Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inariga
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems to me that either Jesus gave the authority to loosen or not, call it power or authority. So I guess what temporal punishment are you speaking that Luther is referring to in his 95 theses, since it seems to me from what the CC teaches if one is absolved either one is absolved or not absolved its one way or the other and so either the Pope can absolve or he can not, he either has the power to do so or he does not its not a in between authority or power. And that’s all I have to say on the matter. Now as I understand the OP’s question, Martin Luther was the person who was excommunicated because of his teachings that were contrary to what the CC teaches.
 
spina1953 said:
It seems to me that either Jesus gave the authority to loosen or not, call it power or authority. So I guess what temporal punishment are you speaking that Luther is referring to in his 95 theses, since it seems to me from what the CC teaches if one is absolved either one is absolved or not absolved its one way or the other and so either the Pope can absolve or he can not, he either has the power to do so or he does not its not a in between authority or power. And that’s all I have to say on the matter. Now as I understand the OP’s question, Martin Luther was the person who was excommunicated because of his teachings that were contrary to what the CC teaches.
Click to expand...
Sacramental absolution absolves the eternal guilt of mortal/venial sins. It does not, however, absolve the temporal punishments due to those sins being committed. For that, satisfaction must be made through penance. Another means of remitting temporal punishment are indulgences (guanophore or another knowledgable Catholic can correct me if I am wrong).

When Luther said that the Pope cannot absolve the eternal guilt of mortal sin through indulgences, he meant that only sacramental absolution can do that. This is in line with Catholic teaching.
 
Per_Crucem said:
The indulgence preachers were arguing - in opposition to Catholic doctrine - that indulgences forgive the guilt of mortal sin. One would think, of course, that violating the Theotokos would involve the guilt of mortal sin. And yes, the indulgence preachers were saying that indulgences could forgive the guilt of that action.
Click to expand...
when I asked for a reference, I was asking for one for the above assertion, that the preachers were saying that indulgences could forgive the guilt of a mortal sin.

I did not find that in the link you gave. Is there an historical quote from Tetzel, or another preacher? Something besides Luthers refutation on the Theotokos? Luther has a tendency of hyperbole.

Certainly they were outside the scope of Church teaching on many levels.
Per_Crucem said:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1054&CFID=8003124&CFTOKEN=33849176

Note that Tetzel himself was in line with church teaching as to what indulgences did for the living. However, he did apply them to the dead, over and above (and some would say against) official church teaching.
Click to expand...
It has always been a teaching of the Church that our prayers and merits can assist the Church suffering. When a Christian dies, they “cease from their labors” but we who are here on earth may still labor for them. This all revolved around the state of Purgatory, a doctrine that has always been, and is still, taught by the Church.
 
guanophore said:
when I asked for a reference, I was asking for one for the above assertion, that the preachers were saying that indulgences could forgive the guilt of a mortal sin.

I did not find that in the link you gave. Is there an historical quote from Tetzel, or another preacher? Something besides Luthers refutation on the Theotokos? Luther has a tendency of hyperbole.

Certainly they were outside the scope of Church teaching on many levels.
Click to expand...
I will definitely look into it.
It has always been a teaching of the Church that our prayers and merits can assist the Church suffering. When a Christian dies, they “cease from their labors” but we who are here on earth may still labor for them. This all revolved around the state of Purgatory, a doctrine that has always been, and is still, taught by the Church.
Click to expand...
That isn’t in question. What is, though, was Tetzel’s claim (as authoritative doctrine) that an offering of money gained an indulgence for the departed, regardless of contrition or confession.
 
Perhaps we should get to the bottom of what Tetzel really wrote. I don’t know much about him, or what he wrote, but I’ll look into it. I found a Catholic website which says that…
“If Tetzel really said this he acted contrary to the teachings of the Church. Good authorities tell us that Tetzel never said it. In the thesis which Tetzel wrote in 1517 states that for gaining of an indulgence is required: sorrow, a good confession and communion, fasting, visiting the church, and that an indulgence does not forgive sins, but only temporal punishments of past sins, and not of future sins.”

catholicism.org/purgatory-indulgences-predestination-and-relics-an-apologetical-wrapup.html
 
Denise1957 said:
Perhaps we should get to the bottom of what Tetzel really wrote. I don’t know much about him, or what he wrote, but I’ll look into it. I found a Catholic website which says that…
“If Tetzel really said this he acted contrary to the teachings of the Church. Good authorities tell us that Tetzel never said it. In the thesis which Tetzel wrote in 1517 states that for gaining of an indulgence is required: sorrow, a good confession and communion, fasting, visiting the church, and that an indulgence does not forgive sins, but only temporal punishments of past sins, and not of future sins.”

catholicism.org/purgatory-indulgences-predestination-and-relics-an-apologetical-wrapup.html
Click to expand...
Hi Denise 1957: I went to New Advent/ Catholic Encyclopedia on indulgences as well as on Johann Tetzel and it seems that the claims made by Luther might have been very much exaggerated, though it does seem that Tetzel had a capacity to exaggerate, on indulgences on the dead but not indulgences on the living.
 
Denise1957 said:
Perhaps we should get to the bottom of what Tetzel really wrote. I don’t know much about him, or what he wrote, but I’ll look into it. I found a Catholic website which says that…
“If Tetzel really said this he acted contrary to the teachings of the Church. Good authorities tell us that Tetzel never said it. In the thesis which Tetzel wrote in 1517 states that for gaining of an indulgence is required: sorrow, a good confession and communion, fasting, visiting the church, and that an indulgence does not forgive sins, but only temporal punishments of past sins, and not of future sins.”

catholicism.org/purgatory-indulgences-predestination-and-relics-an-apologetical-wrapup.html
Click to expand...
A good source for it, is Ludwig von Pastor’s History of the Popes. He has an extensive discussion on Tetzel. One must remember, though, Tetzel wasn’t the only preacher in Saxony.
 
spina1953 said:
Hi Denise 1957: I went to New Advent/ Catholic Encyclopedia on indulgences as well as on Johann Tetzel and it seems that the claims made by Luther might have been very much exaggerated, though it does seem that Tetzel had a capacity to exaggerate, on indulgences on the dead but not indulgences on the living.
Click to expand...
Thanks, spina.
 
Per_Crucem said:
A good source for it, is Ludwig von Pastor’s History of the Popes. He has an extensive discussion on Tetzel. One must remember, though, Tetzel wasn’t the only preacher in Saxony.
Click to expand...
Well, I’d like to see a copy of Tetzel’s rebuttal to Luther regarding indulgences, called Vorlegung, which I’d not heard of before today, and doing a google search on the subject. It would be nice to see a copy of it without commentary - not that I’d be able to figure it out, but seeing originals of anything controversial can sometimes be helpful, IMO.
 
Denise1957 said:
Well, I’d like to see a copy of Tetzel’s rebuttal to Luther regarding indulgences, called Vorlegung, which I’d not heard of before today, and doing a google search on the subject. It would be nice to see a copy of it without commentary - not that I’d be able to figure it out, but seeing originals of anything controversial can sometimes be helpful, IMO.
Click to expand...
Hi Denise 1957: I binged Vorlegung and saw rebuttal PDF by Pitt Theology Library and it has a translation of Tetzel’s rebuttal in English and you can download it if you like.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Sorry that was the Emperor who declared that Luther could be killed without the murderer incurring legal penalty. My bad. I wonder if the Roman Catholic Church condemned this legalized murder?
Click to expand...
Why didn’t the Lutheran church condemn this legalized murder [sic]?
Oh, yeah, THEY DIDN’T EXIST THEN.

(that’s the point, isn’t it?)
 
Per_Crucem said:
“An indulgence is a remission before God of the **temporal punishment **due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven” (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1).

How was the guilt forgiven? Sacramental confession. Indulgences do not forgive the guilt of sin. That is what the indulgence preachers were saying; that it does forgive sin.
Click to expand...
They were? Who?
 
Per_Crucem said:
Luther did not say that the Pope cannot issue an indulgence. What Luther said was that the Pope could not issue an indulgence that forgave the guilt of sin because indulgences do not forgive the guilt from a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Luther invented a strawman & then attacked it. 🤷
 
spina1953 said:
Hi Denise 1957: I binged Vorlegung and saw rebuttal PDF by Pitt Theology Library and it has a translation of Tetzel’s rebuttal in English and you can download it if you like.
Click to expand...
Thanks, spina. I found the source you mention above, and will try to read through it this evening.
 
Denise1957 said:
Thanks, spina. I found the source you mention above, and will try to read through it this evening.
Click to expand...
Hi Denise 1957: You are welcome! I read it and it is quite lengthy but well worth the read and also quite informative . It sounds to me that Tetzel got a bad rap from Luther and those who agreed with Luther. It is right up there with Pope Leo X’s papal bull Exsage Domine of June 15th 1520. Enjoy the read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top