Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[guanophore]

“By the teaching he laid himself open to just censure and reproach. To condition a plenary indulgence for the dead on the mere gift of money, without contrition on the part of the giver, was as repugnant to the teaching of the Church, as it violated every principle of elementary justice.”

I wonder what the without contrition on the part of the giver referred to…? Not confessing mortal sins, perhaps?

I can see how “without contrition on the part of the giver” could certainly be understood as failure to confess a mortal sin, but how does this represent that Tetzel and others were acting consistently with the Teaching of the Church? It seems to me that it is saying just the
opposite - such a practice is “repugnant to the teaching of the Church”.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I can see how “without contrition on the part of the giver” could certainly be understood as failure to confess a mortal sin, but how does this represent that Tetzel and others were acting consistently with the Teaching of the Church? It seems to me that it is saying just the
opposite - such a practice is “repugnant to the teaching of the Church”.

Tetzel wasn’t acting consistently with the teaching of the Church. That is partly why Luther wrote the 95 theses to begin with. That is the entire point of them, after all. The theses points that were under consideration here - namely #75 - had to do with Luther pointing out that Tetzel’s practice was in contradiction of accepted dogma.

 

[guanophore]

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

There is no need for a prounouncement of doctrine. It is simply a document that makes it clear that Luther’s concept of justification by faith is consistent with the Traditional and Apostolic Teaching held infallibly by the Holy Spirit through the Church.

 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.

In later life, yes, but throughout his formation in monastery and in university, he was taught the best material that was available. He was not just some uppity layman that got too outspoken, but a son of the Church. If he had been heterodox, he never would have been welcome in an Augustinian order, nor would he have been ordained as a priest. He certainly would not have been appointed as a theology/scripture professor at the university.

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.

Personally, I find him to be a very psychologically disturbed person.

Calvin was brilliant, but he did the same thing. I am not claiming that Luther is the brightest bulb in the closet. Honestly, I don’t know, but I do know he received an excellent priestly education, and had a solid foundation in very Catholic theology.

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.

You are making my point for me. His education was much better than the average cleric. Unlike many of them, he enjoyed studying, writing, and discourse on theological matters.

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.

That letter was written after the Augsburg debate, and Luther travelled a long way in a short time. I am not disputing that the results of his actions were divisive, ,or that it has been a great detriment to the Church (not to mention the peasants and the Jews!). My point is that he did not start out this way. He started out with legitimate complaints (as evidenced by the fact that they were addressed in the counter-reformaiton).

There were a good many ecclesiastical laws and papal regulations that needed uprooting, the seizing of people’s lands, homes, and property for instance.

“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

It turns out that Luther was exactly right. You note here that he said nothing about changing doctrine?

It was the practices of the Church, and the structure supporting the outrageous and downright evil activities that were justified by laws, regulations, theology, philosophy and logic. All this desecration was the result of the Church getting involved in secular politics, purchasing thrones and large portions of countries, and behaving like a civil state. The greed, abuse of power, and corruption was running rampant. And it was justified using these structures.

 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.

I think you are in error, Topper. Abuse of power is not “the Church” and unjust laws and philosophical justification for wickedness is also not the Church. The Church founded by Christ is not of this world, and has no need to have fingers involved in every single royal throne in Europe as it did at the time, selling bishoprics and confiscating personal properties of people who fell outside of favor. These things have nothing to do with Church.

 

[Denise1957]

Tetzel wasn’t acting consistently with the teaching of the Church. That is partly why Luther wrote the 95 theses to begin with. That is the entire point of them, after all. The theses points that were under consideration here - namely #75 - had to do with Luther pointing out that Tetzel’s practice was in contradiction of accepted dogma.

In what way did Tetzel act, according to authoritative and verifiable Catholic sources, that wasn’t consistent with Church teaching?

 

[Per_Crucem]

In what way did Tetzel act, according to authoritative and verifiable Catholic sources, that wasn’t consistent with Church teaching?

From every Catholic source I have seen so far (chiefly New Advent and German Catholic scholar Ludwig von Pastor), Tetzel’s preaching *as it relates to indulgences for the dead *was not consistent with Catholic teaching (aside from the issues surrounding money).

 

[Denise1957]

From every Catholic source I have seen so far (chiefly New Advent and German Catholic scholar Ludwig von Pastor), Tetzel’s preaching *as it relates to indulgences for the dead *was not consistent with Catholic teaching (aside from the issues surrounding money).

New Advent uses as its source for Tetzel’s supposed ‘selling of indulgences without contrition of the giver’ on Tetzel’s Frankfort Theses. Well, this can’t be verified at all from reading Tetzel’s theses. I can’t find it. Maybe you would be willing to read it and try to find it. But as far as I can tell, New Advent didn’t get its research right.

And as for Ludwig von Pastor, could you please please tell us what he wrote that incriminates Tetzel, and what his sources were in doing so?

It’s probably annoying for non-Catholics when Catholics insist on verification and verifiable sources. One of the things that I was surprised by when I was still a Protestant and looking into Catholicism is the insistence by Catholics on proper sources, due to the need for integrity, and allegiance to the 8th commandment.

 

[Per_Crucem]

New Advent uses as its source for Tetzel’s supposed ‘selling of indulgences without contrition of the giver’ on Tetzel’s Frankfort Theses. Well, this can’t be verified at all from reading Tetzel’s theses. I can’t find it. Maybe you would be willing to read it and try to find it. But as far as I can tell, New Advent didn’t get its research right.

And as for Ludwig von Pastor, could you please please tell us what he wrote that incriminates Tetzel, and what his sources were in doing so?

It’s probably annoying for non-Catholics when Catholics insist on verification and verifiable sources. One of the things that I was surprised by when I was still a Protestant and looking into Catholicism is the insistence by Catholics on proper sources, due to the need for integrity, and allegiance to the 8th commandment.

books.google.com/books?id=Y1QZaRY6Q4UC&pg=PA348#v=onepage&q&f=false

I know how that sources thing goes. What with the 40,000 denominations claim and all

 

[JonNC]

In what way did Tetzel act, according to authoritative and verifiable Catholic sources, that wasn’t consistent with Church teaching?

Hi Denise,
From this very website:

Full Question

One of the causes of the Reformation was the selling of indulgences. Does the Catholic Church still sell them?

Answer

That’s like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. T**his is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. **This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.

The bolding is mine

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-catholic-church-still-sell-indulgences

 

[Denise1957]

books.google.com/books?id=Y1QZaRY6Q4UC&pg=PA348#v=onepage&q&f=false

I know how that sources thing goes. What with the 40,000 denominations claim and all

Thanks for the link, which does have footnotes, and I’ll try to find the original sources, but if they are in German, it won’t be much good, even assuming that I can find an online source. It’s not that I don’t trust von Pastor to tell the truth, but he does have a subjective style, and may have read his own thoughts into the matter. He’s not really what I would consider to be an authoritative source on Tetzel. I would like to see Tetzel’s own writings, or his sermons, in order to know for sure.

A little farther down on the pages you linked to (page 351) von Pastor writes, regarding Luther:

“The primary object of the Wittenberg professor’s attack was the teaching body of the Church, especially the Pope and Archbishop of Mayence, whom Luther regarded as chiefly responsible for abuses. In his secret heart it was not the abuses of the actual system of indulgences which was at the bottom of Luther’s action.”

So how does von Pastor know what Luther thought in his secret heart? It lends to the thought of mine that von Pastor may have included subjective views.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise,
From this very website:

The bolding is mine

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-catholic-church-still-sell-indulgences

I think that it would be good to do some research into what exactly the Church had taught pre-Reformation regarding indulgences, using authoritative sources, if possible.

 

[manualman]

Before you can understand the abuse of Indulgences, you have to understand what they actually are. Indulgences have nothing to do with permission to sin or even constituting some sort of “get out of guilt free” card. Catholic theology has always understood Christ to be our Savior and that without Him and the Grace of His sacrifice on the cross, none of us would have any hope of salvation. We’ve further always understood that the Good News is not just that our sins would be “covered” but that both our sins and our very inclination to sin would be healed before we entered heaven.

Sin both incurs guilt and damages the human soul (both that of the sinner and others as well). Because Christ does not intend to merely cover over our sin and let us into heaven on some sort of legal loophole, we must be sanctified before entering heaven. So while Grace justifies us, God expects us to cooperate in our sanctification. This is what Purgatory is about. Purgatory is little more than a logical necessity if heaven is populated by sinless and fully sanctified believers who are no longer even attracted to sin. For that to be true, there must be a completion of that sanctification since most of us are quite clearly not perfect yet at the moment of death.

Indulgences are endorsements of things that the church has recognized as vehicles of sanctification. Penance and restitution are marvelous means of offering up our consciences to be healed and restored after the damage of sin. Charitable giving CAN legitimately be one outlet for this, which is probably the origin of “selling indulgences.” Unfortunately, experience has taught the church that human nature too easily misinterprets exhortations to give alms as a quantitative means of penance and sanctification. It becomes a means to avoid repentance rather than an expression of it.

But the underlying principle that gave rise to the problem is actually valid: Personal financial sacrifice for the glory of God as an expression of penance and desire for restitution is a powerful thing to be encouraged!

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise,
From this very website:

The bolding is mine

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-catholic-church-still-sell-indulgences

I think that the Church did allow indulgences to be sold. Which I personally don’t have a problem with.

In Tetzel’s Vorlegung (rebuttal to Luther) it seems evident to me that the Church did allow indulgences to be sold. Read Luther’s #16 and Tetzels’ rebuttal and see if it does not seem that the Church allowed this. Here’s part of Tetzel’s rebuttal (page 26):

“Further, everyone should know that buying an indulgence is a work of mercy, and it concludes in quite an un-Christian manner in maintaining that an indulgence is the omission of many good works.”

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

 

[Peter_J]

From every Catholic source I have seen so far (chiefly New Advent and German Catholic scholar Ludwig von Pastor), Tetzel’s preaching *as it relates to indulgences for the dead *was not consistent with Catholic teaching (aside from the issues surrounding money).

I haven’t been in on this segment of the conversation, but just to put the Newadvent cite (and site) in perspective, it’s like if next week I reference the same thing and cite you as source.

 

[manualman]

Oh, I forgot the OP question.

Luther was an Augustinian monk/priest with a bad scrupulosity problem and a serious issue with pride. Not that I’m better, I just have different issues! His scrupulosity tormented him, but his pride prevented him from seeking normal spiritual direction assistance for the problem.

Instead he wrestled with his issue and eventually developed his revolutionary “Sola Fide” principle by which he sought to silence his hyper-active conscience. You have to give him credit for creativity. If you can’t make your conscience shut up about ridiculous little details, the next best thing is to surrender to it’s constant accusations cheerfully because it’s all irrelevant! Clever!

While his new theory may actually be very nearly what a scrupulous person NEEDS to hear to counter the problems of his soul, it has a very disastrous effect on the common man with an ordinary conscience: Cheap Grace. When Luther was confronted about the defects of his new theology, his solution was almost as novel. Sola Scriptura. Sola Fide had to be defended at all costs and since the teaching authority ruled against it, the teaching authority had to go and a replacement installed. By elevating Scripture Alone to the highest authority, Luther needed only to use his considerable wit and prolific pen to silence any critics with appeals to HIS interpretation of Scripture. Ironically, he tended to get rather testy with those who used the same trick to promote their own interpretations of Scripture that varied from Luther’s…

Add in some corrupt German princes eyeing up the resources and property of the church in their lands and looking for an excuse to plunder it and you’ve got yourself a new religion!

But I’m pretty sure he died in his bed, not at the stake. Catholics have all too much blood on their hands in history (we’re fallen sinners like everybody else), but not his.

 

[robwar]

Met his death by burning at the stakes in Feb 18, 1546 at the order of Pope Leo X. Is this claim by some protestants true?

where are you getting your information from because this is bogus. Even a simple google search on Martin Luther and wikipedia do not support what you are stating. Martin Luther after being ex-communicated, tore up the notice, married a nun and together had 6 children. As Catholic Farmer who was Lutheran pointed out, he was a troubled man and his religious order of which he was a monk in, didn’t quite deal with him right. He ended up teaching theology and the Bible for seminarians which is where he came up with his 5 solas.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I haven’t been in on this segment of the conversation, but just to put the Newadvent cite (and site) in perspective, it’s like if next week I reference the same thing and cite you as source.

If only New Advent were as reliable as me!

 

[spina1953]

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.

 

[manualman]

…it also appears that Luther had the my way or the highway attitude in that “I am correct and everyone else is wrong.”

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.

 

[Per_Crucem]

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!

Or when the Pope says, “I am tradition.” No pride issues there

 

[manualman]

Or when the Pope says, “I am tradition.” No pride issues there

Had Jesus actually handed the keys to Luther he might have had a bit of a defense for the assertion. A quibble though, surely. After all, who did Jesus think he was, establishing something as absurd as a Petrine office?