Relics Anyone? Roman Catholic Piety in the Sixteenth Century, Before 1517

I came across a discussion in which a Lutheran was explaining the existence of relics to one of Rome's defenders:

"Luther commented on relics in his day. The one on the cross was something about having enough pieces to build the ark. He may of added many times over. It seems he said animal bones have been perpetrate as former saints too."

The response from the Roman Catholic side was, "what proof did Luther have for his comments of relics?" I don't have the time to track down where exactly Luther said this or that about relics. However: Luther's world was indeed filled with relics. I have in front of me a very interesting source book: Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed. The Reformation In Its Own Words (Harper and Row, Inc. 1964) pp. 47-49.  Hillerbrand cites a source that preceded Luther's battles against the church (1509). The text states:

The Castle Church at Wittenberg, where Luther probably posted his ninety-five theses, was famous for its extensive collection of relics, as the following excerpt from what might be called the 'official catalogue' shows.

... Three pieces of the city where the Virgin Mary was born. One piece of a yarn which she spun. One piece of the house where she lived at the age of fourteen. Two pieces of the city of Mt Zion where Mary lived. Two pieces of the room where Mary was greeted by the angel. Five particles of the milk of the Virgin Mary. One piece of the tree where Mary nursed the Lord near the Garden of Balsam. Four pieces of the hair of Mary. Three pieces of the shirt of Mary. Three pieces of one robe of Mary. Eight pieces of other robes of Mary. Four pieces of the belt of Mary. Seven pieces of the veil of Mary. Two pieces of the veil of Mary which was sprinkled with the blood of Christ under the Cross. One piece of the city where Mary died. One piece of the wax candle given to Our Lady when she died. Six pieces of the grave of Mary. Two pieces of the earth of the grave of Mary. One piece of the place where Mary ascended into heaven. VI. A silver picture of the little baby Jesus. Four pieces of the city where the Lord Jesus was born. One piece of the diaper in which he was wrapped. Thirteen pieces of the manger of Jesus. One piece of the cradle. Two pieces of the hay. One piece of the straw on which the Lord lay when he was born. One piece of the gold and of the myrrh which the Three Kings offered unto the Lord. One piece of the city where the Lord Jesus was circumcised. VII. Four pieces of the mountain on which the Lord Jesus fasted. Two pieces of the city where Christ preached the Lord's Prayer. One piece of the stone on which Jesus stood while weeping over Jerusalem. One piece of the stone from which Christ got on the donkey. Two pieces of the ground where the Lord Christ was arrested. VIII.... Five pieces of the table on which the Lord Christ held the Last Supper with his disciples. One piece of the bread of which Christ ate with his disciples during the Last Supper. IX.... One piece of the land which was bought for the thirty pieces of silver for which Christ was betrayed. One piece of the Holy Land. Three pieces of the stone where the Lord sweated blood. One piece of the ground where the Lord sweated blood. One piece of the stone sprinkled with the blood of Christ. X. Three pieces of the Mount of Olives and of the rod of Aaron. Two pieces of the rod of Moses. One piece of the burning bush which Moses saw. One piece of an object sprinkled with the blood of Christ. Eleven pieces of Mount Calvary. Two pieces of the Mount of Olives. XI. One piece of the cloth with which the Lord wiped his disciples' feet. One piece of the robe of Christ: One piece of the seamless robe of Christ. One piece of the robe of Christ. One piece of his purple robe. Two pieces of the cloth which St Veronica received from the Lord. Three pieces of the white robe in which the Lord was ridiculed by Herod . Three pieces of the cloth with which our Lord's holy eyes were blindfolded. One piece of the beard of the Lord Jesus. XII. One piece of the wax of the candles which touched the sudarium of Christ. One piece of the wedge with which the cross of Christ was held. Three pieces of the stone on which the cross stood. Three pieces of the place where the cross of Christ was found. Twelve pieces of the column where the Lord Christ was scourged and flogged.

The Eight Aisle.
I. One piece of the rope with which Jesus was tied. Three pieces of the rod with which the Lord Jesus was scourged. Three pieces of the whip with which the Lord Jesus was flogged. One piece of the stone upon which the Lord Jesus sat when he was crowned. One piece of the stone which was crushed while the Lord carried the cross. One piece of the sponge with which the Lord was given vinegar and gall.... III. Two pieces of the crown of the Lord Jesus. Eight complete thorns of the crown of the Lord Jesus. IV. One large piece of one nail which was driven through the hands or feet of the Lord Jesus. V. A thorn which wounded the holy head of the Lord Jesus. VI. One piece of the holy cross.... VII. Three pieces of the holy cross. VIII. Three pieces of the three kinds of wood of the cross of Christ. IX. A particularly large piece from the holy cross. X. Twenty-five pieces of the holy cross. XI. One piece of the stone which lay on the grave of Christ. Twenty-two pieces of the grave of Christ. One piece of the stone from which Christ descended into heaven. XII. A casket lined with silver in which are found sixteen hundred and seventy-eight pieces. Seventy-six pieces of holy remains. Bones from holy places which on account of faded writing can no longer be read and identified.

All in all : five thousand and five pieces. An indulgence of one hundred days for each piece. There are eight halls and each hall has an indulgence of one hundred and one days in addition. Blessed are those who participate therein.

Lucas Cranach, Wittemberger Heiligthumsbuch.
E iij, Eiij b, Fij, Fiiij, Hiiij b, I iiff.

Wittemberger Heiligthumsbuch, illustrirt von Lucas Cranach d. Alt (Wittenberg, 1509). The edition used is the facsimile edition of Munich 1884.

As per the Art Institute of Chicago:

Lucas Cranach produced this souvenir catalogue to promote the prized collection of relics and reliquaries of his patron, Elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony. Copies were printed on paper and more luxurious vellum, although the paper printings are now scarcer. The sequence of woodcuts walks pilgrims through every stage of the yearly viewing; each relic offered a hundred days of indulgence. Pilgrims witnessing them all would have amassed an impressive 500,500 days (1,371 years) of respite from Purgatory. Yet Frederick’s protégé, the radical Martin Luther, would soon speak out against the practice of granting indulgences, and the relic collection would be shown for the last time in 1522. The pages visible here depict Mary Magdalene’s hair, nineteen particles of Saint Cecilia, and other relics.

Did the Catholic Church authorize the murder of Martin Luther?

Jan 25, '15, 3:29 pm

campeador  Regular Member Join Date: December 4, 2009 Location: West Texas Posts: 683 Religion: Catholic

Did the Catholic Church authorize the murder of Martin Luther? It has recently been suggested that the Catholic Church conspired or indirectly authorized the immediate murder of Martin Luther after the Diet of Worms in 1521. However, I haven't been able to substantiate that anywhere on the interwebs. Poster 'benjohnson' submitted in this post on another thread that the wording at the beginning of the Edict of Worms points to this conclusion, but further examination seems to contradict the rest of the edict, which clearly states: "For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work." (wiki link) Am I missing something? Please discuss. Thanks in advance.

Is There a "Catholic Answer" as to Whether Rome Wanted Luther Killed?
"Did the Catholic Church authorize the murder of Martin Luther?" This is one of the recent questions the Catholic Answers Forums folks have been addressing. By scrolling through this discussion you'll find a variety of "Catholic" answers (and a few non-Catholic answers) presented. It's always interesting to read fallible interpretations of history and theology put forth by Rome's defenders. I've contended for years that Roman Catholics are functionally Protestant: everything they say and believe, whether stated personally or put forth by their Magisterium is open to interpretation, or is itself an interpretation. Here were some interesting comments from this discussion. As far as I could tell, each of these comments comes from those committed to the supremacy of Rome:

[In regard to the declaration of the Diet of Worms], "...[T]he call was from Emperor Charles V not the Bishops of Worms. Second, it was for Fr. Martin's apprehension and detention not execution." [Source]

"I didn't know he was murdered. I thought he died a natural death." [source]

"[P]ersecution of heretics was done by the state not the Church. Lets use truth." [source]

"Again it is so EASY to blame the ONE HOLY CHURCH, for mistakes made by human leaders of its time. Just like we can blame the Pope for the Priest today who caved into evil, and of course Jesus for the sins of Judas. It all comes back to blaming Christ or his Church does it not?" [source]

"[T]he word 'outlaw' does not appear in the edict [of Worms] anywhere." [source]

"[T]he Edict called for the arrest and punishment of Luther and his followers as heretics, and only after an exhaustive attempt at the Diet of Worms to get him to soften his position. That isn't the same as the Catholic Chuch calling for the 'immediate murder' of Luther." [source]

"....[A]pproval of the Holy Office, is not EX CATHEDRA." [source]

"He was condemned for not what he said as being wrong or right, he was condemned to claiming to know the mind of God. He had no authority to speak in the name of the Spirit. Rather he was correct or incorrect, is not the question, he was condemned for claiming to know the mind of the Spirit of God, no one can do this unless they have authority from God to speak in his name. Only the Pope can do it, without the others." [source]

The last comment was the most fascinating. Another person commented on it stating that the argument Luther "was condemned for not what he said as being wrong or right, he was condemned to claiming to know the mind of God" was actually an argument possibly made by Jimmy Akin. I took a few minutes to try and find this alleged argument from Akin, but have yet to find it (if anyone comes across it, please let me know- it may not be Akin's at all). Well, whoever coined this argument, the person challenging it rightly noted its inherent anachronism.


Decret Romanum Pontificem
While the most popular declaration from Rome against Luther was Exsurge Domine (June 15, 1520), Luther was formally excommunicated via the bull Decret Romanum Pontificem (January 3, 1521, executed on January 28) by Pope Leo X (although there is some ambiguity here- see Martin Brecht, Martin Luther, His Road To Reformation, p. 442). This bull declares Luther to be a heretic and subject to punishment, as well as those who are "followers of Martin's pernicious and heretical sect, and given him openly and publicly their help." The bull refers to the church's treatment of Luther, "We would protect the herd from one infectious animal, lest its infection spread to the healthy ones." The Bull states also:

On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.

We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.

According to Gregory Sobolewski, Pope Leo X "wrote Charles V requesting enforcement of the excommunication according to imperial law" [Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001), 68-69. Once Luther was deemed an official heretic, he could be immediately arrested and tried.  Heiko Oberman says,

By signing the bull of excommunication, Decet Romanum Pontifcem, the pope had finally settled the Luther question- or so it appeared. After the conclusion of the ecclesiastical trial, only the administrative sequel remained: Luther was to be turned over to the secular authorities and subsequently executed.  

Hans Hillerbrand points out that what should have happened was that Elector Frederick of Saxony   was to execute the ecclesiastical verdict, but the Luther affair ended up being directed to the upcoming imperial diet. Behind the scenes one of Luther's most vocal critics was the papal nuncio Aleander. He sought to hold the Emperor to the general understanding that a condemned heretic was not to have a further trial or hearing (Hillerbrand, p.56). The hearing was held though, and the Edict produced by it stated in part,

For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work - The Edict of Worms [English translation]

Conclusion
The good news for today's ecumenically minded Roman Catholic is there is no authoritative or infallible statement from the Magisterium I'm aware of (either then or now) stating: "We want Luther killed," or, "Luther should be executed as a heretic." It was genuinely though within the realm of possibility that once Luther was declared a heretic by Rome, his sentence carried out by the Emperor could very well have been death, for Luther was then considered an enemy of the Empire. One of the strongest bits of propaganda circulating was that Luther was reviving the Bohemian heresy of Hus. Martin Brecht attempts to give some insight into Luther's thinking during the period in which he was summoned to Worms, "He was not unaware that his bloodthirsty opponents would not rest until they had killed him. But he was more concerned now that the responsibility for his death should be borne by the papists, not by the emperor" (Brecht, p. 461).