Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[guanophore]

It might be a good idea to find out which of his ideas were found sound and which were addressed in the counter-reformation.

Yes, I agree! You will find some links on this thread to some of the areas where the CC affirms that he was correct. I recommend the Joint Declaration as a good start.

I assume that you are referring to Trent, where more firm rules were promulgated regarding indulgences. That doesn’t mean, though, that Luther’s views on indulgences were correct. All it means, as far I can tell, is that abuses were reigned in.

As well as afterwards, the Church removed anything that would even give the appearance that indulgences could be “sold”. And more recently, the Church has forbidden her clerics to serve in political office, which eliminates most of the occasions of sin that existed through the conflation of secular and religious authority.

You mention that Luther was right about reading scriptures daily. Well, how

were the faithful going to read scripture daily when there was not really a way to make Bibles available for everyone?

I urge you to consider what were among the first books to come off the Guentberg press

Regarding his being right about the Eucharist - well, that’s just Church teaching, which he happened to agree with.

It is important that we affirm any and all of the Apostolic Teaching, whereever it is found.

Eph 5:9
the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true

whether it be spoken by a wild boar in the vinyard, or the saint in the cloister.

 

[spina1953]

I thought that Abbot Staupitz sent Luther on pilgrimage to Rome because he was so disquieted (scrupulous) that he did not feel forgiven even right after confession?

Luther visited the shrines and possibly ascended Pilate’s staircase on his knees, as most pilgrims did at the time. As a monk he would have had access to areas of the Holy City that the average Christian pilgrim did not, which is why he may have been able to observe priests & bishops acting immorally & abusing their power. I must confess I never understood his comment “I went with onions & returned with garlic”. What does that mean?

From by research it does seem that while we can say that Luther was a very stubborn man there seems to be some heterodoxy in the man, who that exactly happened is sure to be up for debate to say the least. I also think because it seems to me that Luther when he became a doctor of Theology that it quite went to his head and his ego grew, and coupled with his fear of not being saved only caused him to narrow minded in his thinking on indulgences as well as in other doctrinal matters. You I think made a good point in that it is very doubtful that Luther in any way could be silenced, and pitting himself against a strong personality like Pope Leo X was a ready made for ruin. I do agree that there were some things that needed to be reformed and Luther I see pointed out some of them but when he decided that he was correct and the CC was wrong and would not accept what he was promoting, it set him off, and over time it just got worse and worse to the point that hatred consumed him and those who opposed him.

Hi Guanophore: I have read that to that Luther was sent by Abbot Staupitz, yet so as I understand that is debatable as it is by Luther’s word that he went to Rome. Did Luther really go to Rome? I do not know and it is really deciding who or which researcher or historian one want to believe or accept on the matter.

Luther it seems or appears to have been very much scrupulous and that may have stemmed from his youth or when he when he became a monk, but my thinking is that it all started when he was a youth from his mother who it seemed was very devote but far to strict thinking that anything done wrong or poorly was to be punished severely. It does appear if one takes into consideration of what Luther reveals about himself and those who wrote bio’s on him that his upbringing was abusive to say nothing of how he was treated by his parents. I am sure that this led to his failure to understand that when he confessed whatever sins he had or thought he has there was not satisfaction or peace to be found and I think now that because of his upbringing and the strictness of it and the abuse he was dealt with caused his notion that he would or could never be saved no matter what he did.

Over time, this grew to the point to where he came up with the doctrine of saved by faith alone in order to bring peace to his tormented mind. I also think that his parents were also very stubborn people and that is where he got it and would never back down since it seems that his parents were people who did not back down from their beliefs and actions of discipline.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Denise 1957: I think the Vorlogung or Tetzel’s Rebuttal against Luther’s 95 Theses is a good place to start. I think Catholic Encyclopedia has it and I think you have it or read it; it is where one sees what is wrong with the Theses of Luther. Also Exsarge Domine is also good as it spells out why the CC did not accept Luther’s notions. Yes, in time the CC reformed many of the abuses that were going on and have been going on for a long time. The real problem is that Lu7ther would not back down and thought that anyone who apposed his and his idea’s needed to be violently attacked in order to quiet them and of course Luther did have a way with words as he liked to make his attacks in German the language he spoke and the people spoke and that is one reason as to why he was so successful in gaining followers to his cause.

 

[Denise1957]

Yes, I agree! You will find some links on this thread to some of the areas where the CC affirms that he was correct. I recommend the Joint Declaration as a good start.

As well as afterwards, the Church removed anything that would even give the appearance that indulgences could be “sold”. And more recently, the Church has forbidden her clerics to serve in political office, which eliminates most of the occasions of sin that existed through the conflation of secular and religious authority.

You mention that Luther was right about reading scriptures daily. Well, how

I urge you to consider what were among the first books to come off the Guentberg press

It is important that we affirm any and all of the Apostolic Teaching, whereever it is found.

Eph 5:9
the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true

whether it be spoken by a wild boar in the vinyard, or the saint in the cloister.

I’m not interesting in the joint declaration.

It seems that while Luther was concerned about the abuses attached to indulgences, he also held heterodox views regarding church teaching about indulgences. In doing a bit of research, I found that it was Pope Pius V who decreed that no financial fee or alm of any kind could be attached to indulgences. But Trent upheld the Churche’s teaching on indulgences. I’ll find the quote. Luther was not right about indulgences, only the abuses that sometimes came from alms being attached to them.

I’m aware of the Gutenberg Bibles. Pretty standard knowledge.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise 1957: I think the Vorlogung or Tetzel’s Rebuttal against Luther’s 95 Theses is a good place to start. I think Catholic Encyclopedia has it and I think you have it or read it; it is where one sees what is wrong with the Theses of Luther. Also Exsarge Domine is also good as it spells out why the CC did not accept Luther’s notions. Yes, in time the CC reformed many of the abuses that were going on and have been going on for a long time. The real problem is that Lu7ther would not back down and thought that anyone who apposed his and his idea’s needed to be violently attacked in order to quiet them and of course Luther did have a way with words as he liked to make his attacks in German the language he spoke and the people spoke and that is one reason as to why he was so successful in gaining followers to his cause.

Tetzel’s Vorlegung is indeed a good place to start. It’s odd that no Lutherans here or their Catholic supporters here are interested in reading it, though. I read through Exserge Domine (sp?), but it’s a bit difficult to read in that it doesn’t address the specifics of Luther’s 95 theses, or maybe I’m just not seeing it. And while the Church reformed the abuses, it did not change Church teaching regarding indulgences. I’ll try to find a list of the decrees from Trent.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am doing a monologue on St. Francis of Assisi comparing his sense of reform to that of Martin Luther…and it is just that, a monologue.

For many years, I just felt Francis literally was dropped out of the sky, not seeing how he could become the saint he became until the retreat master presented his topic that Francis was suffering from post traumatic syndrome, the priest himself ministering to war vets.

This retreat was so insightful to me, having studied the 12 steps and sharing it with my fraternity, that it caused me to go deeper into their personalities, psychology, and backgrounds.

I tend to keep seeing Luther as increasingly belligerent, and his personality not completely wholesome and benevolent as Francis’ – considering he grew up in Italy and we are reading about the state of Italy vs Christian spirituality lived out there.

About Jan Hus, the Mormons and other fringe sects see him as a martyr and of course, do not even touch on what exactly were his beliefs.

Reading these threads, plus those of consubstantiation vs transubstantion…the actual physical presence of the Lord Who remains with us…no relativism…He is or He is not…grieves all the more for the restoration of one faith, one baptism, one body of the Lord.

Get hold of Scriptural text, make them your own…and we have the breakdown of faith and family and subsequently society with no universal Christian faith that is both spiritual and actual physical…the Incarnated Word.

Plus there is the perception of ongoing mistrust of any final authority given us by God.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Some seem to forget that Martin Luther sought episcopal ordinations for priests and when denied in Germany, Augsburg Confession found a way to justify presbyter ordinations. Yes, we all know that Luther became angry; like a relative who has a falling out with the family. Thankfully, apostolic succession is unbroken in Sweden/ Finland.

Lutherans are cousins with Catholics who seek reunion with the holy Father,

 

[Denise1957]

Here’s one of Trent sessions which address Indulgences. Scroll about three-fourths of the way down:

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html

Decree concerning Indulgences

“Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved [page 278] by the authority of Sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who assert, that, they are useless; or who deny that there is in the church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation must be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesiastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of this honorable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by their decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,-- whence a most prolific cause of abuse amongst the Christian people have been derived – be wholly abolished.”

 

[spina1953]

Tetzel’s Vorlegung is indeed a good place to start. It’s odd that no Lutherans here or their Catholic supporters here are interested in reading it, though. I read through Exserge Domine (sp?), but it’s a bit difficult to read in that it doesn’t address the specifics of Luther’s 95 theses, or maybe I’m just not seeing it. And while the Church reformed the abuses, it did not change Church teaching regarding indulgences. I’ll try to find a list of the decrees from Trent.

Hi Denise 1957: I think that Catholic Encyclopedia has the Exsarge Domine in English I think I remember reading there. You are correct in that the way it is written does not seem to addresses all of the issues of Luther but I think it was more in the general style of the times. It is more in line with the reasons as to why the CC excommunicated Luther and the doctrines Luther was teaching. You are also correct in that while the CC did reform many of the abuses that were going on they did not change their teaching on indulgences as it was Scripture based. Let me know if you find the list of decrees from Trent as I would like to read that also as it might bring some light into why Luther was excommunicated.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise 1957: I think that Catholic Encyclopedia has the Exsarge Domine in English I think I remember reading there. You are correct in that the way it is written does not seem to addresses all of the issues of Luther but I think it was more in the general style of the times. It is more in line with the reasons as to why the CC excommunicated Luther and the doctrines Luther was teaching. You are also correct in that while the CC did reform many of the abuses that were going on they did not change their teaching on indulgences as it was Scripture based. Let me know if you find the list of decrees from Trent as I would like to read that also as it might bring some light into why Luther was excommunicated.

Here are the texts of the Council of Trent. Scroll about three-fourths of the way down for the “Decree concerning Indulgences.”

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html

What I find interesting is that Trent does not condemn alms being attached to indulgences - but rather abuses that might be attributed to it. Trent was held from 1545-1563. It wasn’t until the reign of Pope Pius V that the alms, or fees, for indulgences were cancelled by him in 1567, three years later, after Trent finished.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It seems like we talk in a vacuum of old wounds versus reunion. Doctrinal relationship between Lutheran and Catholic is close; Lutherans must have apostolic succession. Issues such as female priest/ bishop have not been ironed out.

Keep in mind that there are several holy days in honor of Martin Luther, a man who threw ink at the devil. reformation.org/luther.html

 

[Denise1957]

This is a useful thread, in that it concerns who Martin Luther was, and why he was excommunicated. I’m learning a lot from this thread, both from other forum members, and from the research that has accompanied the questions posed here. It’s been quite informative.

 

[spina1953]

Here are the texts of the Council of Trent. Scroll about three-fourths of the way down for the “Decree concerning Indulgences.”

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html

What I find interesting is that Trent does not condemn alms being attached to indulgences - but rather abuses that might be attributed to it. Trent was held from 1545-1563. It wasn’t until the reign of Pope Pius V that the alms, or fees, for indulgences were cancelled by him in 1567, three years later, after Trent finished.

Hi Denise 1957: I did find it and thanks for the information. You are correct in that indulgences the fees for them were cancelled, however, The CC never taught that one was to pay for indulgences any monies given were strictly donations given freely as alms and not for the purpose of buying indulgences, but they of course those who did in fact abuse it and that was why it was in the end any giving of monies or alms in connection with indulgences were dropped. It was just to easy to abuse and confusing where monies were given with the granting of indulgences.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise 1957: I did find it and thanks for the information. You are correct in that indulgences the fees for them were cancelled, however, The CC never taught that one was to pay for indulgences any monies given were strictly donations given freely as alms and not for the purpose of buying indulgences, but they of course those who did in fact abuse it and that was why it was in the end any giving of monies or alms in connection with indulgences were dropped. It was just to easy to abuse and confusing where monies were given with the granting of indulgences.

It’s good that you point out that the CC never taught that one was to pay for indulgences, and that any monies given were donations given freely as alms and not for the purpose of buying indulgences.

But I can see why Pope Pius V cancelled the alms that can accompany indulgences, since it can be prone to abuse.

As an aside, I once asked a priest about why was that the Precious Blood (consecrated wine) at Mass was, for centuries, not offered to the Faithful for consumption until the New Mass was promulgated in the late 1960’s. He said that it was because of abuses in the old days that the practice was no longer allowed, and the Precious Blood was only then consumed by the priest. Which of course shows that even though a practice isn’t wrong, it can be subject to abuse. Chalk it up to human nature and original sin.

 

[spina1953]

It’s good that you point out that the CC never taught that one was to pay for indulgences, and that any monies given were donations given freely as alms and not for the purpose of buying indulgences.

But I can see why Pope Pius V cancelled the alms that can accompany indulgences, since it can be prone to abuse.

As an aside, I once asked a priest about why was that the Precious Blood (consecrated wine) at Mass was, for centuries, not offered to the Faithful for consumption until the New Mass was promulgated in the late 1960’s. He said that it was because of abuses in the old days that the practice was no longer allowed, and the Precious Blood was only then consumed by the priest. Which of course shows that even though a practice isn’t wrong, it can be subject to abuse. Chalk it up to human nature and original sin.

Denise 1957: Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I do agree that it was due to abuses in the middle ages I think that communion the Precious Blood was not given to the laity, till the 1960’s. If you read the history of the Mass and St. Paul in one of his Epistles stalked about how some were abusing Communion, I just do not remember just now which Epistle it was.

 

[guanophore]

I'm not interesting in the joint declaration.

I find it curious that you would come into a thread with this title, and yet be disinterested it what your own Magesterium is doing to heal the wounds to unity.

It seems that while Luther was concerned about the abuses attached to indulgences, he also held heterodox views regarding church teaching about indulgences. In doing a bit of research, I found that it was Pope Pius V who decreed that no financial fee or alm of any kind could be attached to indulgences. But Trent upheld the Churche's teaching on indulgences. I'll find the quote. Luther was not right about indulgences, only the abuses that sometimes came from alms being attached to them.

Yes, more heterodoxy later than earlier. Luther was right about indulgences, and he was right that they were being abused.

If you are not interested in the Joint Declaration, published on your own Vatican website, itis unlikely that you have read or are willing to read the

Disputation of Martin Luther on Power and Efficacy of Indulgences. But if you were, you might see some things that might surprise you, such as

71 . He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed

I’m aware of the Gutenberg Bibles. Pretty standard knowledge.

Then you have left me confused with your question. I stated that Luther was right about encouraging Scripture reading, and you asked how that was practical, since people didn’t have them. Granted, they were not as common as they are now, but far more people had them than before the printing press!

I think literacy might have been as big of an issue.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben.

Thanks for your response.

In fact I stand by that statement. Why do you disagree? Specifically.

God bless you Ben.

Not sure what doctrines you think he challenged and don’t recall his 90 some points and don’t recall if he challenged sincerity or challenged effectualness of tetzel’s indulgencse on all grounds. Otherwise thought I was specific in previous post.

 

[spina1953]

According to Martin Luther he quoted " When many people from Wittenberg ran after indulgences to Juterberg and Zerbst, I did not know-as surely as my Lord Christ has redeemed me- what indulgences were… I carefully began to preach that one could do something better and more certain than to purchase indulgences" Source Martin Luther Wider Hans Worst 1541 ( WA 51,538) So now we have Luther saying by his own writing that he did not know what Indulgences were, but had no problem in calling Tetzel a braggart and claiming that Maximilian once sentenced Tetzel to drowning in the River Inn because of his great virtue and claiming Tetzel of peddling indulgences, selling grace for money as dearly and cheaply as he could. How did Luther even know if Tetzel was selling indulgences or not, when he did not go there or talked to the man?

Since Luther did not know what indulgences were, it appears that he was preaching and claiming things he did not know anything about. Luther was quick to condemn indulgences without knowing anything about them and also quick to condemn Tetzel for granting them, by claiming he was selling them when in fact Tetzel never sold any indulgence to anyone. Had Luther gone to Juterberg or Zerbst and spoke to Tezel, he just might have learned something about indulgences and also that Tetzel was not the sort of person who sold indulgences as Luther claimed.

Here we have the man Luther outright saying by his own words that he knew nothing about indulgences and what they were or how one was granted. He just went off half baked and attacked Tetzel without knowing any of the true facts of the man or what indulgences were. What Luther is really saying is that he had no knowledge of what indulgences were or how they were granted, but no matter, he decided to make false claims about Tetzel and try to pronounce and argue on indulgences he knew nothing about. Seems to me Luther wanted people to think that he knew when he didn’t.

 

[spina1953]

In doing some research about Luther, I came across this that Luther wrote. “After Tetzel had received a substantical amount of money at Leipzig, a nobleman asked him if it were possible to receive a letter of indulgence for a future sin. Tetzel quickly answered in the affirmative, insisting, however, that the payment had to be made at once. This the nobleman did, receiving thereupon letter and seal from Tetzel. When Tetzel left Leipzig the nobleman attacked him along the way, gave him a thorough beating, and sent him back empty-handed to Leipzig, with the comment that this was the future sin which he had in mind.” Source Luther’s Schriftan, herausg,von Walch XL,446.

First of all we do not know who this nobleman was. Also so far as anyone knows this incident never happened. Tetzel was well liked in Leipzig and never had any trouble there. There was never any proof that Tetzel ever sold indulgences or sold them for some future sin as Tetzel was very much knowledgeable concerning indulgences and as modern scholarship has pointed out nearly everything Luther claimed Tetzel did was bogus. This writing of Luther clearly shows that he had it out for Tetzel and was going to great lengths to discredit Tetzel in order to not only cast doubts on Tetzel but to further his own doctrines on indulgences that he had already said that he nothing about in his Wider Hans Worst pamphlet of 1541. All we have is Luther’s word that this incident happened to Tetzel, but no proof that it ever took place. This also show just how vindictive Luther could be towards someone he did not even know or even spoke to. Tetzel was able to prove that Luther’s 95 Theses was not doctrinally or theologically sound, to which inflamed Luther to make innuendo’s and make insidious remarks against Tetzel in order to make himself look better in the eyes of others.

 

[guanophore]

According to Martin Luther he quoted " When many people from Wittenberg ran after indulgences to Juterberg and Zerbst, I did not know-as surely as my Lord Christ has redeemed me- what indulgences were... I carefully began to preach that one could do something better and more certain than to purchase indulgences" Source Martin Luther Wider Hans Worst 1541 ( WA 51,538) So now we have Luther saying by his own writing that he did not know what Indulgences were

Context, context, context. It is clear that the meaning you are ascribing to this statement is not consistent with the facts. Luther collected indulgences himself, at least since he became a monk, and witnessed the actions of them for decades. He had not seen the papers Tetzel whas handing out, so he did not know specifically what they said, but this statement does not mean he knew not what they were. If you read the 95 Theses, it is clear that his beliefs about them are largely what the Church teaches today - that for them to be effective, one must be in a state of grace (repentant) and have a heart of contrition (commitment to sanctity). How could he write these if he did not understand them? He was right, it is not possible to purchase God’s grace.

 but had no problem in calling Tetzel a braggart and claiming that Maximilian once sentenced Tetzel to drowning in the River Inn because of his great virtue and claiming Tetzel of peddling indulgences, selling grace for money as dearly and cheaply as he could. How did Luther even know if Tetzel was selling indulgences or not, when he did not go there or talked to the man?

I am not excusing Luther’s boorish behavior, namecalling, or spouting about things of which he was ill informed. I don’t think he knew what Tetzel had (though he probably did later) and I think he was provoked because his parishioners were flocking over there instead of listening to him.

Since Luther did not know what indulgences were, it appears that he was  preaching and claiming things he did not know anything about.

A false conclusion emanating from a false premise.

Luther would have been well acquainted with the Papal indulgences given to his own order.

Luther was quick to condemn indulgences without knowing anything about them and also quick to condemn Tetzel for granting them, by claiming he was selling them when in fact Tetzel never sold any indulgence to anyone.

Actually, I don’t think his reaction was quick at all, but had been fomenting for years as he was developing his undersanding of salvation by grace, through faith, rather than works.

Even the Church acknowledged that Tetzel’s actions (and what was customary in that day) could give the appearance that an indulgence was being “sold” and that a person did not have to have a contrite heart or be in a state of grace.

Had Luther gone to Juterberg or Zerbst and spoke to Tezel, he just might have learned something about indulgences and also that Tetzel was not the sort of person who sold indulgences as Luther claimed.

Perhaps. we shall never know.

Here we have the man Luther outright saying by his own words that he knew nothing about indulgences and what they were or how one was granted.

No, we don’t. But I concede it is possible that his experience of indulgences was so different from what he had been told Tetzel was doing that he had to wonder if these indulgences were something completel foreign to his experience, which was that one could not be sold.

He just went off half baked and attacked Tetzel without knowing any of the true facts of the man or what indulgences were. What Luther is really saying is that he had no knowledge of what indulgences were or how they were granted, but no matter, he decided to make false claims about Tetzel and try to pronounce and argue on indulgences he knew nothing about. Seems to me Luther wanted people to think that he knew when he didn’t.

Apparently this is your own formulation of the facts.

Luther had valid complaints about the process, or else it would not have been corrected.