Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[Peter_J]

Latican II was taken by many to be a softening of that UltraMartin position.

Sheesh. Martin Martin Martin! (cf Jan -]Hus/-] Brady)

 

[guanophore]

May I have a couple of examples?

Annie

I think Topper has given about 50 good examples in post # 288. These types of unreferenced allegations appear spurious, do not contribute to any useful dialogue, and give the impression that the poster is only interested in calumny and detraction. It reminds me of Lorraine Boettners list, which has been extensivly plastered here. Topper would do well to follow the advice of Bishop Bron, especially with regard to checking facts and referencing credible sources.

I would also note that I see in some of the posts here (I was off the fora for quite some time) a drift away from the forum rules.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
[It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

I get the sense that modern Lutherans are being asked to “answer” for the words and deeds of Luther - words and deeds that are not accepted today by Lutherans.

I also see Luther being villified here on these threads. While I will be first in line to criticize his writings and methods in may areas, we must keep in mind that we are judging a person 500+ years after the fact, and that it is difficult for us to understand and appreciate the differences in culture and perspecitve.

And finally, it is our obligation to follow the lead of our Curia in the ecumenical dialogue with respect and prayerful confidence. Whatever were the shortcomings that existed in the people at the time of the Reformation, we don’t need to continue to repeat them with an attitude of blame, ,faultfinding, distrust and arrogance. This does nothing to heal the wounds to unity.

guanophore is your order connected in any way to The College St. Benedict and St. John’s University?

Thanks,

Annie

Not so far as I can tell. We are part of the Olivetan Congregation

 

[Annie39]

I think Topper has given about 50 good examples in post # 288. These types of unreferenced allegations appear spurious, do not contribute to any useful dialogue, and give the impression that the poster is only interested in calumny and detraction. It reminds me of Lorraine Boettners list, which has been extensivly plastered here. Topper would do well to follow the advice of Bishop Bron, especially with regard to checking facts and referencing credible sources.

I would also note that I see in some of the posts here (I was off the fora for quite some time) a drift away from the forum rules.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
[It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

I get the sense that modern Lutherans are being asked to “answer” for the words and deeds of Luther - words and deeds that are not accepted today by Lutherans.

I also see Luther being villified here on these threads. While I will be first in line to criticize his writings and methods in may areas, we must keep in mind that we are judging a person 500+ years after the fact, and that it is difficult for us to understand and appreciate the differences in culture and perspecitve.

And finally, it is our obligation to follow the lead of our Curia in the ecumenical dialogue with respect and prayerful confidence. Whatever were the shortcomings that existed in the people at the time of the Reformation, we don’t need to continue to repeat them with an attitude of blame, ,faultfinding, distrust and arrogance. This does nothing to heal the wounds to unity.

Not so far as I can tell. We are part of the http://www.monteolivetomaggiore.it/lang1/the_olivetan_benedictine_monks.html”]Olivetan Congregation

Are you in Italy or the Vayican?

Annie

 

[Denise1957]

Perhaps this is good time to repost Pope Leo’s Papal Bull which condemns the errors of Martin Luther:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

 

[spina1953]

How is it that Luther knew nothing of indulgences when his 95 points do seem to strike a dagger into the heart of the matter ?

The only answer to your question is from Luther’s own words. “When many people ran after indulgences to Juterbery and Zerbst, I did not know as surely as my Lord Christ has redeemed me what indulgences were.” Source Martin Luther Wider Has Worst, 1541, (WA 51, 538). He called Tetzel a braggart among other things. That being said, It seems that Luther based his thinking on indulgences on the hearsay of others as to what Tetzel was preaching, never once seeing for himself if the what was being said was even true. it does appear that Luther based his 95 These on whatever claims he decided was true even though he at the time Tetzel was preaching on indulgences said he did not know what indulgences were so there is nowhere else to go but to assume that Luther based his claims and thinking on hearsay as to Tetzel’s preaching’s.

Maybe had Luther went and spoke to the man and really listened to him, Luther might have come away form it with a different attitude on indulgences. Instead he decided to attack the man basing his thinking on hearsay from what he wrote about him. All it shows is that for whatever reason, Luther had it out for the man, and I think because of Tetzel’s Rebuttal to Luther’s thinking.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

Sorry for being slow to respond. I’m away from home for the next week.

Over the years I have heard Protestants claim that the Catholic Church was wrong to excommunicate Martin Luther. The following is a list of 50 doctrines that Luther challenged/refuted/revised and ALL before he was excommunicated in 1521.

You asked for it, but I have to tell you that I post the list with some reservations. It seems that every time I post it, I get several responses which claim that of course he was right to do so because the poster personally agrees with one of the 50 doctrinal issues (probably using their Private Interpretation to do so).

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. The tossing out of seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist).”

The above from, Armstrong, “Martin Luther, Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise”, Chapter One, Was Martin Luther a “Revolutionary” Who Had Many Fundamental Disagreements With the Catholic Church?

This is a list of things that Luther differed with the Church over BEFORE his excommunication.

Of course even very traditional Catholics can probably find one of the 50 with which they agree, but that is not at all the point. The point is the number of doctrinal issues which Luther rejected or revised.
**
Where did Luther ‘get’ the Authority to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church? ** No Church would put up with this kind of ‘independence’ (arrogance) and as we know, the Lutheran church certainly would not.

Did Luther’s ‘authority’ to demand that he was right (and everybody who disagreed with him was wrong) come from God? Did it come from Scripture? Did it come from his role as a monk, a priest, a Theologian, a Professor? Exactly what was it that should cause us to believe that Luther was right and the Church was wrong?

This thread is about why Luther was excommunicated. Rejecting/revising 50 important doctrines should be seen as the answer. It was the magnitude of Luther’s Revolt that resulted in his excommunication.

As we have learned, Lutherans are not allowed to use their Private Interpretation on doctrinal matters, and yet when I point this out to Lutherans as ask why what Luther did should be acceptable, I get nothing but silence.

Ben, rather than addressing one or more of the various 50 things, could you please address, from a Lutheran perspective, why what Luther did in rejecting SO MUCH of Catholic doctrine, is not exactly what the Lutheran church condemns.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

Hi Topper: The 50 doctrinal issues as to why Luther was excommunicated makes sense as to why Luther was excommunicated.

 

[Annie39]

Hi Topper: The 50 doctrinal issues as to why Luther was excommunicated makes sense as to why Luther was excommunicated.

I have personal knowledge that many of those doctrinal issues are true. What I didn’t know is that Luther said that Transubstantiation is “a monstrous word for a monstrous idea”. I looked it up, he did say that.

Also I know that he believed in “faith alone” and that one did not have to be contrite to be absloved one only had to believe. There are many other of those issues that I know to be true. I wish that those who believe that they are taken out of context would chose a couple of the most glaring and quote them in context. The Pope condemned all of Luther’s writings.
One thing though, I thought that Luther believed that only Peter was given the keys and there were no keys in succession.

Annie

 

[spina1953]

I have personal knowledge that many of those doctrinal issues are true. What I didn’t know is that Luther said that Transubstantiation is “a monstrous word for a monstrous idea”. I looked it up, he did say that.

Also I know that he believed in “faith alone” and that one did not have to be contrite to be absloved one only had to believe. There are many other of those issues that I know to be true. I wish that those who believe that they are taken out of context would chose a couple of the most glaring and quote them in context. The Pope condemned all of Luther’s writings.
One thing though, I thought that Luther believed that only Peter was given the keys and there were no keys in succession.

Annie

Hi Annie 39: I agree! One thing though is it appears that Luther could be very wishy- washy in that he could in one sense say one thing then in the next say something totally the opposite in the beginning of his teachings and writings. However, it seems that as time went by he got more and more radial in his thinking and statements against what he decided was against what he wanted to teach and preach… In the end he developed a real hatred towards the CC and the Pope. Why? all because the CC would not accept his teachings and new doctrines he wanted the CC to accept. Many of his ideas on doctrines also seem to stem from one Johann Hus, at least from what I have so far researched from some of Luther’s own writings.

 

[Annie39]

Hi Annie 39: I agree! One thing though is it appears that Luther could be very wishy- washy in that he could in one sense say one thing then in the next say something totally the opposite in the beginning of his teachings and writings. However, it seems that as time went by he got more and more radial in his thinking and statements against what he decided was against what he wanted to teach and preach… In the end he developed a real hatred towards the CC and the Pope. Why? all because the CC would not accept his teachings and new doctrines he wanted the CC to accept. Many of his ideas on doctrines also seem to stem from one Johann Hus, at least from what I have so far researched from some of Luther’s own writings.

I have one thing to say about Huss however. I do understand that capital punishment is sometimes the right thing to do and if people followed his doctrine they could put their souls in jeopardy which is worse than killing the body. However it seems that Huss actually believed what he taught or else why would he not recant since he was in danger of not only death but a torturous one. I know that it was necessary to remove him from the priesthood and for his doctrine to be condemned, but I cannot accept that his torturous death was a good

Annie

 

[spina1953]

I have one thing to say about Huss however. I do understand that capital punishment is sometimes the right thing to do and if people followed his doctrine they could put their souls in jeopardy which is worse than killing the body. However it seems that Huss actually believed what he taught or else why would he not recant since he was in danger of not only death but a torturous one. I know that it was necessary to remove him from the priesthood and for his doctrine to be condemned, but I cannot accept that his torturous death was a good

Annie

Hi Annie 39: I agree with you that while Hus’s doctrines and teachings were heretical one has to remember that the way people thought in those days are not the way we think in our day and age when it comes to false teachings. Though I do have to say that there are always going to be radicals out there with extreme views, and I do not see that changing anytime soon. People are going to believe what they want to believe whether it is true or not. That is because we have free will to choose and decide what to believe or not believe. As Jesus said those with ears let them hear and those with eyes let them see.

The only problem I see with capital punishment is that it does not stop those bent on committing crimes of a insidious nature, they continue to do so even though we do have capital punishment for these types of crimes. I do agree that the torturous death did not really end up being a good thing. it did not stop those willing to promote new doctrines since the reformation came about because Luther decided that his new doctrines were better than the CC’s doctrines.

 

[Peter_J]

I have personal knowledge that many of those doctrinal issues are true.

I don’t have a link, off the top of my head, for the Catholic position on private revelation, but I’m sure I could dig one up if necessary.

 

[Topper17]

It is a simple matter of conscience, not authority. Every human soul has the freedom to decide for oneself - that is how God created us. It is immoral to force someone to act in opposition to one’s conscience. Luther was clear that he was acting according to his conscience, and that he could only be “moved” by being convinced through the Holy Scriptures.

guano – it is true that it is dangerous to go against one’s conscience. However, Luther took this, as he did many things, to an extreme. He raised his personal conscience to such a level that it was to be considered to be above the Church with respect to determining what should be considered to be Christian teaching. The problem is that the human conscience is extremely fallible. Luther’s conscience allowed him to recommend the execution of rabbis for the crime of teaching the Jewish faith to Jews. It also allowed him to recommend that Anabaptists be executed for the ‘crime’ of believing differently than he did. He recommended that the peasants be ‘slaughtered without mercy’ and more than 100,000 of them were. The list does go on and on.

Luther’s conscience was not exactly ‘well formed’, and yet he counted on it to the extent that he considered it, if not totally infallible, then at least more certain than the teachings of the whole Church. This is simply one more aspect of Luther’s use of Private Interpretation to establish doctrine.

When you have a conscience like the one that Luther demonstrated he had (or didn’t have as the case may be), the LAST thing you should be allowed to do is challenge the teachings of ANY Church, especially by claiming that one should not go against one’s conscience.

I have never read anything anywhere that any theologians present at the Diet of Worms, or afterwards, that offered to sit down with him and, using the Scriptures, show him the error of his ways.

Really? That is pretty hard to miss in the literature if you have read very much at all. I don’t happen to have much of my research materials here with me but I do have Volume I of Lutheran Professor Martin Brecht’s very detailed three volume biography with me. He devotes 7 pages to the negotiations between Luther the representatives of the Church and the secular powers. There are 10 named negotiators working with Luther to reach some kind of a settlement, with many recognizable names among the 10, including Luther’s own Bishop.

Brecht begins this section as follows: “Generally little attention is given to the negotiations of the commissions of the imperial states with Luther. It is overshadowed by his appearance at the diet. Nevertheless it was the most noteworthy attempt to engage in a genuine discussion and come to an understanding with Luther than had yet taken place.” Brecht, Vol. 1, pg. 464.

Brecht somehow does not believe that the one week long Leipzig Debate of 1519 was a ‘genuine discussion’. He does though note that the negotiations following Luther’s appearance at Worms lasted for 2 days. I would suggest that the reason that these negotiations are not well known is because it is so much more dramatic for Luther to be portrayed as making his fantastic statements at Worms and then riding off into the sunset to ‘Reform’ the church. The idea that at least 10 very high officials both secular and ecclesiastical would spend 2 days in these negotiations makes them appear to be – well – so much more reasonable.

Guano, I understand that you didn’t know about the extensive negotiations after Worms, but I would suggest that you shouldn’t pass judgments when you don’t know the true facts.

Again, it has nothing to do with authority. He had his opinion, and I have heard that they are as common as belly buttons.

True, but remember that neither the Church of Luther’s day nor the Confessional Lutheran church would allow one to use one’s own opinion to establish doctrines which oppose that of the Church. You make it sound like everyone has a ‘right’ to determine their own doctrines. Do you really think that that is the ‘system’ that Christ established?

Nothing could convince me, but if I was a faithful Christian living in Germany and observing the abuses of the Catholic clergy, I may well have ended up Lutheran.

I believe you.

He probably went to Rome to do the indulgenced stations of the cross!

Probably? Guano, I would like to know where you got the idea that Luther went to Rome to do the indulgence stations of the cross. I ask because it is very well known that Luther went to Rome to accompany an older monk who was doing business at Rome. It is also very well known that all of his ‘complaints’ about Rome went unrecorded until AFTER he was well into his battle with the Church and was depicting everything about the Church from a very slanted point of view.

God Bless You guano, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Topper’s remarks and the source of his information is complete and intentional distortion. The List of 50 doctrines ascribed to Luther is blatant dishonesty. Good going, Topper; you are at least consistent.

EC, thanks for the chuckle. I find it humorous that even today Lutherans follow the Martin Lutheran habit of calling people dishonest if they disagree with them (or him).

What do you mean though, specifically and exactly of course, when you use the terms, ‘intentional distortion’, and ‘blatant dishonesty’? Isn’t that a personal attack and against the rules?

If you will remember the comments of Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards:

“By his own admission, Luther was an angry man. Anger was his special sin. But anger could also be necessary and proper – and useful. It helped him, he said, to write well, to pray, and to preach: ‘Anger refreshes my blood, sharpens my mind, and drives away temptations,’ he once commented……The targets of his ire become under his pen the vilest of hypocrites, totally wicked and insincere, willing minions of the devil, deserving the most horrible fate.” Edwards, “Luther’s Polemical Controversies”, pg. 204, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”.

In case there is any confusion over this Lutheran Scholar’s opinion:

“The harshness of Luther’s later polemics was not a new element in his work and thought. His polemics were angry and abusive from the beginning.” Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 6

“**Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as agents of Satan.” “Luther’s Last Battles”, **pg. 36

That Marty! Wasn’t he a sweetheart!

As for the list of 50 ways that Luther had departed from Catholic Orthodoxy, it was from Dave Armstrong’s excellent biography on Luther, and is also available on line at his excellent Catholic Apologetics website: “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism”.

The article itself was posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006

“50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy or Established Practice by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated)”

If you or anyone else would like to say that Armstrong’s list of 50 things is ‘spurious’ or ‘blatantly dishonest’, or any such other false and generalized I would suggest that you go on to his blog and make the accusation directly. But if you do, please let us all know first because I want to watch. As the author of more than 40 books, and as one who is not afraid to tell the truth, he has had to deal with those who challenge his honesty often. It always turns out the same way, so like I said, please give us notice. Dave Armstrong is probably one of the best 2 or 3 professional Catholic Apologists in the world. He does NOT misrepresent Luther or anything else.

BTW, while you are on his Dave’s excellent, site you might want to explain to him your ‘feelings’ about the Catholic/Lutheran Dialogue. He might be able to help you with your misconceptions. This may be a more than a little hopeful on my part, because, if I remember correctly, you did not allow yourself to be corrected by a Catholic priest – Father David, claiming that you know more about Catholic doctrine and the impact and relevance of the Dialogue than he does.

 

[Topper17]

First off, much attributed to Luther is taken out of context in a clumsy manner that suggests character assassination [yellow journalism]. And this is why Topper’s method is dishonest.

I have to ask - is this blatant breaking of the rules an attempt to get this thread shut down? I also wonder why you think that there will not be any consequences for your repeated false charge of intentional dishonesty. Personally I don’t want the thread shut down, but then I would guess that this is another issue on which we disagree.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi EvangelCatholic…

I have been drawing and reflecting on this thread as I go along, and began wondering more specifically why Luther was excommunicated, and just finished going down the list.

You say, not true. I have said that to those Christians who hold alot of misconceptions about Catholicism.

So, according to your sources, why was Luther excommunicated…can you give us the actual reasons just as Topper did from his?

Thanks…I have no hostility towards Lutherans…I am just wanting to know what are the specifics now.

God bless!

kathleen

 

[Peter_J]

I have to ask - is this blatant breaking of the rules an attempt to get this thread shut down? I also wonder why you think that there will not be any consequences for your repeated false charge of intentional dishonesty.

Not being a moderator, it might be best for you to use the “report to moderator” button.

 

[cmodrmac]

“He was a heretic, plain and simple”

There was nothing plain or simple about him-a strong intellect and likely well intentioned - he died a natural death-
Likely never planned to start a separate denomination - he was excommunicated and thus was put in a position to either follow his values or knuckle under to the Pope’s mandates

the RC uses excommunication as a weapon and also uses “silencing” as they did to Teilhard DeChardin and many others

You got to wonder what would have happened if the Roman hierarchy had entered a dialog with him and his supporters rather than taking punitive measures

He was and his congregation continues to be a blessing to Christianity

 

[benhur]

Ben, you asked for the things about which Luther disagreed. I posted them.

Actually I think you said all his "changes’ did not address or effect indulgences. I said I don’t know all his "changes’ ‘or “beefs” but for a few which seem to address indulgences at the very heart. But thank you for posting his "changes’’. Not sure what Luther taught as opposed to what he said (big difference,even in Luther’s time). Many popes have said, even written many things but did not necessarily make it into dogma…But interesting question. I am not sure who would say CC was unjustified in the excommunication,.at least from CC point of view, and after all is said an done.

 

[Peter_J]

“He was a heretic, plain and simple”

There was nothing plain or simple about him-a strong intellect and likely well intentioned - he died a natural death-
Likely never planned to start a separate denomination - he was excommunicated and thus was put in a position to either follow his values or knuckle under to the Pope’s mandates

the RC uses excommunication as a weapon and also uses “silencing” as they did to Teilhard DeChardin and many others

You got to wonder what would have happened if the Roman hierarchy had entered a dialog with him and his supporters rather than taking punitive measures

He was and his congregation continues to be a blessing to Christianity

I’m actually not sure whom this comparison is more insulting to: Martin Luther or the modern Catholic hierarchs who “silenced” Teilhard deChardin.

 

[benhur]

The only answer to your question is from Luther’s own words. “When many people ran after indulgences to Juterbery and Zerbst, I did not know as surely as my Lord Christ has redeemed me what indulgences were.” Source Martin Luther Wider Has Worst, 1541, (WA 51, 538). He called Tetzel a braggart among other things. That being said, It seems that Luther based his thinking on indulgences on the hearsay of others as to what Tetzel was preaching, never once seeing for himself if the what was being said was even true. it does appear that Luther based his 95 These on whatever claims he decided was true even though he at the time Tetzel was preaching on indulgences said he did not know what indulgences were so there is nowhere else to go but to assume that Luther based his claims and thinking on hearsay as to Tetzel’s preaching’s.

Maybe had Luther went and spoke to the man and really listened to him, Luther might have come away form it with a different attitude on indulgences. Instead he decided to attack the man basing his thinking on hearsay from what he wrote about him. All it shows is that for whatever reason, Luther had it out for the man, and I think because of Tetzel’s Rebuttal to Luther’s thinking.

Perhaps. Not sure of the context of the quote. How do you know it remained hearsay ? How do you know he did not study the matter thoroughly, not from Tetzel, but simply as Church dogma ? Not sure his 95 points show poor knowledge but for sure theological conviction.