Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[Peter_J]

If only New Advent were as reliable as me!

But seriously, iirc I’ve even heard the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia called “the New Advent Encyclopedia”.

 

[spina1953]

You mean like this? “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.”

Direct quote from Luther’s writing. I even copied it off a Luther apologist’s website. In fairness, the context softens it a bit. Still an absurdly over-the-top thing to say.

Nope, no pride issues there! I contend that Luther’s issues with the papacy were less about the existence of a papacy than about the fact that the pope so clearly failed to heed Luther’s commands. Had the catholic church had the ‘good sense’ to make Luther pope he’d never have had an issue with the idea of a papacy.

Hi manualman: I think I agree with you on what you said as it makes sense to me. I think your quote says it all and I agree it is an over the top thing to say but when one has the big head ego as Luther seemed to have well what can I say? Sounds to me you have an handle on what is being posted. look forward to your posts.

 

[Per_Crucem]

But seriously, iirc I’ve even heard the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia called “the New Advent Encyclopedia”.

Yeah, but unfortunately, I think it’s the only real compendium resource of Catholicism online. I am surprised there hasn’t been a recent effort to create something similar that is more accurate and updated.

 

[Peter_J]

Then there’s the whole business of “It has an imprimatur, so …” but that’s another box of worms.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Denise,

I don’t see a problem with what spina has written. While the post (spinas) could have been phrased in a more proper manner, grammatically speaking, I don’t see how it gives the impression that indulgences forgive sin. Unless I’ve somehow missed another post of spina’s.

Spina refuses to be an apologist for Martin Luther, and therefore incurs the ire of both Lutherans and some Catholics. I don’t see that spinas posts are anything but thoroughly Catholic.

I agree 100%. In fact, Spina has been doing excellent work researching and posting the truth about this situation and he should be thanked. As you note those, the posting of that truth does tend to upset some people, but then this not a recent phenomenon.

God Bless You Denise, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation even bald caricature than Tetzel. “Even while Tetzel lived stories which contained an element of legend gathered around his name, until in the minds of uncritical Protestant historians, Tetzel became the indulgence seller in which any worn anecdote might be fathered. (Beard,” Martin Luther," London 1889,210).

The charge made by Luther in his 75thTheses, that Tetzel had preached impiously concerning the Blessed Virgin and repeated in Luther’s letter to Archbishop Albrecht (Enders,I,115) and in most explicit terms in his pamphlet “Wider Hans Worst,” was only promptly and indignantly denied by Tetzel (13Dec.,1518), declared false by official resolution of the entire city magistracy of Halle (12Dec.1517), where it was claimed the utterance was made, but has now been successfully proved a clumsy fabrication (Paulus, op.Cit.,56-61).

It seems to me or at least appears that modern scholarship and research is proving Luther wrong concerning Tetzel selling indulgences for the dead contrary to what the CC teaches. The permits he gave for indulgences were on the person going to his priest or confessor before any indulgence could be granted. In reading Tetzel’s rebuttal it seems to me that one had to be careful in discerning exactly what Tetzel is saying concerning indulgences and the offer of money to the Church for the indulgence granted.

If I understand Tetzel correctly he was only saying when one offers money to the Church for the Churches needs, it is deemed a good work in accordance with the rules of gaining an indulgence. From how Tetzel rebutted Luther’s claims, to me it is rather doubtful that Tetzel would sell an indulgence or even preach anything contrary to what the CC teaches concerning indulgences. it seems to me that the same rules for the living apply for the dean in so far as it is a living person who is receiving the indulgence who then offers it to God for some soul who has died.

Furthermore, I am now thinking from what I have so far been reading between Luther and Tetzel and indulgences that Luther did not think much in the first place that indulgences had any place in Church teachings. Additionally, there was a ban against preaching and or granting indulgences in and around Wittenberg, to which Tetzel may not have been aware of when he was in Juterberg preaching on indulgences, which it seems only inflamed Luther to no end. it also appears that Luther had the my way or the highway attitude in that “I am correct and everyone else is wrong.” Because people from Wittenberg were going to Juterberg to see if they could gain an indulgence to which it seems Luther already made up his mind that indulgences were being abused while never seeing if it were true or not decided that it was not time to post his 95 Theses.

Wow, that was an amazing post! I will warn you though, if your goal is to endear yourself with the crowd who considers the Pope (or ‘merely’ the office) to be the antichrist, you are not currently headed in the right direction.

It seems that a great deal of importance is being placed on whether Tetzel was preaching Indulgences in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church, and also whether Luther was aware of the correct teachings of the Church. After all, if it was Luther’s objections to Tetzel’s approach to Indulgences which set off the Reformation, and Tetzel was right and Luther was wrong, then the Reformation would have been begun by Luther on the basis of his poor understanding of Church doctrine. On the other hand, the Reformation has a much viable beginning if Tetzel was wrong and Luther was right. Obviously it is a very important issue.

To be continued.

 

[Topper17]

What does history actually tell us on the matter? Heiko Oberman (Reformed) in his excellent biography of Luther states:

“Tetzel, a Dominican monk, faithfully repeated the official Church doctrine concerning indulgences: **indulgences availed only those who were penitent and had confessed. ** But the proof of penitence - which was demanded – was the willingness to accept penance, and possession of an indulgence constituted proof of this willingness. A great many priests were ready to give absolution on the basis of such evidence.” Oberman, “Luther, Man Between God and the Devil”, pg. 188

The fact is that Tetzel was one of the first victims of Luther’s vehemence and false accusations. Hartman Grisar fleshes this out for us:

“With regard to the matter of Tetzel’s sermons above referred to, it is chiefly to Luther that we owe the charge of flagrant errors and gross abuses in his proclamation of the Indulgence. ‘**He wrote,’ so Luther explained to his friends, ‘that an indulgence is a reconcilliation between God and man and takes effect even though a man performs no penence, and manifests neither contrition nor sorrow.’ ‘Tetzel put it so crudly that no one could fail to understand his meaning.’ In his pamphlet of 1541 Luther says: “He sold grace for money at the highest price he could.’……’it was not necessary to feel sorrow or pain or contrition for sin, but whoever bought an Indulgence for ‘future sins’.****As a matter of fact, the accusations brought against Tetzel, of having sold forgiveness of sins for money without requiring contrition, and of having even been ready to absolve from future sins in return for a money payment, are, as N. Paulus, and others before him, pointed out, utterly unjust. **Even Carlstadt, after he had gone over to the hostile camp of the new teaching, admitted that the Indulgence sermons, including those of Tetzel, were in agreement with the generally accepted teaching of the Church; of the enormities just referred to he knows nothing. Above all, Tetzel s own writings, likewise his instructions and also the testimony of strangers, all speak in his favour." The Indulgence," Tetzel says in his “Vorlegung,” " remits only the pain * of sins which have been repented of and confessed." " No one merits an Indulgence unless he is in a truly contrite state." Those who procured a Confession-letter received, according to an ancient usage, with the same letter permission to select a suitable confessor ; for this an alms was given. The confessor was able to absolve, after a good confession, from all sins, even in reserved cases, and to impart a Plenary Indulgence by virtue of the Papal authorisation.” Grisar, Volume I, pg. 342-3

From these quotes we learn that Tetzel was accurately representing the teachings of the Church when he preached on the Indulgence. We also learn that Luther falsely accused Tetzel of ‘flagrant errors and gross abuses in his proclamation of the Indulgence’.

Although I doubt if Luther was aware of it consciously, the real problem was that Indulgences grated on his then still developing belief in Salvation by Faith Alone. Above all else, his tortured soul demanded certainty of his everlasting Salvation, and the very idea of Indulgences was opposed to that developing belief.

As we know, Luther was rather quick to charge those who disagreed with him as being liars, but from these quotes we also know that Luther wasn’t above making false charges when it suited his purposes.

Thanks again for doing the hard work necessary to increase our knowledge of this situation and provide us with actual facts.

God Bless You Spina, Topper*

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,
Its good to see you here.

Thank you.

Yes I am sure. If people were insincere about repentance, that was between themselves and God.

Really ? Sounds protestant, like a lone ranger. Pastors have no responsibility ? Teachers have no responsibility ? Am I my brothers keeper ? Is a cleric responsible for his church ? That is like saying if people in your parish started worshiping Mary that it is their personal business and not the bishops or parish priest nor any deacon or even any parishioner.

Changing more than 4 dozen doctrines was going to have any impact on that particular problem.

I think you meant no impact. While i don’t know the 90 some points i am pretty sure they would address the indulgence problem . It certainly stopped (I think) in non- catholic churches in germany at the time. It certainly led to some “reform” by the CC… Just take sola fide, that would eliminate any unbiblical indulgence for sure…Anyways, seems like a very judgemental, possibly biased and subjective approach to examine motives of the heart and levels of “sincerity”. However, I am very judgemenat and biased on the matter also. …It is in the eye of the beholder, again.

God Bless You

 

[guanophore]

There are many constructive and good ways to respond to posts with which one disagrees. Subtly implying that one of the most measured and steadfast Catholics might actually be a crypto-Lutheran probably isn’t one of them.

I appreciate your kind words, steido and being a crypto-Lutheran is not an insult as far as I am concerned. Had I been born into a different time period, and a different family, I have no doubt that I would be as fervent a Lutheran as those I find on this board.

I am continually amazed that Catholics here find fault with my separated brethren, when it is very clear to me that faithful Lutherans are more consistent with Catholic beliefs and Tradition than the majority of American Roman Cathoilics, who admit that they don’t believe in the Real Presence and do not read their scriptures.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There are many constructive and good ways to respond to posts with which one disagrees. Subtly implying that one of the most measured and steadfast Catholics might actually be a crypto-Lutheran probably isn’t one of them. Sounds like something a feisty German monk might’ve done when in a bad temper, though.

Shhhhhh… You’re gonna blow my cover

 

[Topper17]

Hi guano,

I appreciate your kind words, steido and being a crypto-Lutheran is not an insult as far as I am concerned. Had I been born into a different time period, and a different family, I have no doubt that I would be as fervent a Lutheran as those I find on this board.

I am continually amazed that Catholics here find fault with my separated brethren, when it is very clear to me that faithful Lutherans are more consistent with Catholic beliefs and Tradition than the majority of American Roman Cathoilics, who admit that they don’t believe in the Real Presence and do not read their scriptures.

For the record quano, I was not in any way attempting to insult you by asking if you consider Lutheranism to be part of the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”, although it does suit the purposes of some to accuse me of that and hope that the well is well poisoned. Luther would be proud.

Some Catholics are much more ‘generous’ than others at allowing for the ‘validity’ of various non-Catholic communions. Right or wrong, it is what it is. It is worth talking about either way, but that discussion would reveal the false representation of what I believe and have said.

That being said though, I am not sure I understand your comment about Catholics finding fault with our separated brethren. Its not at all about **their **faults, but with the faults in their theology. It isn’t personal at all, but as you have seen, their criticism is. It is Lutheran and general Protestant Theology that should be criticized and revealed. Since it was Luther who formulated and promoted those false doctrines, it is necessary to determine whether he had any right to do so. According to Lutheran teaching, the individual has no right to use their Private Interpretation to establish doctrine. That is exactly what Luther did, If you are looking for a revealing exercise, ask a Lutheran to explain why Luther was allowed to do what Lutherans will not allow anyone else to do.

God Bless You guano, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thank you.
Really ? Sounds protestant, like a lone ranger. Pastors have no responsibility ? Teachers have no responsibility ? Am I my brothers keeper ? Is a cleric responsible for his church ? That is like saying if people in your parish started worshiping Mary that it is their personal business and not the bishops or parish priest nor any deacon or even any parishioner. I think you meant no impact. While i don’t know the 90 some points i am pretty sure they would address the indulgence problem . It certainly stopped (I think) in non- catholic churches in germany at the time. It certainly led to some “reform” by the CC… Just take sola fide, that would eliminate any unbiblical indulgence for sure…Anyways, seems like a very judgemental, possibly biased and subjective approach to examine motives of the heart and levels of “sincerity”. However, I am very judgemenat and biased on the matter also. …It is in the eye of the beholder, again.

God Bless You

Somewhere along the line we got off the track. I have no idea what you are talking about and maybe you feel the same way. I made a point, probably badly, but it seems we are probably talking about different things here. Could you please write something from your perspective that could possibly get us back on the same page.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

Or if you would prefer, just let me know and I will find that post and see if I can make it really clear as to what I am saying. Your choice.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Wonder how those Catholics who condemn Martin Luther reconcile their point of view with the Holy See who refers to Luther as a ‘Witness to Jesus Christ’? How can this be yet posters like Topper claim otherwise?

It is possible for us today to learn from Luther together. “In this we could all learn from him that God must always remain the Lord, and that our most important human answer must always remain absolute confidence in God and our adoration of him” (Cardinal Willebrands).
�As a theologian, preacher, pastor, hymn-writer and man of prayer, Luther has with extraordinary spiritual force witnessed anew to the biblical message of God’s gift of liberating righteousness and made it shine forth.
�Luther directs us to the priority of God’s Word in the life, teaching and service of the church.
�He calls us to a faith which is absolute trust in the God who in the life, death and resurrection of his son has shown himself to be gracious to us.
�He teaches us to understand grace as a personal relationship of God to human beings which is unconditional and frees from fear of God’s wrath and for service of one another.
�He testifies that God’s forgiveness is the only basis and hope for human life.
�He calls the churches to constant renewal by the word of God.
�He teaches us that unity in essentials allows for differences in customs, order and theology.
�He shows us as a theologian how knowledge of God’s mercy reveals itself only in prayer and meditation. It is the Holy Spirit who persuades us of the truth of the gospel and keeps and strengthens us in that truth in spite of all temptations.
�He exhorts us to remember that reconciliation and Christian community can only exist where not only “the rule of faith” is followed, but also the “rule of love” “which always thinks well of everyone, is not suspicious, believes the best about its neighbors and calls anyone who is baptized a saint” (Martin Luther).

Trust and reverent humility before the mystery of God’s mercy are expressed in Luther’s last confession which, as his spiritual and theological last will and testament, can serve as a guide in our common search for unifying truth: “We are beggars. This is true.”
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_luther.html

 

[Gorgias]

Wonder how those Catholics who condemn Martin Luther reconcile their point of view with the Holy See who refers to Luther as a ‘Witness to Jesus Christ’? How can this be yet posters like Topper claim otherwise?

Erm… not to be overly critical, but this isn’t a statement of “the Holy See.”

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Erm… not to be overly critical, but this isn’t a statement of “the Holy See.”

Really? Did you bother to follow the link?

CENTRO PRO UNIONE
Franciscan Friars of the Atonement
Via S. Maria dell’Anima, 30
I-00186 ROME, ITALY
Tel.: (+39) 06.687.9552
Fax: (+39) 06.68.13.36.68
E-mail: pro@pro.urbe.it
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/i_lr-c-info.html

They post for free the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue but you should be able to access these documents on the Holy See website also. Is that Catholic enough for you?

 

[Gorgias]

Really? Did you bother to follow the link?

Yes, in fact, I did – and that’s how I found out that it wasn’t from the Holy See, but rather, from the website of the “Lutheran-Catholic Council on Unity”… which, as it turns out, isn’t an organ of the Catholic Church. Rather, it is simply identified as being sponsored by the “Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity”. In other words, although there is a certain relationship between them and the Curia, it does not follow that their statement is a statement of the Holy See.

But hey… thanks for ridiculing me in my presentation of a more accurate representation of the authors of the document you cited.

They post for free the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue but you should be able to access these documents on the Holy See website also.

Perhaps you might provide a URL where it is presented as a statement of the Holy See? I did a Google search, but couldn’t find these anywhere other than on the site you cited.

Is that Catholic enough for you?

Oh, I’m not disputing its ‘Catholicity’ (whatever that means in this context) … just your assertion that it’s a statement of the Holy See. Which, as it were, it isn’t.

 

[guanophore]

As we will see shortly, Luther’s goal was to damage the Church. This included among other things, damaging the monastic tradition

I don’t think so, Topper. As much as I think Luther looked back on his monastic experiences less than fondly, he also knew that he could not do any damage to the “monastic tradition” by any local activity. What he could do by supporting the confiscation of monasteries was to influence the economy of Germany, but that is about it. He was well aware that monasteries were spread across the whole known world.

As for your comment about the ‘resources’, let’s call it what it really was – the THEFT of Church property, which Luther very much advocated.

Topper, do you have any idea how those properties and resources GOT into the hands of the Church in the first place? I realize that many grievious tragedies occurred with regard to Church property, monastic and otherwise, but the absorption of private property and savings had been going on for centuries, resulting in opulant living for the Bishops, most of whom lived like nobility in palaces. When we point the finger at Protestants, the other three are pointing right back to the CC.

advise the temporal authorities, however, to take over the possessions of such monasteries, ....  And of course, according to Luther, the owner of that property need not be consulted..

Which the princes were most happy to do, since their lands had been plundered by Rome all those centuries.

This is actually rather comical. Luther here recommends that prior to the stealing of property, the owner of that propeqrty is not to be “consulted”. Better to just steal it without notice.

Actually it is, a technique he learned from the Pope. A person who did not comply with the wishes of the Pope or whatever secular power the Pope supported would be called into court, either locally, or in Rome. While the person was there to answer for himself, his lands and property were confiscated. Sometimes the uncooperative baron would be improsioned or exhiled. Their heirs were also displaced from the property.

In a letter to Count Johann Heinrich of Schwarzburg, a Lutheran secular authority,

The fact is, Topper, Luther had no authority, ecclesiastical or secular. The secular rulers used his writings to support their own ends. Had they not done so, we would not be reading his letters because they would have all been burned.

If I were to sit down and write a letter like this today (God spare my Benedictine Oblate soul!) what do you think would happen? Do you think the secular authorities around my area would put any stock in my letter? Would the local ruler or magistrate rush run over and confiscate the monastery?

I am not excusing what Luther did. I find quite of bit of what he wrote so vile and despicable, I can’t understand why any Protestant today would allow themselves to be named after him. But let’s be honest, shall we? Luther;s support of the confiscation of monasteries was a reflection the patterns he had learned from the CC.

Luther was still rationalizing this outrageous and unjust criminal theft in 1541:

**“If they are not the church but the devil’s whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property.” **(Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage, 1541, LW, vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from p. 220)

He does have a point!

AS IF once he made the property of the Church “available” to be “appropriated”,

That is just m point, Topper. It was not Luther’s property to “make available”, and he had no power to apprehend it, legally, or otherwise.

**“Right from the beginning, Luther’s spiritual revolt had let loose material greed. **The German rulers, the Scandanavian monarchs and Henry VIII of England had taken all advantage of the break from papal tutelage to appropriate both the wealth and the control of the respective Churches.” Henri Daniel-Ropps, “The Protestant Reformation, pg. 309-10

On the contrary, Topper, it was the Bishops who let loose material greed. They soaked up whatever opulance they could, and plenty of people paid the church far more money than was ever spent on indulgences.

And Luther unwittingly (at least initially), helped them to do it.

Yes, he was a match that lit a tinderbox, and he did have a lot of regrets about it. I can only pray that he made a good confession at the end.

Please correct me if I have gotten this wrong. You say that Luther did not have a goal of ‘damaging the Church’, but JUST ‘toppling the Pope’. Is that correct? If all that needed toppling was the corruption,

Luther had some valid complaints, and no, I don’t think he had any intention of damaging the Church. This is why Lutherans today consider themselves “a valid continuation of the Catholic Church”.

He certainly did want to topple the Pope, and the sentiment was quite mutual. But the whole of Europe was fed up with the clerical corruption, greed, lust and abuse of power. Luther was just a pebble that started teh landslide.

then what in the world did that have to do with refuting 50 established doctrines?

Such as?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Yes, in fact, I did – and that’s how I found out that it wasn’t from the Holy See, but rather, from the website of the “Lutheran-Catholic Council on Unity”… which, as it turns out, isn’t an organ of the Catholic Church. Rather, it is simply identified as being sponsored by the “Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity”. In other words, although there is a certain relationship between them and the Curia, it does not follow that their statement is a statement of the Holy See.

But hey… thanks for ridiculing me in my presentation of a more accurate representation of the authors of the document you cited.

Perhaps you might provide a URL where it is presented as a statement of the Holy See? I did a Google search, but couldn’t find these anywhere other than on the site you cited.

Oh, I’m not disputing its ‘Catholicity’ (whatever that means in this context) … just your assertion that it’s a statement of the Holy See. Which, as it were, it isn’t.

Sorry for being snarky; so many posters are unfamiliar with the incredible statements of consensus between Lutherans and Catholics, that I tend to react.

“Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity” is the Roman Curia. These Catholic talks with Lutherans are official Vatican statements. I generally suggest starting with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification for an overview. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

 

[Denise1957]

Topper, do you have any idea how those properties and resources GOT into the hands of the Church in the first place? I realize that many grievious tragedies occurred with regard
Actually it is, a technique he learned from the Pope. A person who did not comply with the wishes of the Pope or whatever secular power the Pope supported would be called into court, either locally, or in Rome. While the person was there to answer for himself, his lands and property were confiscated. Sometimes the uncooperative baron would be improsioned or exhiled. Their heirs were also displaced from the property.

A technique he learned from the pope? Which Pope? Or Popes?

 

[Peter_J]

Erm… not to be overly critical, but this isn’t a statement of “the Holy See.”

Really?

Yes, technically: the terms “the Vatican” and “the Holy See” are often used interchangeably, but in fact many in “the Vatican” have sees of their own.