yet, he is silent about indulgence fees being collected for relic veneration (an indulgenced act) in his own town by his own Prince? Prince Frederick is on track to rake in vast sums of money by charging Luther’s own parishioners and visiting pilgrims to venerate Frederick’s relic collection in order to receive a feast day indulgence on Nov. 1 – the day after Luther posts his letter — and apparently Luther is OK with that? That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

Albrecht did not appear to respond to Luther’s letter. I have one account that Luther’s letter took awhile to reach Albrecht as it was his custom to travel frequently between residences within his three bishopics, and the letter was behind him and repeatedly forwarded in several attempts to “catch up to him”. I’m trying to find other sources that can confirm or deny that. In any event, most historians agree that when Albrecht received the letter he forwarded it to canon lawyers in Mainz to review the 95 Theses Luther attached, and also forwarded a copy to the Pope. Most historians generally agree that by the time the Pope received his copy, the 95 Theses was widely distributed throughout most of Europe.

Coming Next … Did Luther Himself “leak the 95 Theses to the Press”? and Let’s Take a Look at the 95 Theses

References
Internet History Sourcebooks Project (Luther’s Letter

 

[Faye]

I don’t believe Martin Luther said some of these things.

 

[Jaaye]

I don’t believe Martin Luther said some of these things.

Hi Faye, I’m not sure “which” these things you are referring to? The Letter to Bishop Albrecht? While I’ve encountered some word “smoothing” before in some of the translated articles, the letter seems to be fairly consistent in its translation. Below are some other sources/commentary sites with additional comments:

http://rbsche.people.wm.edu/luther.letter.html

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/nine5-albrecht.txt

LETTER TO THE ARCHBISHOP ALBRECHT OF MAINZ OCTOBER 31, 1517

While most of us would have heard or know something about Luther’s 95 Theses, not many would be aware that he actually addressed a cop...

refo500.blogspot.com

If you’re googling yourself, try “Luther’s Letter to Bishop Albrecht” or if its anglicized he’s also called Albert. I hope this helps. God Bless.

 

[Jaaye]

Did Luther Himself “leak the 95 Thesis to the Press”?

Possibly …. but, most historians hold the opinion it was also most probably inadvertently, although there are a growing number of scholars who disagree. The initial distribution seems to have occurred in Latin – the language of academic debate, and principal matters of the Church … but then a German translation also appears in circulation rather quickly. So a natural question is when/ where/ why/ how/ did the German language copies come about if this was simply intended to be a list of topics for debate within the local Latin-speaking academic and clerical communities?

While no original Wittenberg copies seem to exist, there were multiple copies in existence … we know one was sent to Albrecht, one to Heironymus Schulz (Luther’s Bishop) and Luther himself talks about submitting them to several friends, so its unlikely he hand-copied each copy in Latin. The most likely method for Luther to have several copies for the private distribution he’s describing below would have been to give them to the University printer to be replicated. Like most Wittenberg professors, he frequently had lecture notes, margins and glosses printed by the printer at the University for the students in his classes.

In excerpts from a letter to a friend, he is describing unfolding events:

“I received two letters from you …. and my Latin and German propositions. You wonder why I did not tell you of them. But I did not wish to have them widely circulated. I only intended submitting them to a few learned men for examination, and if they disapproved of them, to suppress them; ….” “… But now they are being spread abroad and translated everywhere, which I never could have credited, so that I regret having given birth to them.” “… As yet I am still uncertain as to some points and would have gone into others more particularly, leaving some out entirely, had I foreseen all this”. [See Letters of Martin Luther below - to Scheurl on pg 22]

….Continued

References:
Letters of Martin Luther; To Christoph Scheurl – March 5, 1518 – pg 22;

The Letters of Martin Luther

books.google.com

 

[Jaaye]

…Continued from Above

Luther’s letter is written in retrospect, dated the following Spring, so his comments are being said in hindsight — but his comments clearly indicate his knowledge that the text is being both widely distributed and translated into multiple languages. The excerpt below attempts to give us an idea of how quickly the 95 Theses were spread:

“Although they were written in Latin, the “95 Theses” caused an immediate stir, first within academic circles in Wittenberg and then farther afield. In December 1517 printed editions of the theses, in the form of pamphlets and broadsheets, appeared simultaneously in Leipzig, Nuremberg and Basel, paid for by Luther’s friends to whom he had sent copies. German translations, which could be read by a wider public than Latin-speaking academics and clergy, soon followed and quickly spread throughout the German-speaking lands. Luther’s friend Friedrich Myconius later wrote that “hardly 14 days had passed when these propositions were known throughout Germany and within four weeks almost all of Christendom was familiar with them.” [See References: Economist]

In a letter (the following year) to his Prince Elector Frederick he is apologizing to him since apparently Frederick is being (partially) blamed for the wide distribution of the 95 Theses and the various problems it is formenting. [See Letters of Martin Luther below - to Prince Elector Frederick on pg 37]:

“ … One thing vexes me greatly … that I have acted as I have in reliance upon your Electoral Highness; and some liars among ourselves falsely assert that I undertook the disputation on the Indulgences by your Grace’s advice, when the fact is, that not even my dearest friends were aware of it, except the Cardinal of Mayence and the Bishop of Brandenburg.

For I admonished these two, whose office it was to prohibit the scandal, most humbly and respectfully in writing, before I let the disputation come to the light of day.”

So in the above quote … the Cardinal of Mayence is Bishop/Cardinal Albrecht of Mainz and the Bishop of Brandenburg is Luther’s own superior and Bishop, Hieronymus Schulz, but the next sentence is a bit disturbing ….

References:
How Luther went viral | The Economist and also

Letter of Martin Luther; To The Elector Frederick – Nov 29 1518 – pg 37;

The Letters of Martin Luther

books.google.com

…..Continued

 

[Jaaye]

….Continued from Above

“For I admonished these two, whose office it was to prohibit the scandal, most humbly and respectfully in writing, before I let the disputation come to the light of day.”

Luther’s letter to Bishop Albrecht, that he copied to his own Bishop, is dated at the bottom: “From Wittenberg on the Vigil of All Saints, MDXVII”. All Saint’s Day is Nov. 1 and the vigil is the day before, or October 31st. Upon reading the letter (see reference below) it is clear this is the “first” letter he’s sent to Albrecht, there is no indication of any prior communication on this topic, or any other … he is clearly introducing himself and his concerns to Bishop Albrecht in the text.

The “legend” of Luther vigorously promoted by Melanchthon was that Luther purposefully strode up to the Castle Church on Oct. 31, 1517 and posted his 95 Theses to the public as an act of inviting debate … and “somehow” in doing so, it got widely distributed. October 31st is (still) celebrated 500 years later as “Reformation Day”, the start of Luther’s Reformation.

But Albrecht’s letter is dated the same day. So how can he claim to his Prince Elector that he admonished the two Bishops in writing “before I let the disputation come to the light of day?” And why is he (mis)representing to his Prince in a letter the following year that he appropriately addressed his concerns to his superiors prior to “letting” his 95 Theses see the light of day?

If his admonishment is sent in the post the same day he’s putting the information out into the public domain (according to Melanchthon) — these pieces don’t fit. Not only do they not fit, but they lead one to suspect that the “Luther-legend” is over-riding the actual historical events. It appears there is a lot more going on than is widely reported and apparently Luther was more (purposefully) involved in the widespread distribution of the 95 Theses before ANYONE (Albrecht or Schulz) even had a chance to receive them … much less the opportunity to review, comment, or engage him in dialogue….it seems to be a bit of a sucker-punch, doesn’t it? .

BUT, for whatever reason, it also appears important to Luther (in this letter) to (mis)represent to the Prince Elector that he had communicated effectively with the Bishops in advance of “letting” the disputation come to the light of day.

References:
Letters of Martin Luther; To Christoph Scheurl – March 5, 1518 – pg 22;
Letter of Martin Luther; To The Elector Frederick – Nov 29 1518 – pg 37;

The Letters of Martin Luther

books.google.com

How Luther went viral | The Economist, and also

Internet History Sourcebooks Project (Luther’s Letter to Albrecht)

Coming Next … Taking a Look at Luther’s 95 Theses

 

[Dhc8_Type]

If you read the book Brand Luther

Brand Luther: How an Unheralded Monk Turned His Small T…

A revolutionary look at Martin Luther, the Reformation,…

www.goodreads.com

You learn how Luther and his followers used the printing press to push out copies and distribute his works not only in Latin but in German and encouraged the populace to begin learning to read for themselves. Not trusting someone else to do t for them.

 

[steido01]

Trying to equate it to modern times, because of the political affiliation of the various 200 princes in the Holy Roman Empire at this time … Actually, it would be closer to a priest in Houston, Texas sending a letter to a Bishop in New Orleans, Louisiana about practices in and around New Orleans that a visiting Houstonian witnessed and verbally reported back to his Houston priest ---- which would be pretty irregular.

Except for the fact that Tetzel was operating under the express direction of Bishop Albrecht. Luther was simply contacting Tetzel’s superior. This would seem a rather logical thing to do, especially for a Catholic-trained Doctor of Theology like Dr. Luther.

There is also the ‘human’ aspect to bear in mind. Luther was what’s called an ‘occasional theologian’ - that is, he wrote to specific occasions. This is because he was, above all things, a pastor – a Catholic priest, who had the interest of his parishioners at heart. After Tetzel* and other indulgence preachers preached near Wittenberg (we have written records stating he preached at least within 12 miles of Wittenberg, if not there too – this was absent from your version of events), Luther witnessed his parishioners in some cases selling their lifesavings to purchase indulgences for dead relatives (something Tetzel would be later censured for by Cardinal Cajetan). So he did what any good shepherd would do, and took action. That was the primary purpose of posting his Theses for public consumption; sparking academic debate was only a secondary consideration and the means by which he could use his office/station as a Doctor of Theology to help his flock.

In light of this considerably less-biased look at a pastor being a pastor, it’s plain to see why a then-still-Catholic-Luther would’ve been fine with the sale of his own Elector’s indulgences (which would’ve stayed local and actually helped the poor), and opposed to a rival Elector (Bishop Albrecht) essentially pilfering the poor in a neighboring state. Frederick the Wise was known for his philanthropic work and was much-loved by the peasantry for it. He even adopted a form of the “Community Chest” at Luther’s suggestion - essentially a rudimentary Social Security system. This should be compared to the Archbishop, who used his money to purchase multiple bishoprics while sending half his earnings to Rome. What pastor wouldn’t do the same as Luther, if given the opportunity?

*It should be noted that Tetzel’s teachings on indulgences for the living were in line with Roman teaching; he was wrong about the dead. Most scholars today -both Roman Catholic and Lutheran- agree that he got the short end of the stick on this issue. Luther himself even wrote to the man as he was dying, offering words of comfort, acknowledging that he didn’t deserve the folk reputation that had been hoisted on him.

 

[Jaaye]

If you read the book Brand Luther

goodreads.com

Brand Luther​

A revolutionary look at Martin Luther, the Reformation, and the birth of publishing, on the eve of the Reformation’s 500th anniversary W…

You learn how Luther and his followers used the printing press to push out copies and distribute his works not only in Latin but in German and encouraged the populace to begin learning to read for themselves. Not trusting someone else to do t for them.

No, I have not read it. There was such a deluge of Luther books leading up to the 500th anniversary date, it is hard to keep up. Luther was a “rock star” in the publishing world and turned what had been done before him upside down. Writing directly to the public, writing in vernacular German, publishing “pamphlets” instead of whole books and incorporating visuals (Lucas Crannach’s illustrations) were all “innovations” he benefited from (and others copied). I would like to link back to this reference as a source when we get to that part of the timeline … we’re almost there. Thank you.