Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[Tomyris]

I would like to make it clear that my research into who Luther was and why he was excommunicated is not intended to be Luther bashing. My sole interest is about who this man was and why he was excommunicated and the reasons thereof… If it puts Luther into a bad light from what others might believe or think, it is still not intended to any type of Luther bashing on my part but only what the history of those times show.

 There are a great many events it seems that led up to Luther's excommunication as well the theology and teachings that the CC rejected. There is no doubt that Luther antagonized  those who disagreed with him and was willing to fight everyone that questioned his theology and teachings. it also appears that the more those who opposed Luther the more he grew stubborn and the more violent and disparaging his remarks against those that opposed him as well as the CC. There is also no doubt that the CC did need reform but had Luther gone about it in a more calmer manor maybe his thinking would have been examined in a different light than it was. There were other who jumped into the fray who had their own agenda and thinking so whether or not Luther remained silent on his teachings and theology and propaganda against the CC, most likely someone else would have took up the banner opting for separation from the CC.

I don’t see you as Luther-bashing. We walk a fine line in observing and interpreting and judging. We are certainly called to the first and second but we get in trouble on the third, which is always tempting. Did Luther say x? Yes. But it was mitigated (or made worse) by y. We have here a prolific writer, one who may have used bombast intentionally to get his point across as a rhetorical device (an interesting theory, I wonder if it is true) and so we should not accept everything on its face appearance. There is a lot of disagreement on when he made his theological breakthroughs and when he had his ‘tower experience’ or even if he had one, even among Lutheran theologians.

We can interpret: “it seems to me…”

But God reserves judgement to Himself, and, arguably, to those he delegates authority. Of which I am not one.

 

[spina1953]

I don’t see you as Luther-bashing. We walk a fine line in observing and interpreting and judging. We are certainly called to the first and second but we get in trouble on the third, which is always tempting. Did Luther say x? Yes. But it was mitigated (or made worse) by y. We have here a prolific writer, one who may have used bombast intentionally to get his point across as a rhetorical device (an interesting theory, I wonder if it is true) and so we should not accept everything on its face appearance. There is a lot of disagreement on when he made his theological breakthroughs and when he had his ‘tower experience’ or even if he had one, even among Lutheran theologians.

We can interpret: “it seems to me…”

But God reserves judgement to Himself, and, arguably, to those he delegates authority. Of which I am not one.

Tomyris: Thanks as it seemed to me from some earlier posts that some posters were upset that there was Luther bashing going, though to be truthful I did not see it that way since its just opinions based on whatever facts from history one wants to use to make the point.

          Luther and others of the medieval used propaganda especially when the printing press came into use. Both Luther and his opponents used it in order to further their sides agenda and thinking. As for the rhetorical device using disparaging remarks etc. was used by both sides and is a possible and interesting theory on Luther's part to make his points.

           There is always a fine line in trying to interpreting facts of the times in which people lived and breathed and the events that took place to which historians often in their own bias interpret in order to promote their own views as to what was and how it is to mean. To be objective without bias is rather difficult since the opinions formed is due more in how perceives it..

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I am a “revert” to the Catholic Church during my wandering in the desert I was a member of the Lutheran Church (LCMS). the Holy Spirit did not lead me Home through learning these things about Luther either. It is interesting to learn the different circumstances in many peoples that the Holy Spirit does use to lead people home. Perhaps if a person out there in the cyber-world stumbles on to this thread it may be just the information that the person needs to move him along towards the Truth. If CAF did not have the variety of different threads filled with people eager to share the faith and explain and defend our wonderful faith I too would find this thread inappropriate but there is so very much at this banquet called CAF that I personally don’t find it out of line.

Annie

I guess the point I am making is that if you are not well-read on the Catholic faith how can we expect you to explain the Lutheran faith? Or visa versa?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I guess the point I am making is that if you are not well-read on the Catholic faith how can we expect you to explain the Lutheran faith? Or visa versa? /QUOTE]

 

[Topper17]

I think that the best way to discover who Luther really was is to read his actual quotes. Luther made some astonishing claims regarding his personal authority, claims which show us a great deal about who HE thought he was. The question will become whether we can agree with him as to his opinion of himself.

“Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you—or even an angel from heaven—to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world *. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says ) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved—for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.” Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 39: Church and Ministry I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 39, pp. 248–249). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

This is an astonishing quote. Here Luther claims that he will not allow anyone, even an angel from heaven to judge his teaching. It goes without saying that he would not allow any Catholic to do so. He also says that he will be ‘your judge’ and even the ‘angels judge’ though his teaching. Most shocking is that he claims that “whoever does not accept his teaching may not be saved”, of course claiming that it is not his teaching but God’s.

This speaks to an incredible degree of ‘confidence’ that he was right and that no matter how many others disagreed, it made no difference. What would we think today if a Theologian made such an arrogant statement?

In the next quote, also from the same year, 1522, the year after he was excommunicated, we see the same degree of level of certainty displayed.

“. . .** whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God, and must be a child of Hell.”** Martin Luther, (Henry O’Connor, Luther’s Own Statements, New York: Benziger Bros., 3rd ed., 1884, p. 20 / from Against Henry VIII, King of England, 1522) From Dave Armstrong’s excellent blog “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism”, Tuesday, July 19, 2011, “Martin Luther in His Pseudo-Prophetic, Hyper-Infallible, “Super-Pope” Mode (Shocking Examples)”

In reality, Luther here is claiming that anybody who taught differently than he did, which pretty much included everybody, but especially Catholics, must be ‘a child of hell’. It seems pretty clear what Luther means here.

We can leave it up to the individual to draw their own conclusions about what these quotes (and others) indicate about Martin Luther. Clearly Luther was extremely certain that he had a tremendous amount of authority to teach and to rebuke literally everyone. The question we should all answer for ourselves is whether we agree with him or whether we think his estimation of his personal ‘authority’ was inflated.*

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Tertium Quid: I use Bing search on Tetzel and check all the scholarly woks there is. One is Tetzel’s Vorlung a refutation of Luther’s sermon on Indulgences and Grace. It seems that over the years from just before Tetzel died in Leipzig during the 1519 Debate He was accused of many things and so far really do not know just how much of it was true since there seems to be a considerable amount of propaganda concerning Tetzel even by Scholars in the centuries after Tetzel’s death. I have to say that is a long drawn out process in finding as much on Tetzel whether it is Protestant or Catholic sources. One sometimes just has to read everything and then determine what is worthless and those that have merit in being truthful. I will let you look through and do your own research on him so that you can decide for yourself what you might think comes close to the truth as possible. I am still working on finding modern authors who have written on Tetzel that I can read in full.

OK, thanks for the explanation.

I’m not aware of any modern in-depth book-length treatments of Tetzel in English, which, given the amount of Reformation materials produced by academia, it is surprising that one hasn’t been published. Perhaps it’s out there, I haven’t come across it yet, which is why I was curious to which modern scholars you mentioned. I would appreciate anyone knowing of a contemporary full-length scholarly treatment of Tetzel to post the bibliographic information.

From what I’ve read, the most comprehensive study of Tetzel isn’t current, but may be considered “modern” comparatively- it is the work done by Dr. Nicholas Paulus (it’s not been translated into English). One very helpful modern book on Luther’s earliest opponents (including a lot on Tetzel) is David V. N. Bagchi, Luther’s Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists, 1518-1525. You’ll find lots of interesting information on Tetzel in this book (like that Tetzel held inquisitorial office, and that it appears to some scholars that Tetzel only decided to seek his doctorate because of the Luther controversy). One other interesting book is Iserloh’s The Theses Were Not Posted, in which this catholic author says of Tetzel’s doctoral theses that they are “a good example of the extent of this thoughtless identification of personal theological opinion with dogma” (p.109).

If you’d like to discuss Tetzel’s Vorlegung, that would be fine, since it appears you’ve read it. I would be curious which edition you’ve read.

 

[TertiumQuid]

We have here a prolific writer, one who may have used bombast intentionally to get his point across as a rhetorical device (an interesting theory, I wonder if it is true) and so we should not accept everything on its face appearance.

This is a good point. It was actually a catholic Luther scholar that helped me appreciate Luther’s writing style. Some years back a book was published called Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther (Jared Wicks, S.J, Editor. 1970, Loyola University Press). One of the articles was a treatment of Luther’s writing style, and this particular Catholic historian noted the difficulties of reading Luther correctly. The author noted Luther’s use of “unrestrained exaggeration” especially in his polemical treatments. I find it fascinating that even in this very discussion thread here, many (if not most) of the Luther quotes presented are from his polemical works. The polemical works are only a small sampling of Luther’s overall output.

 

[TertiumQuid]

In the next quote, also from the same year, 1522, the year after he was excommunicated, we see the same degree of level of certainty displayed.

“. . .** whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God, and must be a child of Hell.”** Martin Luther, (Henry O’Connor, Luther’s Own Statements, New York: Benziger Bros., 3rd ed., 1884,

For anyone wishing to track down the context of this quote: O’Connor cites Antwort auf Konig Hetirich’s Yon Engelland Buck, wider seineu Tractat von der Babylonischen Gefangmss. This is the German version of Martin Luther against Henry King of England. I found an English version from 1928 contains no such quote as the one in question. It appears the German version is different than the Latin version this 1928 English translation was based on. Erwin Doernberg points out Luther’s *Contra Henricum Regem Angliae *“was followed by a German version of [Luther’s] own which was not a translation, strictly speaking, differing as it does from the Latin book in numerous minor details.” In German, the quote appears on page 229-230 of WA 10(2) and also Erl. 28:346-347. In Latin, the same context is on page 185.

In reality, Luther here is claiming that anybody who taught differently than he did, which pretty much included everybody, but especially Catholics, must be ‘a child of hell’. It seems pretty clear what Luther means here

The treatise Luther wrote was highly polemical. Was Luther claiming infallible authority in this treatise? If you read this treatise, Luther argues throughout that the Scriptures are the infallible authority. In the German treatise Luther refers to “the contents of Holy Scripture and God’s Word”. His argument here is against those who claim Luther’s teachings are damnable. That is, those like Henry VIII that condemned Luther’s teachings, by implication, likewise held that they rightly understood the Bible. If Henry was going to damn Luther, Luther was going to damn Henry. If Henry damned Luther by his ultimate authority of Church and Tradition, Luther damned Henry by his ultimate authority, the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

This is a good point. It was actually a catholic Luther scholar that helped me appreciate Luther’s writing style. Some years back a book was published called Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther (Jared Wicks, S.J, Editor. 1970, Loyola University Press). One of the articles was a treatment of Luther’s writing style, and this particular Catholic historian noted the difficulties of reading Luther correctly. The author noted Luther’s use of “unrestrained exaggeration” especially in his polemical treatments. I find it fascinating that even in this very discussion thread here, many (if not most) of the Luther quotes presented are from his polemical works. The polemical works are only a small sampling of Luther’s overall output.

Yes, but are they not delightfully inflammatory?

You can certainly see how those reading him at the time would have no hesitation about excommunicating him.

 

[Tomyris]

Yes, but are they not delightfully inflammatory?

You can certainly see how those reading him at the time would have no hesitation about excommunicating him.

We don’t use death threats as a rhetorical device today, at least not in my little circle, although I wonder about some things I hear on the news. If they understood this was merely polemical, then there would have been hesitation: Dr. Luther, do you mean this? or even dismissal.

What were the exact grounds of the excommunication?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Tomi,

Thanks for your response.

As a Catholic, you submit to the wisdom of the Catholic Church in discernment of who should and who should not be a priest or professor. Here you come down with a very Martin-Luther-sounding arrogant condemnation of that wisdom and a revolt of your own against the Catholic Church, doing what you condemn Luther for doing. The Church, you say here, was wrong, and you are the better judge.

I would suggest you print off your posts on this thread and take them to your local priest or spiritual director for review and comment.

If you post again on this thread, I suggest a humble and contrite apology for your posts.

Actually I stand by my comments. What I said was: “It is an undeniable and obvious FACT that a man such as this should not have been a priest and he certainly should not have been allowed as a Christian Theologian and Scriptural Exegete to teach Christian priests in training…”

In this, all I am doing is standing behind the decision of my Church. After all, the Catholic Church did chose to excommunicate Martin Luther, all but conceding that he should never have been a priest to begin with. In this action, the Church was admitting it had erred in making Luther a priest and of course, with his excommunication, that he was no longer sanctioned by the Church to teach as a Catholic. Therefore, all of the rights and privileges that he had had as a priest, were null and void.

As we all know, there are thousands of people who have become priests who should not have been. But few of them are actually excommunicated the way that Luther was. You see, I very much DO submit to the wisdom of my Church on the matter of Martin Luther.

No Church can exist in the face of the kind of Rebellion that Luther committed. Nor should it have to.

As for Luther’s excommunication, in some respects he knew it was inevitable and even welcomed it.

“Yet in 1520 his relationship to the papacy had reached the point at which he no more thought of settlement, but of separation. AS will be seen, the opposing side was then following similar tendencies………Ever since the beginning of 1520 Luther was probably aware that his excommunication was being prepared at Rome. Now that he had inwardly distanced himself from Rome, his no longer troubled his faith. Yet the months of waiting for the arrival of the decision made him nervous. On 10 July he stated, ‘I almost wish that the notorious raging bull against my teaching would come from Rome.’” Brecht, Vol. I, pg. 347-8

God Bless You Tomi, Topper

 

[guanophore]

We don’t use death threats as a rhetorical device today, at least not in my little circle, although I wonder about some things I hear on the news. If they understood this was merely polemical, then there would have been hesitation: Dr. Luther, do you mean this? or even dismissal.

What were the exact grounds of the excommunication?

The details are contained in the Papal Bull Exsurge Domine

I think the negotiations at the Diet of Worms were intended to do this very thing. In the end, Luther could not, and would not, budge.

Basically I think it boils down to disobedience. The Church wanted him to give up his writings (and especially his attitudes) and he could not.

 

[guanophore]

Actually I stand by my comments. What I said was: “It is an undeniable and obvious FACT that a man such as this should not have been a priest and he certainly should not have been allowed as a Christian Theologian and Scriptural Exegete to teach Christian priests in training…”

In this, all I am doing is standing behind the decision of my Church. After all, the Catholic Church did chose to excommunicate Martin Luther, all but conceding that he should never have been a priest to begin with. In this action, the Church was admitting it had erred in making Luther a priest and of course, with his excommunication, that he was no longer sanctioned by the Church to teach as a Catholic. Therefore, all of the rights and privileges that he had had as a priest, were null and void.

No, Topper, this is not the case. The Church found Luther to be adequate material, or they would not have ordained him in the first place. There is nothing in the documents that indicates that the Church thought a “mistake” was made at his ordination.

Furthermore, the seal of the priesthood, like that of baptism, is permanent. The church cannot remove something that God has placed in a human soul, ,just as the Church cannot grant a divorce.

Excommunication is a discipline of the Church, intended to motivate the erroneous to return to the fold. It does not remove the seal of baptism, ,or of Holy Orders.

I will agree that, though a priest may have valid Holy Orders, the Church does have the right and the privilege to direct his ministry. Exsurge Domine removed his faculty to preach, teach, and write, and Luther refused to accept this - refuled to be silent.

 As we all know, there are thousands of people who have become priests who should not have been.  But few of them are actually excommunicated the way that Luther was.  You see, I very much DO submit to the wisdom of my Church on the matter of Martin Luther.

Actually, a priest going astray and an attempt made to reign him in is not the same as saying he never should have been ordained. Yes, there are some who may have become priests who should not have been, but the Church begins with the assumption that the seal of the priesthood is valid and appropriate.

No Church can exist in the face of the kind of Rebellion that Luther committed. Nor should it have to.

Obviously this is a false statement. The Church of Christ is immutable, and no one, especially one fallen from the faith, can hinder her existence. The Church has faced rebellion from the beginning, and she survives it because she cannot be moved in the face of this dkind of rebellion.

Your second statement, “nor should it have to” is very odd. The fact is that Jesus founded His Church in a fallen world, KNOWING that she would have to face this kind of rebellion.

Your statements here seem to be reflecting a state of your own personal perceptions (of what you can tolerate) rather than the nature of the Church. You seem to have a single minded agenda to blame and villify Luther, while sanctifying it by trying to make it belong to the Church.

As for Luther’s excommunication, in some respects he knew it was inevitable and even welcomed it.

As he also expected his own execution, since that was the practice of the time. I agree with you, I think he steeled himself against the inevitable.

On 10 July he stated, ‘I almost wish that the notorious raging bull against my teaching would come from Rome.’”  Brecht, Vol. I, pg. 347-8

I find it ironic that the emblem for the house of Medici was a bull.

 

[Denise1957]

There is only one Church, Denise, so all those who are baptized into Christ are baptized into His One Body. Yes, it is an imperfect union, but the catechism is clear that we are siblings in Christ.

It is a wound to unity to accuse them and hold them at fault for things the founders of their ecclesial communities said and did.It is also against the forum rules.

What have I written that goes against forum rules? Please be specific. It is unfair of you make unfounded accusations. I would think that your behavior goes against forum rules.

 

[guanophore]

There is only one Church, Denise, so all those who are baptized into Christ are baptized into His One Body. Yes, it is an imperfect union, but the catechism is clear that we are siblings in Christ.

I think we are in agreement that those who are validly baptized are made members of His One Body, the Church.

We are also in agreement that the union is imperfect - we are not yet in full communion.

It is a wound to unity to accuse them and hold them at fault for things the founders of their ecclesial communities said and did.It is also against the forum rules.

What have I written that goes against forum rules? Please be specific. It is unfair of you make unfounded accusations. I would think that your behavior goes against forum rules.

That comment was not directed to you, Denise. Your post was commenting on my response to another member whose posts seem to have a disparaging tone, and the statement was general in nature.

The point was also addressed in post number 413 so I think we are all good.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Yes, but are they not delightfully inflammatory?

You can certainly see how those reading him at the time would have no hesitation about excommunicating him.

That’s an interesting assertion to probe. Thanks!

I would argue a large chunk of Luther’s early rhetoric was typical of 16th century polemical writing, and that Luther was one of the best polemical writers, particularly during the early years of the Reformation. In fact, Protestants out-published catholic apologists winning the popular opinion because catholic works were unlikely to sell, and therefore not sought out by printers. The authorities in Rome exasperated the loss by not supporting her apologists in their written endeavors. I point this out because there were polemical catholic apologists writing against Luther at the time.

I’d further argue that another chunk of his writings that got him in trouble was in regard to issues not yet dogmatically defined, and that he was denied theological freedom by the authorities over him.

Before posting this I re-skimmed through Exsurge Domine, and it didn’t appear to me that the authors of the theological content were concerned with Luther’s polemics. Rather, the thrust of the bull is theological. Now fast-forward to the Catholic Answers Forums 2014, and we find catholics going beyond Exsurge Domine and condemning Luther for all sorts of things. If I were catholic, I’d try to stick to the official reasons why Luther was excommunicated, rather than rely on my own feelings and opinion.

 

[Tomyris]

That’s an interesting assertion to probe. Thanks!

I would argue a large chunk of Luther’s early rhetoric was typical of 16th century polemical writing, and that Luther was one of the best polemical writers, particularly during the early years of the Reformation. In fact, Protestants out-published catholic apologists winning the popular opinion because catholic works were unlikely to sell, and therefore not sought out by printers. The authorities in Rome exasperated the loss by not supporting her apologists in their written endeavors. I point this out because there were polemical catholic apologists writing against Luther at the time.

I’d further argue that another chunk of his writings that got him in trouble was in regard to issues not yet dogmatically defined, and that he was denied theological freedom by the authorities over him.

Before posting this I re-skimmed through Exsurge Domine, and it didn’t appear to me that the authors of the theological content were concerned with Luther’s polemics. Rather, the thrust of the bull is theological. Now fast-forward to the Catholic Answers Forums 2014, and we find catholics going beyond Exsurge Domine and condemning Luther for all sorts of things. If I were catholic, I’d try to stick to the official reasons why Luther was excommunicated, rather than rely on my own feelings and opinion.

I read through ED and there are a few things I would get dinged for, not surprisingly. But I am wondering about a few things.

1. 
   *]Does this display an accurate understanding of what Luther was actually saying/teaching/writing, moving beyond the polemics?
   *]What on the list is stil a barrier for our Lutheran friends for reunification?
   *]Would the Catholic Church today provide the same list against Luther given current understandings and developments for both Lutheran and Catholic theologies?
   *]Would he still get excommunicated today? Note #33 in particular.
   
   Some of the items I am just not sure about, being neither Lutheran or Catholic and unfamiliar with the particular item on the list.

 

[Tomyris]

The details are contained in the Papal Bull Exsurge Domine

I think the negotiations at the Diet of Worms were intended to do this very thing. In the end, Luther could not, and would not, budge.

Basically I think it boils down to disobedience. The Church wanted him to give up his writings (and especially his attitudes) and he could not.

“Hier stehe - ich kann nicht anders” (Here I stand - I can’t do anything else). If it really was inability, then it is not sin, since he was therefore not responsible. The implication then was that it was a matter of will.

If he had negotiated and recanted on half of the items, would the bull have been lifted? If he had recanted on one? If he had said, “let me kick it around a bit and I’ll get back to you?”

Did he have any choice besides confrontation?

 

[guanophore]

That’s an interesting assertion to probe. Thanks!

I would argue a large chunk of Luther’s early rhetoric was typical of 16th century polemical writing, and that Luther was one of the best polemical writers, particularly during the early years of the Reformation. In fact, Protestants out-published catholic apologists winning the popular opinion because catholic works were unlikely to sell, and therefore not sought out by printers. The authorities in Rome exasperated the loss by not supporting her apologists in their written endeavors. I point this out because there were polemical catholic apologists writing against Luther at the time.

Oh I don’t disagree! But the Church heirarchy never did have tolerance for dissention and uncomplimentary polemics. That would be like satirical plays against the royalty. Popular, but very dangerous. His skill at being inflammatory are one of the main reasons the directive to silence him was given in Exsurge Domine.

I'd further argue that another chunk of his writings that got him in trouble was in regard to issues not yet dogmatically defined, and that he was denied theological freedom by the authorities over him.

Yes, I thin

k he may have had more latitude for theological speculation if his polemics had not already infuriated the powers that be.
TertiumQuid;12283569:

Before posting this I re-skimmed through Exsurge Domine, and it didn’t appear to me that the authors of the theological content were concerned with Luther’s polemics. Rather, the thrust of the bull is theological. Now fast-forward to the Catholic Answers Forums 2014, and we find catholics going beyond Exsurge Domine and condemning Luther for all sorts of things. If I were catholic, I’d try to stick to the official reasons why Luther was excommunicated, rather than rely on my own feelings and opinion.

I agree with you that the bull is theological in nature, but I am equally sure that the Bishop of Rome and the Cardinals were getting full and detailed reports on all of it. They may not have included his lack of nicety in the Bull, ,but I am sure it had a great impact.

The pope was not accustomed to that level of disrespect - not so blatantly. His office was more like that of a Secular ruler at the time, and a certain degree of civility was expected.

 

[Annie39]

That’s an interesting assertion to probe. Thanks!

I would argue a large chunk of Luther’s early rhetoric was typical of 16th century polemical writing, and that Luther was one of the best polemical writers, particularly during the early years of the Reformation. In fact, Protestants out-published catholic apologists winning the popular opinion because catholic works were unlikely to sell, and therefore not sought out by printers. The authorities in Rome exasperated the loss by not supporting her apologists in their written endeavors. I point this out because there were polemical catholic apologists writing against Luther at the time.

I’d further argue that another chunk of his writings that got him in trouble was in regard to issues not yet dogmatically defined, and that he was denied theological freedom by the authorities over him.

Before posting this I re-skimmed through Exsurge Domine, and it didn’t appear to me that the authors of the theological content were concerned with Luther’s polemics. Rather, the thrust of the bull is theological. Now fast-forward to the Catholic Answers Forums 2014, and we find catholics going beyond Exsurge Domine and condemning Luther for all sorts of things. If I were catholic, I’d try to stick to the official reasons why Luther was excommunicated, rather than rely on my own feelings and opinion.

Would you name those Catholic apologists to whom you refer and some quotes demonstrating their polemics against Luther?

Thanks,
Annie