The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right)

[Jaaye]

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 are some facts you are presenting that do not appear to match the historical record.

I have multiple sources that consistently state the preaching of indulgences was not permitted in Prince Frederick the Elector’s Saxony (the location of Wittenberg). It is not believed the St. Peter’s indulgence of 1517 was ever preached there by Tetzel. The “why” of this no-preaching-indulgences-rule is still debatable and has already been covered and referenced with citations in previous posts [See Below]

Some think it was political maneuvering between two dynastic houses: that Frederick a Wettin would not support anything Albrecht a Hohenzollern was doing – and certainly didn’t want any money flowing out of his territories (in any shape or form) into Albrecht’s pockets. Others have offered the opinion that for Frederick to allow the St.Peter’s Indulgence to be sold in his territories would conflict with the (same pool of) money Frederick was gaining by charging local Wittenberg residents and pilgrims to view his large collection of relics he displayed on feast days — which was not insignificant … it built and maintained Wittenberg University, where Luther was a professor.

Previous Posts
Jan 16th - #372 - Offering The St. Peter’s Indulgence Was Not The Pope’s Idea
Jan 30th -# 374 Examining the Indulgence Loan
February 9th # 378 - Is the Pope Selling the Archbishop Seat?

Luther himself said that he found out about “all this” because people from Wittenberg went to Juterborg and Zerbst (See Below). I can find no record of Luther reporting Tetzel preached in Wittenberg. If Tetzel had, it is likely Luther would have heard him preach – and he said in his letter to Bishop Albrecht, that he did not hear Tetzel preach; so based on Luther’s own testimony I believe his source of information is what he tells us it was —the returning pilgrims from Juterborg.
…Continued

 

[Jaaye]

… Continued from Above

Excerpt From Previous Post # 368 – Luther Didn’t Know What Indulgences Were?

“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

My modern day analogy of Houston/New Orleans was derived from the fact that I found a source that placed Juterborg 23 miles from Wittenberg and further stated that it would be about an 8 hour journey for a pilgrim at that time (which is not insignificant). Wanting to give modern readers a sense of the time/effort/sacrifice involved in a 16th Century Wittenberger to make this pilgrimage, I used the Houston/New Orleans analogy — also wanting to point out that this occurrence was happening in a whole separate “state”. … Luther was not part of Albrecht’s territory (hence the Texas/Louisiana analogy).

“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).

1. No. This is not correct. Luther himself said he did not witness this.
2. Lifesavings? No. This is not correct; those who did not have funds were offered the benefits of the St. Peter’s indulgence at no cost, as it was stated their pious prayers would suffice. (Read the Letter provided in previous Post from Bishop Albrecht outlining the conditions for the St. Peter’s indulgence offered in all his territories.)
3. Tetzel was NOT incorrect in making indulgences available to pious persons to pray for the souls of the dead and he was NOT censured by Cardinal Cajetan for doing this. Praying for the dead is a pious and efficacious act. He was rightly censured for “HOW” he presented the indulgence for dead souls — by making up that horrible marketing jingle. [This was also covered in several previous posts, on the nature of indulgences and also how Tetzel spectacularly screwed up; with historical references cited for each]
   …Continued

 

[Jaaye]

…Continued from Above
As (also) referenced and cited in previous posts, the proper protocol for Luther’s level of concern would have been for him to contact his own bishop (Hieronymus Schulz) to whom he owes a vow of obedience, to either seek his advisement on how to proceed, or request his own bishop to address these concerns with Bishop Albrecht directly. This didn’t happen.

Luther also had the option to keep his own parishioners from being “ripped off” if that is what he perceived indulgences were, by approaching Prince Frederick … either in person or by letter …. to stop displaying his relic collection and charging Luther’s parishioners money for it.

You offer this explanation:

> “… 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)….”

It appears you are saying you presume that Luther would be OK with his parishioners being “ripped off”, as long as the money stayed local? That seems to paint Luther in a more unfavorable light than I perceive.

I do think Luther was confused about the nature of indulgences (this is referenced and cited in prior posts using both direct quotes from Luther and excerpts from his sermons) and that he had the (erroneous) perception people were being “cheated” which he felt was wrong (ie to him the perceived “cheating” of persons was wrong – regardless of who profited.) Which brings me back to …… he COULD have objected to Prince Frederick for these (same) indulgence-based actions, but apparently did not.

What did occur is his own Bishop and Bishop Albrecht were mailed a letter with Luther’s objections THE SAME DAY Luther “released” his 95 Theses against indulgences into the public arena — which had the effect of denying and preventing any possible corrective action on the part of either of the Bishops involved.

Not only is the timing of this letter hard to understand – but also the troubling paragraph in it where Luther appears to be threatening public shame to Bishop Albrecht by “publishing writings” if Albrecht does not “speedily” stop the sale of the St. Peter’s indulgence in his territories. [This was also covered in a previous post; citing references]

So the 95 Theses touched off a firestorm — and in the next segment of our timeline – we’ll take a look at them…

 

[steido01]

I have multiple sources that consistently state the preaching of indulgences was not permitted in Prince Frederick the Elector’s Saxony (the location of Wittenberg). It is not believed the St. Peter’s indulgence of 1517 was ever preached there by Tetzel.

Luther himself said that he found out about “all this” because people from Wittenberg went to Juterborg and Zerbst (See Below). I can find no record of Luther reporting Tetzel preached in Wittenberg. If Tetzel had, it is likely Luther would have heard him preach – and he said in his letter to Bishop Albrecht, that he did not hear Tetzel preach; so based on Luther’s own testimony I believe his source of information is what he tells us it was —the returning pilgrims from Juterborg.

You do realize that Juteborg is a mere 12 miles from Wittenberg, yes? It is obvious that whether the St. Peter’s Indulgence of 1517 was permitted in Saxony or not, that it was nonetheless preached there.

Please also note that I did not state unequivocally that Tetzel himself preached it in Wittenberg, nor that anyone did. I noted merely that we have written proof that Tetzel himself preached just over 10 miles away, and that records were not kept of all his movements. He very possibly could’ve preached in Wittenberg. In any case, quibbling over 10 miles is a silly thing to do; the point stands that Tetzel (and others) preached in Luther’s backyard. This cannot be refuted.

I found a source that placed Juterborg 23 miles from Wittenberg

What source gave that number? It’s… almost double the actual distance, even considering twisting roads.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Jaaye]

Let me look and see if I can find it again. The part that stuck with me was that it was an 8 hour trip which I thought was rather long (much longer than I expected it to be).

 

[steido01]

It almost certainly would’ve been much of a day’s walk, but people were not unaccustomed to that sort of travel in those days. A different world.

 

[Jaaye]

Let me put it this way; is the American taxpayer “ripped off” when a portion of his paycheck is used for the common defense and social programs to care for the poor in his country? Political polemics notwithstanding, the sane man would say ‘no.’ But if that money were taken by a foreign king who used it for his own pleasure and influence, we would rightly label that as oppression.

But the 16th century was not like this. We’re trying to walk through in a timeline as things occurred and your characterization of a “foreign king”, etc. is modern thinking being overlaid onto the 16th Century.

The pope was not a “foreign king” … the catholic church was one church. Admittedly, Luther and this time period saw the transitioning away from the feudal era and principalities and the rise of urban areas and a merchant class… and this gave way to an increasing rise to Nationalism (“us” Germans) which became more prominent at this time, in what was still known as the Holy Roman Empire. In fact at this point in history we’re about to have the death of the Emperor and the “election” of the new Emperor will soon be underway in the midst of all this. The political backdrop is an important factor to this time period … and with the publishing of the 95 Theses and public reaction to some of the things Luther included in his thesis … the political atmosphere is becoming more highly charged than in previous eras,

 

[steido01]

But the 16th century was not like this. We’re trying to walk through in a timeline as things occurred and your characterization of a “foreign king”, etc. is modern thinking being overlaid onto the 16th Century.

You were the first to characterize this issue in modern terms (“Dallas and Houston”). I merely followed your lead. No analogy is perfect. Anyway, my comparison fits. Paying homage and fealty to foreign kings was a practice older than Ancient Israel.

The pope was not a “foreign king”

I wasn’t referring to the pope, but to Bishop Albrecht. The pope is fairly removed from this whole matter at this point in history.

 

[Jaaye]

I wasn’t referring to the pub, but the bishop all brick. The pope is fairly removed from this whole matter.

I thought your remark referred to the Pope, and the money that flowed to the pope from church collections, etc. . Now that you’re telling me you were referring to Bishop Albrecht it makes less sense to me.

**_

> But if that money were taken by a foreign king who used it for his own pleasure and influence, we would rightly label that as oppression

_**

Bishop Albrecht was not “taking” the money of Luther’s parishioners (“taking” seems to indicate a level of possible unjust coercion or implied requirement, particularly if you think oppression is involved … collecting money? Yes; receiving money? Yes).

Albrecht was offering the St. Peter’s indulgence to the people of his three Bishopics for the purpose of using that money within his three ecclesiastical territories. Luther’s parishioners walked an estimated 8 hours to voluntarily contribute their funds in order to participate in the offering of the St. Peter’s indulgence occurring outside their own Bishop’s area. At some point, in some method, each of them made the determination to do so … indicating that in some way, by some measure … it was “worth it” to them … as we can generally agree … walking for 8 hours to get there is not an incidental amount of time / effort.

 

[Jaaye]

You made the comparison between the Houses of Wettin and Hohenzollern, between Albrecht’s indulgences and Fredrick’s. I explained why Luther was tolerant of one but not the other.

Actually, your explanation was confusing, as it appeared to say Luther would be OK with Frederick’s activities because the money stayed local and benefitted the local poor – which I thought was an unfair characterization against Luther … and I pointed that out to you… and asked for a clarification.

It remains one of the 5 issues now on our timeline that appear to have uneven historical explanations, or have been over-ridden by myth and legend surrounding Luther. As we go forward to examine the publication of 95 Theses themselves, I think it is fair to keep these questions in mind.

Background: Tetzel was commissioned to preach in Albrecht’s 3 Bishopics; Luther did not reside within any of these three territories, although one of the preaching areas was in close proximity. Luther did not himself witness the preaching but relied on what was relayed to him by his own parishioners who had made the (est. 8 hour journey) to obtain indulgences. Based on what he heard, he determined action was needed and ascertained the way to go forward was to write a letter to Albrecht notifying him that the indulgence preaching being conducted under Albrecht’s name was being conducted in an irregular manner, and suggested (forcefully) that Albrecht put an end to it. [Reference: Luther’s Letter to Albrecht]

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

Areas of Concern:
1. Luther’s Prince Frederick had one of the largest relic collections in Europe that he displayed on Feast Days and charged money to the town folk in WIttenberg (as well as visiting pilgrims) to view the relics. The revenue from this was not insignificant as it contributed to both the building of Wittenberg University, as well as the ongoing staffing and maintenance of it.
…… Continued

 

[Jaaye]

…. Continued from Above

Prayerful contemplation of relics is also an indulgenced act in the Church. Luther objection’s on the matter of indulgences is characterized as pastoral concern for the faithful, as he felt they were being preyed upon by the indulgence preachers and “tricked” into giving up their hard-earned money without receiving in return the perceived and promised spiritual benefit. So, it is a fair question to ask … why did Luther approach Albrecht (whose indulgence activities were being conducted outside of Luther’s locality) on the matter of indulgence preaching — yet he apparently ignored Prince Frederick’s actions of collecting money for relics / indulgences actually going on in his very own town ? This does not seem to fit. True the “outside-the-locality” indulgence preaching in Albrecht’s territories DID affect those of Luther’s parishioners who chose to make the journey … but logic tells us a much higher percentage of Luther’s parishioners would have been affected by Prince Frederick’s indulgence-related-actions, than Albrecht’s.

2. Luther does not appear to consult his Bishop, but elects to approach Albrecht directly. As I have pointed out, the proper hierarchical protocol (particularly in the 16th century) would have been for Luther to consult his Bishop (to whom he owes a vow of obedience) and allow the Bishop to advise Luther of the appropriate course of action, or for the Bishop to handle it himself with Albrecht. This did not happen. Luther made a conscious decision not to do this. It is a fair question to ask “why?”

3. Luther rather forcefully tells Albrecht he should stop the indulgence preaching going on in his territories and appears to threaten him if Albrecht does not “speedily” stop them.

> “….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.”

The fact that exactly what he threatens Albrecht with —to publish writings to embarrass and shame Albrecht … actually happens…. is troubling. So it’s fair to ask … was this part of the end-game all along? Did Luther perceive the remedy was to work within the church to reform the offenses with the assistance of Albrecht, or had he already determined “shaming” the church was the way to go?

…… Continued

 

[Jaaye]

Continued from Above

BTW — if by-passing his own Bishop and going directly to Albrecht was a breach of protocol, I think it is fair to say threatening him is probably not appropriate. Consider this …. a priest writes a letter to a Bishop outlining a series of steps the priest believes need to happen and threatens the Bishop with scandal and shame if he doesn’t “speedily” comply. This seems highly irregular to me, and the fact Luther is a Doctor of Theology doesn’t modify the equation; the Bishop is vested with the teaching authority of the Church, not the priest /professor (regardless of his stature or title).

4. Despite the admonition to Albrecht for speedy action, Luther allows no time for any action. Albrecht’s letter is dated the same day Luther’s theses is allegedly publicly posted – the vigil of All Saint’s Day – October 31st. Albrecht was given no time to receive, acknowledge, or even consider the contents … much less actually reply to Luther’s letter … before exactly what Luther threatens him with ….happens. It is fair to question the whole timing of this incident, which also seems highly irregular.

5. Luther’s Theses Was Not Posted on the Castle Church on Oct 31? Many scholars now hold the opinion that it was not. That posting-the-theses-on-the-church-door is just a story — part of the myth and legend surrounding Luther. This is addressed in a previous post, which gives the various reasons that have led historians to change their opinion, with one of them being Luther himself never said it, and it was apparently not mentioned until after his death. If it was NOT publicly posted, it brings up reasonable questions of how did it get throughout Europe so quickly? Yes, I understand the printing press played a revolutionary role – but that’s not what I’m asking about.

Luther said he circulated copies to a few … but how did the few become so many so fast? If it was not intended for public distribution … how did that come about?.. Luther’s individual friends located in various towns who received it from him for private reflection and commentary … independently decided to pay to have it typeset and distributed to the public? These are fair questions to ask.

As we go forward to examine the publication and distribution of the 95 Theses themselves, I think it is fair to keep these questions in mind…. some of them may resolve themselves as we step through the historical timeline.

 

[Jaaye]

That eight hour walk was still very much within their own bishop’s area, as I’ve already noted - just a mere 12 miles away. And it was northeast of Wittenberg, so he’d had either come through Wittenberg or around it in order to get there from the southwest. This is how we infer Tetzel likely passed through Wittenberg (or at least closer than the 12 miles we can prove by written artifacts). Contrast that to the distance between Mainz and Wittenberg. You’ll notice that Juteborg, where Tetzel, et. al were preaching, was considerably out of Albrecht’s actual area — a five hour drive even today!

No, I think you have it a bit muddled; I believe you are confusing diocesan territories with geography… and using 2018 Google maps to chart as-the-crow-flies distances (or via existing roadways) won’t be accurate in trying to replicate the pilgrims journey in the 16 century – which is one reason I focused on the 8 hours – the length of time described for the journey by the parishioners, rather than the actual distance in miles (ie if rivers or gorges had to be crossed, it’s conceivable they may have had to go 5 miles out of their way just to get to the bridge site… or avoid a swamp … and things like that. )

Prince Frederick did not allow the indulgence to be preached in Saxony (per previous post w/citations). Luther’s parishioners traveled to neighboring towns to obtain the indulgence, which was not preached in their own bishopric (by the intention of Bishop Albrecht and with the concurrence of Prince Frederick).

Below is from the Lutheran historian and author Timothy Wengert, which makes an attempt to track Tetzel’s whereabouts during this period of indulgence preaching by location, date and distance from Wittenberg: pg 63

“…. Around this time, Johann Tetzel had indeed begun to sell indulgences in territories adjoining Saxony. He began some time in January 1517 in Eisleben (Luther’s birthplace in the county of Mansfeld, about 70 miles southwest of Wittenberg), continued on 22 March to Halle (part of the archbishopic of Mainz about fifty miles away, also to the southwest), and Zerbst in the principality of Anhalt (just over twenty-five miles due west of Wittenberg), before setting up shop on Good Friday (10 April) in Juterbog, a city under the direct control of the bishop of Magdeburg (at this time none other than Albrecht of Mainz) and only twenty-five miles north of Wittenberg. “

Redirect Notice is the Link

The closest pilgrimage sites to Luther’s parishioners, Zerbst & Jutobog, were 25 miles away (vs. 70 miles= Eisleben & 50 miles=Halle). Notice the dates … Jutobog = Good Friday (April 10th). Luther’s letter to Bishop Albrecht stating his pastoral concerns is not until 7 months later. There is a 7 month intervening time period Luther used to research & consult canon law, as he stated he did not even know what indulgences were (at that time).

 

[margaret42]

It sounds like Luther was the first official protestant. From which all other sects came from. And every protestant sect has it’s own beliefs. Not everyone believed Luther, but other exceptions to Catholicism came about for different reasons.