Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[JonNC]

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.

After over 26,000 posts, I suspect that no poster on this board, save one, would for a moment believe that Guanophore is anything but a loyal and learned Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Contrary to some, Guanophore defends the Catholic faith, not by attacking others, but by actually and regularly referring to the Catholic faith, and usually very convincingly.

There is not a poster on this board to whom I am more grateful for my growth in understanding of Catholicism than Guanophore.

Jon

 

[Peebo]

I don’t know if this is the right post to ask this question but it does deal with excommunication…over the last three days I have had some home renovations done by an elderly man who was Italian…I said he must be Catholic being Italian…no…he told me he was Baptist and had been for many decades…he then went on to tell me that when he was young he had asked questions on scripture he had read in the bible…he said his priest had told him it was not his job to read the bible but to do what the church taught…he said he had persisted in asking questions to the point where he had been excommunicated for daring to read the bible and to ask questions…I must admit I was shocked by this…I have been a Catholic since 1992 and was actually given a bible by my local church during my confirmation…I don’t know if he what he suffered was widespread decades ago…it must have been prior to or shortly after Vatican 2…he seemed very happy and is actively involved in the church where he is now and has been all these years…but some of the things he said showed that he still held respect for the Catholic Church…I felt sad that he had been treated the way he had…were many good Catholics excommunicated years ago because they read the bible and wanted questions answered…I know it would not happen now…just 2 weeks ago we had a priest from the Vatican at our parish who was there to answer questions about excommunication…maybe there are many ex Catholics who are still hurting and the church is now reaching out to them in reconciliation.

 

[guanophore]

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?

The edict of the Diet of Worms carried the typical structure used in that day and age. Since the conflation of Church and State in 6th century Rome, those who were heretics or defiant of the Church were considered to be secular traitors and were banished or a carte blanche of assasination given.

I am sure Pope Leo would have been delighted to have had the sentence carried out as soon as possible, just as I am sure the sentence was given according to the Popes instruction in the first place. Leo installed the Holy Roman Emperor just so that he could accomplish such things.

 

[guanophore]

I understand that the sin must be forgiven first before any indulgence is given, I never thought that an indulgence forgave a sin not forgiven, nor have I said that in the first place. I always understood that a sin or offense needed to be forgiven first before an indulgence was given.

The way you have phrased your understanding above appears opposite.

I would strongly encourage you to avoid using such language that an indulgence forgives the gult of sin, even though it does seem that you are clear on the Church’s teaching, it is too great a risk of misunderstanding, especially when one is engaged in apologetics and evangelism. It is essential that we clarify to those who have been misled on these matters, that the CC does not believe or teach that there can be no forgiveness of sins apart from the precious blood of Christ, shed for us on the cross.

 

[Peter_J]

Actually the pope emeritus Benedict declared that my hero Martin Luther was right. Thankfully the last few popes haven’t taken as hard a line as you seem to be.

Well, if “taking a hard line” mean “telling it like it is” then I would say yes they have!

 

[Per_Crucem]

After over 26,000 posts, I suspect that no poster on this board, save one, would for a moment believe that Guanophore is anything but a loyal and learned Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Contrary to some, Guanophore defends the Catholic faith, not by attacking others, but by actually and regularly referring to the Catholic faith, and usually very convincingly.

There is not a poster on this board to whom I am more grateful for my growth in understanding of Catholicism than Guanophore.

Jon

Indeed.

 

[Denise1957]

The way you have phrased your understanding above appears opposite.

I would strongly encourage you to avoid using such language that an indulgence forgives the gult of sin, even though it does seem that you are clear on the Church’s teaching, it is too great a risk of misunderstanding, especially when one is engaged in apologetics and evangelism. It is essential that we clarify to those who have been misled on these matters, that the CC does not believe or teach that there can be no forgiveness of sins apart from the precious blood of Christ, shed for us on the cross.

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.

 

[Peter_J]

Spina refuses to be an apologist for Martin Luther,

Oh great now you just outted Spina.

 

[Peter_J]

 

[Per_Crucem]

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 don’t think anyone said that spina wasn’t Catholic. There was some confusion on my part as to whether spina thought that indulgences forgave the guilt of mortal sin (according to Catholic theology). That doesn’t mean I thought he/she was John Wycliffe.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Which Catholic here wants Spina to be a “Luther apologist”?

Jon

 

[spina1953]

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.

Hi Denise 1957: Thanks you so much for defending my thinking. I agree that I should have phrased in a more proper manor grammatically, but got caught up in the moment. I never as I recall, that I said that indulgences forgive sin. It was my understanding that one needs to be free of sin before any indulgence could be given or granted. There are rules concerning how indulgences might be granted.

In doing some research concerning Luther it seems that Luther had a lack of true understanding of indulgences and when Tetzel started preaching on indulgences in Juterberg, a small town in Saxony, not far from Wittenberg, where apparently the preaching of indulgences were not allowed; to which it appears that Tetzel was not aware of, might have in effect caused Luther to a short time later to post his 95 Theses in 1517.

In 1518 Luther published his sermon on Indulgences and Grace and Tetzel a month later responded with a publication of his Rebuttal of Luther’s "presumptuous idea’s. Then in Jan.20th,1518, a regional chapter meeting in Frankfurt. 300 Dominican’s gathered to hold a disputation concerning Luther’s 95 Theses. They presented 106 Frankfurt Theses to refute the Augustinian Luther’s Theses. I now wonder if this caused Luther to go off the deep end concerning Indulgences because Tetzel preached them in a place were it was not allowed to be preached?

 

[Per_Crucem]

In doing some research concerning Luther it seems that Luther had a lack of true understanding of indulgences and when Tetzel started preaching on indulgences in Juterberg, a small town in Saxony, not far from Wittenberg, where apparently the preaching of indulgences were not allowed; to which it appears that Tetzel was not aware of, might have in effect caused Luther to a short time later to post his 95 Theses in 1517

In what sense did Luther misunderstand indulgences?

 

[Denise1957]

Oh great now you just outted Spina.

Well, maybe I overstated my case a bit here. I should let spina speak for himself (herself?)

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise 1957: Thanks you so much for defending my thinking. I agree that I should have phrased in a more proper manor grammatically, but got caught up in the moment. I never as I recall, that I said that indulgences forgive sin. It was my understanding that one needs to be free of sin before any indulgence could be given or granted. There are rules concerning how indulgences might be granted.

In doing some research concerning Luther it seems that Luther had a lack of true understanding of indulgences and when Tetzel started preaching on indulgences in Juterberg, a small town in Saxony, not far from Wittenberg, where apparently the preaching of indulgences were not allowed; to which it appears that Tetzel was not aware of, might have in effect caused Luther to a short time later to post his 95 Theses in 1517.

In 1518 Luther published his sermon on Indulgences and Grace and Tetzel a month later responded with a publication of his Rebuttal of Luther’s "presumptuous idea’s. Then in Jan.20th,1518, a regional chapter meeting in Frankfurt. 300 Dominican’s gathered to hold a disputation concerning Luther’s 95 Theses. They presented 106 Frankfurt Theses to refute the Augustinian Luther’s Theses. I now wonder if this caused Luther to go off the deep end concerning Indulgences because Tetzel preached them in a place were it was not allowed to be preached?

Just a few thoughts here. I wonder, too, if Tetzel’s speaking on indulgences where it wasn’t allowed really bothered Luther. I’d also like to know more about the Dominican’s presentation of Tetzel’s 106 Frankfort Theses as a refutation of Luther. Has the Catholic Church, I wonder, ever said that Tetzel’s Theses wasn’t an accurate rebuttal of Luther?

 

[Denise1957]

In what sense did Luther misunderstand indulgences?

A bit lengthy, but worth the time and effort:

pitts.emory.edu/DigiTexts/Documents/Tetzel.pdf

 

[spina1953]

Let me be very clear. First I am a Catholic and a Discalced Carmelite Secular, a male. As to indulgences I do understand what it is and what it does. Indulgences is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven… This is from the CCC on Indulgences. there is more but this think makes the point.

Tetzel was accused of selling indulgences to the dead in that somehow those who had dies where in some mortal sin. This does not sound to me to be the case in that while an indulgence can be offered to someone who is dead, the person who is granted the indulgence must as I understand it free from grave sin and minor sin at the time when the indulgence is granted or it is void. We do not know if those who wanted indulgence for the dead were free from sin, but my guess is that they were since Tetzel was very well knowledgeable concerning indulgences at least from the Rebuttal he gave to Luther’s 95 Theses. I am thinking that maybe because Tetzel was preaching in Juterberg on indulgences where who whatever reason preaching of indulgence was not allowed, inflamed Luther. It also seems that Luther prior to Tetzel preaching on indulgences in Juterberg Luther already had idea different from what the CC was teaching. It also seems to me that if it was not indulgences it would have been something else. While there abuses going on in the CC that did need reforming, Luther because of his stubbornness refused to concede anything concerning his own ideas and everyone else was wrong and he was right.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Let me be very clear. First I am a Catholic and a Discalced Carmelite Secular, a male. As to indulgences I do understand what it is and what it does. Indulgences is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven… This is from the CCC on Indulgences. there is more but this think makes the point.

When you said this:

From what I just read from www.etwn library on indulgences, indulgences can and do remove the guilt of the sin

It gave me the opposite impression.

Tetzel was accused of selling indulgences to the dead in that somehow those who had dies where in some mortal sin.

He was not accused of selling indulgences for the dead who have mortal sin, but he was accused of selling indulgences for the dead where the living giver of the indulgence was in mortal sin; as if simply offering money without being in a state of grace was sufficient.

This is what, for example, New Advent criticizes him for (as well as the German Catholic scholar Ludwig von Pastor).

 

[spina1953]

The way I see it is that if someone repents of the sin committed God removes the guilt. not the punishment if I understand it correctly. Indulgences remove some or all of the temporal punishment due to the sin that has been forgiven.

As for Tetzel either way granting an indulgence to anyone who is in either moral or venial sin is a no- no so far as I understand. I think Luther was confused in that he was saying that Tetzel was selling indulgences which is not done but Tetzel was saying in his Rebuttal that if one give alms or giving money to the Church for the sake of God as a good work and not for one’s gain than the indulgences is granted. Tetzel as I understand from his rebuttal would have given an indulgence without any money being offered, although there were those who were selling indulgences. We do not know and I think Luther did not know whether or not any person granted an indulgence was in a state of mortal or venial sin when granted an indulgence. I am thinking from what I have so far been reading on the subject that Luther was not happy that Tetzel or anyone else preaching on indulgences in what he thought was his territory, and the thought of someone preaching on indulgences where it was not permitted, and when he saw people from Wittenberg going to Juterberg for gain indulgences it upset him to the point he decided to post his 95 Theses. It was in 1541 that Luther in one if his most violent phipippics that he relates “That many people at Wittenberg flocked after indulgences to Juterberg’.” (Wider Hans Worst In Sammtl. W.", XXVI,50-53) It seems very obvious to me that for whatever reason Luther was not happy about indulgences being granted by Tetzel as Luther it appears already had made up his mind about indulgences. Even before his posting of his 95 Theses, his professors told him that he was going down the wrong road and not to preach or teach contrary to what the CC teaches.

 

[spina1953]

It is not erroneous not is it speculation. As for the JDDJ, what authority does it have to pronounce doctrine on anything?

It would appear that you have bought into the false Legend of Luther at least in regards to the quality of his education and probably the quality of his Theology and Scriptural Exegesis. While what you say here is true, what is interesting is that, especially in the beginning ALL of the better educated Theologians and Scriptural Exegetes ALL told him that his beliefs were not in keeping with those of the Church. There is much in the literature which portray Luther as, at best, a mediocre Theologian. After all, how else would you account for all of those pronouncements against the Jews, peasants, Anabaptists (while furiously quoting Scripture) as coming from anything but a poor Christian Theologian.

Given the relatively poor education of the clergy of the day, hat is not exactly a very high (or low as the case may be) bar, but certainly is one which allows Luther to clear it. The circumstances surrounding his ‘assignment’ to Wittenberg do not exactly work in his favor.

While I appreciate your limited agreement, his rebellion actually WAS against against the Church. In an astonishing letter of May 1518, Luther makes it extremely clear that his goal was to uproot the ecclesiastical laws and papal regulations, in essence bringing down the Church by destroying the structure of authority. This was only a few short months after he supposedly posted his 95 Theses.

“Some time during the **early spring of 1518 **Luther had received a letter from his former professor of philosophy at the University of Erfurt, Jodocus Trutfetter, a man whom he deeply respected and who had expected great service to the Church from so able a mind and so strong a personality as Luther. Now Professor Trutfetter solemnly warned his former student against the path he was taking, urging him to turn back before it was too late. On May 9 Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose, ‘a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of the greatest weight for me, much less than that of any others, can turn me aside.’ Martin Luther, (Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267

What this letter shows is that even after only slight (compared to later) opposition, Luther was ready to bring down the Church as it was known in his day.

This is exactly the point. Luther did not see himself as going against the teachings of the Church. For the 16 or so months leading up to the Leipzig Debate, dozens of much better Theologians warned him that his beleifs were outside of Catholic teaching. He continued to claim that – no, HE was right and was correctly representing the teachings of the historic Church. THEY were the ones who were wrong. At Leipzig, Luther came to understand what all of those Theologians already knew, that HE was the one who was out of step with the Church. A ‘good’ Theologian would have known that he was out of step LONG before Luther was finally convinced of that fact.

E. G. Schweibert, Professor of History at Wittenberg College puts it this way:

“He had begun to drift from the pale of the Roman Church as early as 1506, but he did not realize the full extent of his departure until the Leipzig Debate in 1519.” “Luther and His Times”, pg. 282

There is only one way that a Catholic Theologian could possibly be unaware for 13 years of the fact that he was drifting away from the teachings of His Church – and that would be that he didn’t know that teaching very well.

God Bless You guano, Topper

Hi Topper I am enjoying your posts as they are very informative. Luther it seems in the beginning may have wanted only to reform and not leave the CC but over time when his views were not accepted he grew violent towards the CC and all it stands for. I am hoping that you will post the 50 things you spoke about as I think it would be helpful in our understanding of the issues being discussed.