Luther Didn't Know What an Indulgence Was?

This was posted by one of Rome's defenders via social media:

Luther, in his thesis number (35), referred to indulgences as a way of “buying souls out of Purgatory or to buy confessional licenses.” Years later, Luther admits the fact that he didn’t actually know what an indulgence was. “In two different places in his pamphlet entitled “Hans Worst” written about 1541, when he [Luther] was blinded by rage against the Church, he solemnly declared that,

‘As truly as Our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed me, I did not know what an indulgence was’” (The Facts About Luther pg. 77 – Erlander, 26, 50, 51).

This has been covered previously here at Beggars All. It's still making the rounds.  Leslie Rumble's use of it works as a popular cut and paste source. Fatima.org uses it.  This article, claimed to be written by "an expert in Catholic apologetics" (I've never heard of him!) uses it... to name a few. Let's take a fresh look.

Documentation
Rome's defender cites "The Facts About Luther pg. 77 – Erlander, 26, 50, 51." This reference is to an old hostile Roman Catholic secondary source: Patrick O'Hare, The Facts About Luther (Illinois: Tan Books), 1987 (reprint). Father O'Hare states,

It is interesting to note that later on, in looking back over the days that were gone, Luther had the audacity to state that “he hardly knew what an Indulgence was.” In two different places in his pamphlet entitled Hans Worst, written about 1541, when he was blinded by rage against the Church, he solemnly declares that, “As truly as Our Lord Jesus Christ has redeemed me I did not know what an Indulgence was.” (Erlanger, 26, 50, 51.)

We'll return to Father O'Hare in the conclusion below, but for now, let's simply deal with the tidbits offered. First, notice O'Hare cites "Erlanger" not " Erlander" as Rome's defender did. In actuality, it's the Erlangen edition of Luther's writings (though "Erlanger" is acceptable). Sometimes this set is referred to as "Dr. M. Luthers Samtliche Werke" or "E." Here is volume 26, 50-51. The text reads,

O'Hare probably didn't translate this German text himself, he blatantly used secondary sources for the majority of his citations. The English rendering used certainly preceded O'Hare's use (see for example,  J. Verres, 1884).  

This text has been translated into English: Against Hanswurst (LW 41:179-256). The quote is on pages 231-232. This treatise was written towards the end of Luther's life. In the section under scrutiny, Luther reflects back on the beginning of the indulgence controversy.

Context

It happened, in the year 1517, that a preaching monk called John Tetzel, a great ranter, made his appearance. He had previously been rescued in Innsbruck by Duke Frederick from a sack—for Maximilian had condemned him to be drowned in the Inn (presumably on account of his great virtue)—and Duke Frederick reminded him of it when he began to slander us Wittenbergers; he also freely admitted it himself. This same Tetzel now went around with indulgences, selling grace for money as dearly or as cheaply as he could, to the best of his ability. At that time I was a preacher here in the monastery, and a fledgling doctor fervent and enthusiastic for Holy Scripture.

Now when many people from Wittenberg went to Jütterbock and Zerbst for indulgences, and I (as truly as my Lord Christ redeemed me) did not know what the indulgences were, as in fact no one knew, I began to preach very gently that one could probably do something better and more reliable than acquiring indulgences.(86) I had also preached before in the same way against indulgences at the castle and had thus gained the disfavor of Duke Frederick because he was very fond of his religious foundation. Now I—to point out the true cause of the Lutheran rumpus—let everything take its course.

(86) See, for example, a sermon Luther preached on February 24, 1517. LW 51, 26–-31. See also two Lenten sermons he preached in March, 1518. LW 51, 35-–49.

[LW 41:231-232]

Elsewhere in the same document, Luther says something similar:

So my theses against Tetzel’s articles, which you can now see in print, were published. They went throughout the whole of Germany in a fortnight, for the whole world complained about indulgences, and particularly about Tetzel’s articles. And because all the bishops and doctors were silent and no one wanted to bell the cat (for the masters of heresy, the preaching order, had instilled fear into the whole world with the threat of fire, and Tetzel had bullied a number of priests who had grumbled against his impudent preaching), Luther became famous as a doctor, for at last someone had stood up to fight. I did not want the fame, because (as I have said) I did not myself know what the indulgences were, and the song might prove too high for my voice (LW 41:234; WA 51:541; Halle, 52).

Conclusion
LW 41 translates the sentence: "I (as truly as my Lord Christ redeemed me) did not know what the indulgences were..." Luther does not say: I did not know what an indulgence is. A much more practical way to read the sentence from Against Hanswurst  is that Luther was not aware of what the details were of the particular indulgences that were being hawked in Jütterbock and Zerbst. Luther was certainly familiar with indulgences previous to the 1517 controversy. My earlier entry on this goes into the details of Luther's comments on indulgences previous to 1517.

Now back to Father O'Hare: those sources that use this Luther tidbit via O'Hare actually ignore what Father O'Hare goes on to say. O'Hare admits that Luther did know what an indulgence was at the time, but then proceeds to attack him on other grounds:

This statement, notwithstanding the sacred affirmation with which he introduces it, is to say the least, of very doubtful veracity. To express himself in this way is, however, rather a poor compliment for a Professor and Doctor of Theology to pay to himself, nor can it be considered as very prudent, that a man should talk about and inveigh against things of which he confesses his ignorance. Indeed, he could hardly have meant what he said had he recalled at the moment the teachings and sermons of his earlier days, when he held and asserted with absolute conviction the mind of the Church on the doctrine of Indulgences. If Luther, however, was really ignorant of the matter he had plenty of opportunities of learning the unadulterated teaching of the Church. He could have been accommodated within the walls of his own University. The nature of Indulgences was clearly defined in ordinary manuals for the use of the clergy, then in print, such as the “Discipulus de Eruditione Christi Fidelium,” issued at Cologne in 1504, and many other learned theological works. Luther, however, needed no enlightenment on the subject. He knew what an Indulgence was, its nature, its authority, its place in the spiritual order, and was quite familiar with its practice in the Church. He knew that an Indulgence was simply a remission in whole or in part, through the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and His saints, of the temporal punishment due to God on account of sin after the guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted in the Sacrament of Penance. He knew that it gave no license to commit sin of any kind or in any form. He knew that no abuse could affect an Indulgence in itself, that an Indulgence is legitimate apart from an abuse, and that it would be a sacrilegious crime in any one whomsoever, from the Pope down to the most humble layman, to be concerned in buying or selling Indulgences. He knew that Indulgences were never bartered for money in Germany or elsewhere for sińs yet to be committed. He knew they were not marketable commodities and that ro traffic or sale of Indulgences was ever authorized or countenanced by the authorities of the Church. He knew all this as well as any enlightened member of the Church in his day for he studied the whole ins-and-outs of the matter in his earlier career. His onslaught on Indulgences was not made from any lack of knowledge of their meaning and value.

Father O'Hare was certainly hostile toward Luther, as are typically those who use Father O'Hare's book.  Here we see a clear instance of bias by those who can't even cite their own hostile sources against Luther correctly!

Debate on Indulgences

Dr. James White recently debated Roman Catholic Peter D. Williams on Indulgences.  Another one of the lay Roman apologists "who do the heavy lifting" (Matthew Schultz rightly wrote).

"The refrain of lay Catholic apologists is that Protestants must submit to the Magisterium. Yet if the primary lens of theological inquiry is authority, why is so much of the heavy lifting done by Catholic laypersons?"  (Matthew Schultz) 

Addendum: (June 30, 2018)   The debate goes to the nature of the gospel in the way Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree with each other, and they also touched on issues like purgatory, church history, Semi-Pelagianism, Augustine, Gottschalk, the development of doctrine, the wrath of God, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and Sola Scriptura and the Canon. Rich in content.

When Dr. White mentioned Semi-Pelagianism and Gottschalk, it reminded me of R. C. Sproul’s analysis of church history how Semi-Pelagianism crept back into the church between the Council of Orange (529 AD) and the Council of Trent (1545-1563). 

Luther did Not Know What an Indulgence Was?

Here's one from an online discussion forum in which a defender of Rome argued: "Luther admitted later in his life that he actually didn't even know what an indulgence was" when the indulgence controversy erupted in 1517.  This assertion was shortly followed by this comment directed towards me: "Maybe our resident Genevan cyber defender can come in and white wash it for you guys." The straightforward argument appears to be that at the time of the indulgence controversy, Luther didn't know what an indulgence proper was: "He started his revolution on an abuse of something he later admitted he knew nothing about" (link). A source document to prove this claim from Luther was also provided (see below).

Documentation
First this link was given, and then a specific page and paragraph were cited from the same document (from a different source). Both of these links refer to Luther's 1541 treatise,  Wider Hans Worst. The first link appears to be from the first printing (there were four 1541 German printings, LW states the first was by Hans Lufft- see LW 41:183). The second link was to an 1880 printing. From the second link, the paragraph in question is the following:

This same text can be found in WA 51:539. This text has been translated into English: Against Hanswurst (LW 41:179-256). The quote is on pages 231-232. This treatise was written towards the end of Luther's life. In the section under scrutiny, Luther reflects back on the beginning of the indulgence controversy.

Context

It happened, in the year 1517, that a preaching monk called John Tetzel, a great ranter, made his appearance. He had previously been rescued in Innsbruck by Duke Frederick from a sack—for Maximilian had condemned him to be drowned in the Inn (presumably on account of his great virtue)—and Duke Frederick reminded him of it when he began to slander us Wittenbergers; he also freely admitted it himself. This same Tetzel now went around with indulgences, selling grace for money as dearly or as cheaply as he could, to the best of his ability. At that time I was a preacher here in the monastery, and a fledgling doctor fervent and enthusiastic for Holy Scripture.

Now when many people from Wittenberg went to Jütterbock and Zerbst for indulgences, and I (as truly as my Lord Christ redeemed me) did not know what the indulgences were, as in fact no one knew, I began to preach very gently that one could probably do something better and more reliable than acquiring indulgences.(86) I had also preached before in the same way against indulgences at the castle and had thus gained the disfavor of Duke Frederick because he was very fond of his religious foundation. Now I—to point out the true cause of the Lutheran rumpus—let everything take its course.

(86) See, for example, a sermon Luther preached on February 24, 1517. LW 51, 26–-31. See also two Lenten sermons he preached in March, 1518. LW 51, 35-–49.

[LW 41:231-232]

Elsewhere in the same document, Luther says something similar:

So my theses against Tetzel’s articles, which you can now see in print, were published. They went throughout the whole of Germany in a fortnight, for the whole world complained about indulgences, and particularly about Tetzel’s articles. And because all the bishops and doctors were silent and no one wanted to bell the cat (for the masters of heresy, the preaching order, had instilled fear into the whole world with the threat of fire, and Tetzel had bullied a number of priests who had grumbled against his impudent preaching), Luther became famous as a doctor, for at last someone had stood up to fight. I did not want the fame, because (as I have said) I did not myself know what the indulgences were, and the song might prove too high for my voice (LW 41:234; WA 51:541; Halle, 52).

Conclusion
LW 41 translates the sentence: "I (as truly as my Lord Christ redeemed me) did not know what the indulgences were..." Luther does not say: I did not know what an indulgence is. I would be surprised if Luther, a Doctor of Theology in the Roman church did not know what the basic concept of an indulgence was. For example, Pope Boniface in the 14th Century made use of a general indulgence in which certain times a year a general indulgence could be obtained. Another popular example is Pope Sixtus IV (only a short time before Luther) had his particular slant on indulgences applying to the living and the dead. It would be odd if Luther was not familiar with either of these papal approved indulgences. From his written record, Luther was certainly familiar with indulgences previous to the 1517 controversy  Heiko Oberman has stated,

Three years earlier, in the autumn of 1514, Luther had already denounced indulgences in the university lecture hall, terming them proof of the nadir Christendom had reached. There were Christians who thought money and a sigh would get them into heaven: "It is dangerous to believe that we can draw on the treasures of the Church without adding anything ourselves."(34)

(34): WA 3. 416, 27f.; 424, 22f.; gloss Ps. 68; approx. autumn 1514.

In regard to Oberman's documentation, here is WA 3:416. Here is WA 3:424. These pages are found translated into English in LW 10 (Luther's early lectures on the Psalms). Here is the English text corresponding to WA 3:416-

The third is now the prevalence of the lukewarm and the evil [peace and security]. For surfeit now reigns to such an extent that there is much worship of God everywhere, but it is only going through the motions, without love and spirit, and there are very few with any fervor. And all this happens because we think we are something and are doing enough. Consequently we try nothing, and we hold to no strong emotion, and we do much to ease the way to heaven, by means of indulgences, by means of easy doctrines, feeling that one sigh is enough (LW 10:351).

Here is some of the English text corresponding to WA 3:424,

Therefore woe to us, who are so snatched away by present things and foolishly do not see the devil’s trap! We act like the foolish heir who knew only how to squander the magnificent estate left by his parents and did nothing to build it up but always carried away from the pile. So the popes and priests pour out the graces and indulgences amassed by the blood of Christ and the martyrs and left to us, and they do not think there is any need to build up this treasure, nor to acquire the remission of sins and the kingdom of heaven in any other way than by their merits. Yet no one can share in the public good unless he, too, makes his contribution. To take from the church’s treasure and not also to put something back is impossible and deceitful presumption. [“He who does not work, should not eat either” (2 Thess. 3:10). He who is not a partaker of sufferings will not be a partaker of consolations either (2 Cor. 1:7)]. But they think they have this treasure ready in the safe so that they can use it whenever they want to. In their smugness they therefore surrender themselves to all the things that are in the world. Since the treasure obviously abides, while the world passes away, and since they want both, they first go after the world before it perishes, believing that heaven will be left over for them in abundance later. I say, this is what they think, that is, they act thus, that in fact they seem to believe it and to say what we read in Wisd. of Sol. 2:8, 5: “Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they are withered; for our time is the passing of a shadow.” But I am afraid that what has happened to prodigal heirs will also happen to us, namely, that, after all our goods have been dissipated and squandered, we become beggars and must endure every need in disgrace. Not that the church’s treasure can be used up, but I say that it can be used up as far as we are concerned. The treasure is unlimited in itself, but not for us, since a minority shares in it. Such a wastefulness of merits is present also in the religious, who scatter their brotherhoods and indulgences in every corner, just so they might have food and clothing. If they have these, they have no concern about such things. It is dreadful madness and wretched blindness that now we do not preach the Gospel unless we have to, not because we want to. And the number of such people is extremely large! O beggars, beggars, beggars! But perhaps the excuse is offered that you receive alms for God’s sake and that you reciprocate with the Word of God and all things without charge. So be it: You will see! (LW 10:361-362)

A much more practical way to read the sentence from Against Hanswurst  is that Luther was not aware of what the details were of the particular indulgences that were being hawked in Jütterbock and Zerbst. A similar conclusion is put forth by Michael A. Mullett in his biography of Luther,

The ambiguous form of words, 'I did not know what the indulgences were...' cannot, of course, mean, 'I did not know what indulgences were', and must therefore mean that Luther was in ignorance about this particular indulgence, itself a slightly implausible claim, given the extraordinary publicity surrounding and running ahead of Friar Tetzel. 

Mullet goes on to say that Luther's claim to not knowing the particular nature of Tetzel's indulgences is "implausible" on account of Tetzel's "extraordinary publicity." At least this author makes a rational historical criticism rather than the myopic contextless literalism employed by the discussion forum Roman Catholic.

Addendum

I did participate in  this discussion. From the time I stepped foot into it, it began to spiral out of bounds of the forum rules, provoking heavy deletions from the moderators, and in one case, a suspension of one of the Roman Catholic participants. There is a sense in which the recounting here of an interaction that occurred elsewhere is unfair.  If one wants to follow what remains of this discussion, the posts (that still remain, some edited by the moderators) from all interested parties occur in this order:

178; 181; 182; 185; 186; 188; 190; 191; 192; 193; 194; 195; 196; 197; 198; 199; 200; 201; 203; 204; 205; 208; 209; 212; 213; 214; 215; 216; 217; 218; 219; 220; 221; 222; 223; 224; 225; 228; 231; 233; 242; 260; 261.

The ultimate argument this defender of Rome appears to be making is that Luther's use of indulgences in the 95 Theses was "merely a convenient excuse to start his own revolt." His Luther is not an honest monk confronting the rampant abuses involved with indulgences. Rather, his Luther was already a deviant predisposed to revolt and simply needed a means to revolt. It does not necessarily follow that the indulgences mentioned in the 95 Theses were simply a means to revolt because Luther knew nothing or something about indulgences. He states, "Indulgences and their abuse were simply a convenient catalyst to begin his revolt. One need merely look at his what is glaringly absent in his Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum, as many of what would become the core tenets of his own religious system were not yet crystallized." This use of "Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum" also does not necessarily follow. Simply because something might be "glaringly absent" does not necessarily mean Luther was plotting to be a revolutionary and simply used indulgences as a means to revolt. I point this out to demonstrate on a presuppositional level, this defender of Rome's Luther appears to be his own concoction. He begins with a deviant man predisposed to revolt and then sifts Luther's writings to fill in what's needed.

The Real Story of the Reformation? Catholic Answers Explains Luther's Issue With Indulgences

This is a follow-up to my earlier post on the recent Catholic Answers broadcast, The Real Story of the Reformation with Steve Weidenkopf, a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. Previously I noted how Professor Weidenkopf began his interview by changing the term Reformation to "revolution." Along the same lines he goes on to consider Luther to be a revolutionary bent on overthrowing the Roman Church. He implied that the indulgence controversy was the issue in which this could be achieved.

 Weidenkopf  appears to defend the concept of indulgences, particularly the rebuilding of St. Peter's by the giving of "charitable contributions" towards its rebuilding through the selling of indulgences, thus downplaying the whole scandal behind indulgences. St. Peter's was falling apart, and needed to be rebuilt. The revenue from the indulgences helped fund this papal project. Weidenkopf doesn't appear to be interested in some of the more scandalous facts- like how some of the indulgence money for St. Peter's made its way to Leo X's private treasury, "...for he needed enormous sums for his private pleasures, especially his passion for cards, which he played every day" (Heinrich Bohemer, Road to Reformation, Martin Luther to the Year 1521 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946), p. 175). The Catholic Answers listeners didn't get any those sort of facts.

Professor Weidenkopf  does mention quickly in passing "the less than forthcoming" methods of some of the indulgence preachers, noting in half a breath that "Luther kind of latched on to that," but the explanation as to why Luther was bothered by indulgences was more economic than anything else. According to Weidenkopf, Luther was influenced by and part of a nationalist movement seeking economic and political freedom from Rome. What caused Luther's reaction to the selling of indulgences? For Professor Weidenkopf the main factors provoking Luther were economical:

...He was upset that this revenue from Germany was going to be sent down to Rome to build up St. Peter's... Luther had previously visited Rome earlier in his life as a monk and he was just kind of horrified at the excess and the immorality that he saw in Rome, even among unfortunately, some of the clergy there, and so when this indulgence preaching came about in his diocese that was kind of the spark so to speak that moved him to act.(listen starting at 6 min)

The picture of Luther put forth by Professor Weidenkopf is of a man who began by challenging papal power and whose cause against indulgences was based on financial exploitation. This picture of Luther would make perfect sense if indeed Luther was primarily a nationalist revolutionary. Certainly national and financial factors did matter to Luther, but were they the earliest factors which provoked Luther? Was Luther primarily concerned about German money going to Rome?

Luther's biographer Heinrich Boehmer points out that early on, it was largely pastoral concern which motivated Luther. In his book, Road to Reformation, Martin Luther to the Year 1521 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946), Bohemer states, "But as early as 1515 Luther was troubled more by the evil effects of indulgence preaching and the indulgence traffic upon the religious and moral life of the indulgence purchaser than by the base motives for granting indulgences (p. 176). Bohemer goes through two of the earliest sermons from Luther in which he mentions indulgences.

The first was delivered on a day that was especially appropriate for such instruction, namely on the eve of the great indulgence festival in the castle church on October 31, 1516. The indulgence, he already argued here, is nothing more than the remission of the canonical penalties imposed upon the penitent by the priest at confession. However, it is to be feared that it often militates directly against true repentance, that is, the inner penitence of the heart which should pervade the whole life of the believer; for one who feels real remorse for his sins does not try to evade punishment, but rather actually longs for punishment. "Nevertheless, I affirm emphatically that the purpose which the pope has in view is good- at least as far can be ascertained from the wording of the indulgence Bulls" (pp. 176-177).

The second sermon of note was from February 24, 1517:

Here he charged that the wholesale distribution of indulgences results only in causing the people to fight shy of punishment All too little of the blessings of indulgences is to be observed; rather there is a sense of security from punishment and a tendency to take sin lightly. Hence, he said, indulgences are well named, for they indulge the sinner. At best, absolution is suitable for people who are weak in the faith and who are easily frightened by punishment into doing penance. With the rest it has only the effect of preventing them from ever receiving the true absolution- divine forgiveness of sins- and hence they never come to Christ. "O how great are the perils of our times! How fast asleep are the priests! O what worse than Egyptian darkness are we in! How safety and securely we go on living in the midst of the most grievous sins!" (p. 177).

The first sermon doesn't appear to have been translated into English yet (it can be found in WA 1:94). It's possible as well that Bohemer is wrong on the 1516 date (see note #76 here. Brecht posits it may be from early March, 1517. See his full discussion on pages 186-188; 522). Regardless of the dates these sermons were previous to the posting of the 95 Theses. The February 24 sermon is available in LW 51:26 ( WA 1:138–142). Luther closes the sermon saying,

Then in addition, the very profusion of indulgences astonishingly fills up the measure of servile righteousness. Through these nothing is accomplished except that the people learn to fear and flee and dread the penalty of sins, but not the sins themselves. Therefore, the results of indulgences are too little seen but we do see a great sense of self-security and licentious sinning; so much so that, if it were not for the fear of the punishment of sins, nobody would want these indulgences, even if they were free; whereas the people ought rather to be exhorted to love the punishment and embrace the cross. Would that I were a liar when I say that indulgences are rightly so called, for to indulge means to permit, and indulgence is equivalent to impunity, permission to sin, and license to nullify the cross of Christ. Or, if indulgences are to be permitted, they should be given only to those who are weak in faith, that those who seek to attain gentleness and lowliness through suffering, as the Lord here says, may not be offended. For, not through indulgences, but through gentleness and lowliness, so says he, is rest for your souls found. But gentleness is present only in punishment and suffering, from which these indulgences absolve us. They teach us to dread the cross and suffering and the result is that we never become gentle and lowly, and that means that we never receive indulgence nor come to Christ. Oh, the dangers of our time! Oh, you snoring priests! Oh, darkness deeper than Egyptian! How secure we are in the midst of the worst of all our evils! (LW 51:31-33).

I realize that Professor Weidenkopf was being interviewed and speaking "off the cuff." But it appears to me that he's picking and choosing what sort of Luther fits his preconceived paradigms of revolution and revolutionary, and this is the sort of Luther that those listening to Catholic Answers want to hear about. This isn't the way accurate history should be done.

Did Rome Have a Role in the Indulgence Controversy?

The way it usually plays out: Tetzel gets thrown under the bus for his significant role in the indulgence controversy. But what about Rome? Were they at fault as well? Below are some sobering words from Roman historian Jospeh Lortz on the culpability of the pope and Rome:

The full disintegrating power of the abuse of indulgences was revealed in that affair which became the occasion of Luther's first public appearance. 

In 1513 the twenty-three-year-old Albrecht of Brandenburg, youngest brother of the prince elector Joachim, was elected archbishop of the important diocese of Magdeburg by the cathedral chapter. (Albrecht's predecessor had been a Saxon, who also occupied the see of Mainz.) It was an old tradition that the same young man be installed as administrator of the collegiate church in Halberstadt. Finally, in 1514, Albrecht was elected by the cathedral chapter of Mainz to be archbishop of this diocese also, and prince elector. He had undertaken to support the collegiate prebend at his own expense. We have already learned how Mainz was in need of cutting down its expenditure. Within the space of  ten years the archepiscopal see had thrice fallen vacant, and each time the confirmation dues to Rome for the see and the pallium had amounted to 14,000 ducats. 

Now Albrecht had to apply to the pope not only for confirmation of his election to Mainz but also for permission to occupy this see while retaining that of Magdeburg and the administration of Halberstadt. Such an accumulation of benefices was unheard of, in Germany at least, and was in fact forbidden by canon law. But Leo X was not going to be hindered too much by canon law when political and financial advantage was at stake. With his decisive connivance the ambassadors from Brandenburg were granted confirmation on payment of an additional 10,000 ducats. Moreover it was the curia who made this proposal acceptable to the ambassadors, for they suggested a method by which Albrecht might raise all or part of the sum to be paid. They would make over to the archbishop of Mainz the sale of the St Peter's indulgence in the archdiocese of Mainz and in the Brandenburg territories, allowing him a half share in the proceeds. The contract was perfect; a deal was made with the Fuggers who, in return for a share in the income from the indulgence, advanced the archbishop 29,000 Rhenish guilders - and the whole shameful business was complete. 

That this let loose the Reformation storm is highly symbolic and an expression of historical retribution, for all the corruption in the Church of that time had its chief cause in the fiscalism of the curia, which was rotten with simony. In the case just mentioned, the curia, contrary to canon law, in return for cash, and in the hope of gaining political advantage, were allowing a young, worldly man to hold an irresponsible accumulation of benefices. In so doing they turned indulgences into a means of exchange in big business. The executive organ of this business carried on between the custodian of the merits won by Christ's blood and a worldly prince of the Church was a bank. Corruption could scarcely have been more blatantly expressed. We are struck with amazement to discover that Catholic theologians are still so hide-bound by formalism that they can discuss whether or not this affair was simony according to the strict letter of canon law. Even to raise such a question is to create religious confusion. Anyone can see that the whole affair is utterly at war with the Spirit of Christ. 

 As a result of various delays, it turned out that the preaching of the indulgence, taken over by the prince elector of Mainz, did not start until the beginning of 1517. For the most part the monetary yield was little enough. The indulgence preachers of the elector of Mainz based their sermons upon his instructio summaria. This short guide provides an exact illustration of what has just been said about the abuses of the indulgence system. Its theory can be justified; but the tendency has to be sharply rejected, for, by the use of pious formulae, it was rapidly turning the indulgence sermon into sheer commercial advertising. Money, which was of secondary importance, became the central thing; the atmosphere of the sale-room prevailed everywhere; there were pompous and solemn openings, and then bargain clearances at the end. 

The Dominican, Tetzel, subcommissar general of the archbishop of Mainz, faithfully followed out the spirit of this instruction. There is no doubt that he taught: As soon as your money clinks in the bowl Out of purgatory jumps the soul. Admittedly it is also certain that he never claimed that an indulgence could expiate future sins. This calumny was first set going by Luther in his pamphlet Against Hans Worst in 1541. Tetzel was very weil paid; but he cannot be charged with any serious misdemeanours. He was not one of those indulgence preachers of whom Eck compliained that they paid their mistresses with certificates of indulgence and confession. But he was one of those, piloried by Emser, for whom repentance and contrition had become eclipsed by money. In fact, for the sake of financial gain he stressed in a dangerous way the mitigation of the demands of the gospel of redemption. 

Joseph Lortz, The Reformation in Germany vol. 1(New York: Herder and Herder, 1949) pp. 225-227.

Reevaluating Tetzel

It appears that one of the most important books written about Johann Tetzel is quite old, and never translated into English: Johann Tetzel der Ablakprediger (1899) by the Roman Catholic writer Nikolaus Paulus. I've been searching for a full-length contemporary and scholarly treatment of Tetzel in English, but I've yet to come across such a book.  Most of the secondary literature I've found simply refers back to Paulus.

Having a translation of Paulus would be helpful, because I'm left further away from Tetzel by relying on what other writers say what Paulus said about Tetzel. That being said, I did come across a Roman source that seeks to gives an overview of what Paulus compiled about Tetzel: Tetzel the Indulgence Preacher (1902) by John Corbett. The article is worth a read.  You'll come across Reformation polemics in which some went too far against Tetzel, similar to the way some go to far against Luther. Yes the article has an underlying slant that the entire concept of the indulgence is Christian and that the St. Peter's building project was a worthwhile endeavor, but try to look past this to get a better understanding of how Rome's apologists defend Tetzel.

The basic gist of the article is that Tetzel consistently taught that a plenary indulgences was an entire remission of the temporal punishment for specific sins. The guilt of these sins had already been remitted by contrition and confession. In other words, Tetzel was teaching that someone seeking an indulgence had to be truly sorry for their sins, or else the indulgence would be of no benefit. The idea that future sins could be remitted by an indulgence was never taught by Tetzel, but was rather a false accusation brought on by Luther.  If someone received an indulgence for sins and then immediately went out and committed the same sorts of sin again, well, it would then be time to go back and purchase another indulgence.

Tetzel comes under more scrutiny in regard to indulgences for the dead. He is charged with teaching speculative Roman doctrines as certain. He's said to be in error for holding the following as "Christian dogma": "In order to gain a plenary indulgence for a soul in purgatory, it is not necessary to be in the state of grace. It is enough to give the alms." This means that if one wanted to buy an indulgence for a deceased person, the holiness (or lack thereof) of the purchaser made no impact on the efficacy of the indulgence for the departed soul.  Second, Tetzel held that "such indulgences are applied infallibly to the particular soul for whom they have been obtained." In other words, when Tetzel urged his hearers to have pity on their parents "suffering the most dreadful pains and tortures" in purgatory by buying them an indulgence, it wasn't certain that those parents were going to get the purchased relief.

One other sale of indulgences from Tetzel is worth mentioning: confession-letters or indulgence letters. These could be "procured without contrition." One need simply make the purchase.  It appears that for these to actually work, the purchaser had "to choose a suitable confessor, from whom absolution could be obtained even for sins usually reserved to the Holy See." This particular purchase could be used two times: "once during life and again at the hour of death."

The speculative and curious part of the article says that perhaps the indulgence preachers were not careful as to how they presented this theology and it led to misunderstanding by the people- Tetzel though shouldn't be blamed for this. I can agree with this to an extent- that if Tetzel was preaching the indulgence doctrines as has been defined above and the people heard complete remission for all my sins (past, present, and future) without contrition or confession, and there isn't historical proof that Tetzel taught what was heard, then we should consider holding Tetzel responsible for what we know he did say. On the other hand, the article does point out via testimony that Tetzel "devised new ways of getting money... and finally there resulted scandal and contempt among the common people and censure of such spiritual treasure on account of the abuse." The writer summarizing Paulus reluctantly concludes that "...it would indicate on Tetzel's part some excess in urging the faithful to contribute."  The article doesn't really explore this "part."  Perhaps Paulus did. It would be interesting to read how Rome's defenders describe "some excess."

Overall, what the article demonstrated to me was that one can quibble about the historical facts of the Reformation, whereas the point of contention should actually be the theology of the indulgence. That's what appears to have happened to Luther as well- he began arguing over the indulgence issues of his day and then arrived at seeking to refute the ultimate theology behind the indulgence. Imagine living in the 16th Century and purchasing some incredible indulgence. The responsibility then to not waste your money by seeking holy living demonstrates a crucial difference between the Gospel of Christ's perfect work and those who seek to save themselves by their works and what they can afford.

Addendum #1
Here's a negative contemporary review of Paulus from The Methodist Review. "Paulus himself confesses that, at least in substance, Tetzel taught that as soon as the indulgence fee rattled on the bottom of the money box the soul for which the indulgence was purchased sprang out of purgatory."

Addendum #2
Here's an interesting tidbit about Paulus and the historicity of indulgences:

Johann Tetzel: Sermons on Indulgences

I spent a little time recently on the Catholic Answers forums on the subject of Tetzel's role in the Reformation. I was surprised to find the defenders of Rome suporting Tetzel. Below are some pertinent excerpts from the literature that provoked the Reformation. The first section is an excerpt from a sermon of Tetzel's. The second extract is a pattern sermon produced by Tetzel for indulgence preachers to use. The third extract contains a portion Archbishop Albert's instructions to the sub-commissioners on indulgences (these were the instructions given to Tetzel).  See for yourself if Tetzel had a role in the Reformation, and a role that shouldn't be defended.

Extract of a sermon from Tetzel

So what is there to think about? Why do you hesitate to convert yourself? Why don’t you have fears about your sins? Why don’t you confess now to the vicars of our Most Holy Pope? Don’t you have the example of Lawrence, who, compelled by the love of God, gave away his inheritance and suffered his body to be burned? Why do you not take the example of Bartholomew, Stephen, and of other saints who gladly suffered the most gruesome deaths for the sake and salvation of their souls? You, however, do not give up great treasures; indeed you give not even a moderate alms. They gave their bodies to be martyred, but you delight in living well joyfully. You priest, nobleman, merchant, wife, virgin, you married people, young person, old man, enter into your church which is for you, as I have said, St Peter’s, and visit the most holy Cross. It has been placed there for you, and it always cries and calls for you. Are you perhaps ashamed to visit the Cross with a candle and yet not ashamed to visit a tavern? Are you ashamed to go to the apostolic confessors, but not ashamed to go to a dance? Behold, you are on the raging sea of this world in storm and danger, not knowing if you will safely reach the harbor of salvation. Do you not know that everything which man has hangs on a thin thread and that all of life is but a struggle on earth? Let us then fight, as did Lawrence and the other saints, for the salvation of the soul, not the body which is today but not tomorrow. Today it is well, but ill tomorrow. Today alive and tomorrow dead.

You should know that all who confess and in penance put alms into the coffer according to the counsel of the confessor, will obtain complete remission of all their sins. If they visit, after confession and after the Jubilee, the Cross and the altar every day they will receive that indulgence which would be theirs upon visiting in St Peter’s the seven altars, where complete indulgence is offered. Why are you then standing there? Run for the salvation of your souls! Be as careful and concerned for the salvation of your souls as you are for your temporal goods, which you seek both day and night. Seek the Lord while he may be found and while he is near. Work, as St John says, while it is yet day, for the night comes when no man can work.

Don’t you hear the voices of your wailing dead parents and others who say, ‘Have mercy upon me, have mercy upon me, because we are in severe punishment and pain. From this you could redeem us with a small alms and yet you do not want to do so.’ Open your ears as the father says to the son and the mother to the daughter, ‘We have created you, fed you, cared for you, and left you our temporal goods. Why then are you so cruel and harsh that you do not want to save us, though it only takes a little? You let us lie in flames so that we only slowly come to the promised glory.’ You may have letters which let you have, once in life and in the hour of death full remission of the punishment which belongs to sin. Oh, those of you with vows, you usurers, robbers, murderers, and criminals—Now is the time to hear the voice of God. He does not want the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and live. Convert yourself then, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, to the Lord, thy God. Oh, you blasphemers, gossippers, who hinder this work openly or secretly, what about your affairs? You are outside the fellowship of the Church. No masses, no sermons, prayers, sacraments, or intercession help you. No field, vineyard, trees, or cattle bring fruit or wine for you. Even spiritual things vanish, as many an illustration could point out. Convert yourself with all your heart and use the medicine of which the Book of Wisdom says, ‘The Most High has made medicine out of the earth and a wise man will not reject it.’

Source: Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed., The Reformation: A Narrative History Related by Contemporary Observers and Participants. New York, 1964, pp. 41-43.

EXTRACT FROM SERMON ON INDULGENCES GIVEN BY TETZEL TO PAROCHIAL CLERGY (source)

Venerable Sir, I pray you that in your utterances you may be pleased to make use of such words as shall serve to open the eyes of the mind and cause your hearers to consider how great a grace and gift they have had and now have at their very doors. Blessed eyes indeed, which see what they see, because already they possess letters of safe conduct by which they are able to lead their souls through that valley of tears, through that sea of the mad world, where storms and tempests and dangers lie in wait, to the blessed land of Paradise. Know that the life of man upon earth is a constant struggle. We have to fight against the flesh, the world and the devil, who are always seeking to destroy the soul. In sin we are conceived, alas! what bonds of sin encompass us, and how difficult and almost impossible it is to attain to the gate of salvation without divine aid; since He causes us to be saved, not by virtue of the good works which we accomplish, but through His divine mercy ; it is necessary then to put on the armor of God.

You may obtain letters of safe conduct from the vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, by means of which you are able to liberate your soul from the hands of the enemy, and convey it by means of contrition and confession, safe and secure from all pains of Purgatory, into the happy kingdom. For know that in these letters are stamped and engraven all the merits of Christ's passion there laid bare. Consider, that for each and every mortal sin it is necessary to undergo seven years of penitence after confession and contrition, either in this life or in Purgatory.

How many mortal sins are committed in a day, how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many in tfie whole course of life ! They are well-nigh numberless, and those that commit them must needs suffer endless punishment in the burning pains of Purgatory,

But with these confessional letters you will be able at any time in life to obtain full indulgence for all penalties imposed upon you, in all cases except the four reserved to the Apostolic See. Therefore throughout your whole life, whenever you wish to make confession, you may receive the same remission, except in cases reserved to the Pope, and afterwards, at the hour of death, a full indulgence as to all penalties and sins, and your share of all spiritual blessings that exist in the church militant and all its members.

Do you not know that when it is necessary for anyone to go to Rome, or undertake any other dangerous journey, he takes his money to a broker and gives a certain per cent five or six or ten in order that at Rome or elsewhere he may receive again his funds intact, by means of the letter of this same broker? Are you not willing, then, for the fourth part of a florin, to obtain these letters, by virtue of which you may bring, not your money, but your divine and immortal soul safe and sound into the land of Paradise?

Wherefore I counsel, order, and by virtue of my authority as shepherd, I command that they shall receive together with me and other priests, this precious treasure, especially those who were not confessed at the time of the holy Jubilee, that they may be able to obtain the same forever. For the time may come when you may desire, but yet be unable to obtain the least portion of the grace.

Also on the part of SS. D. N. the Pope and of the most holy apostolic See and of the most reverend sir, my legate, to each and every one who shall have profited by the sacred Jubilee and made confession, and to all who may profit by this present brief opportunity, and who shall have lent a helping hand to the construction of the aforesaid house of the Prince of the Apostles, they shall all be participants and sharers in all prayers, suffrages, alms, fasts, supplications, masses, canonical hours, disciplines, pilgrimages, papal stations, benedictions, and all other spiritual goods which now exist or may exist forever in the church militant, and in all of these, not only they themselves, but their relatives, kindred, and benefactors who have passed away; and as they were moved by charity, so God, and SS. Peter and Paul, and all the saints whose bodies rest in Rome, shall guard them in peace in this vale, and conduct them through it to the heavenly kingdom. Give everlasting thanks in the aforesaid names and in mine to the reverend secular priests and prelates, etc.

Copy of an inexpensive indulgence
sold by Tetzel

Translation: "In the authority of all the saints,
and in compassion towards thee,
I absolve thee from all sins and misdeeds,
and remit all punishment for ten days." (source)

ARCHBISHOP ALBERT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
(source)

"The Archbishop of Mainz arranged with the Pope in 1515 to conduct the sale of indulgences in his own vast archiepiscopal provinces, Mainz and Magdeburg, for one-half the proceeds. The plan was not carried out until 1517 when, we may infer, the undated Instructions to Subcommissioners were drawn up, a portion of which is given below. These instructions, Cardinal Hergenrother observes, "corresponding with the teaching of the church, cannot be a source of reproach to the Elector" (Contiliengeschichte, IX, ii). The sub-commissioners appealed in turn to the parochial priests, and there are extant portions of another set of instructions issued by John Tetzel to the priests of his territory, exhorting them to prepare the minds of their parishioners for indulgences; and with these instructions he sent pattern sermons..."
xx

Here follow the four principal graces and privileges, which are granted by the apostolic bull, of which each may be obtained without the other. In the matter of these four privileges preachers shall take pains to commend each to believers with the greatest care, and, in-so-far as in their power lies, to explain the same.

The first grace is the complete remission of all sins; and nothing greater than this can be named, since man who lives in sin and forfeits the favor of God, obtains complete remission by these means and once more enjoys God's favor: moreover, through this remission of sins the punishment which one is obliged to undergo in Purgatory on account of the affront to the divine Majesty, is all remitted, and the pains of Purgatory completely blotted out. And although nothing is precious enough to be given in exchange for such a grace, since it is the free gift of God and a grace beyond price, yet in order that Christian believers may be the more easily induced to procure the same, we establish the following rules, to wit :

In the first place every one who is contrite in heart, and has made oral confession, or at all events has the intention of confessing at a suitable time, shall visit at least the seven churches indicated for this purpose, that is to say, those in which the papal arms are displayed, and in each church shall say devoutly five Paternosters and five Ave Marias in honor of the five wounds of our Lord Jesus Christ, whereby our salvation is won, or one Miserere, which Psalm is particularly well adapted for obtaining forgiveness of sins.

Sick or otherwise incapacitated persons shall visit with the same devotion and prayers the seven altars, which the commissioners and subcommissioners shall have erected in the church where the cross shall be raised, and on which they shall have affixed the papal arms.

Where, however, persons are found so weak that they cannot conveniently come to such a church, then shall their confessor or penitentiary cause an altar to be brought to a convenient place approved by him. And where such persons visit this place and offer up their prayers near the altar or before it, they shall deserve the indulgence as though they had visited the seven churches.

To those, however, who are upon beds of sickness the image of a saint may be sent, before or beside which they may offer up a certain number of prayers, according to the judgment of the confessor, in which case they shall be considered to have done as much as if they had visited the seven churches.

But where a certain one, particularly a woman, requests, on account of some especial cause, that the visitation of the churches and altars be remitted, the penitentiaries may grant the request on proper grounds; but the said visitation shall be replaced with an increased contribution.

Respecting, now, the contribution to the chest, for the building of the said church of the chief of the apostles, the penitentiaries and confessors, after they have explained to those making confession the full remission and privileges, shall ask of them, for how much money or other temporal goods they would conscientiously go without the said most complete remission and privileges; and this shall be done in order that hereafter they may be brought the more easily to contribute. And because the conditions and occupations of men are so manifold and diverse that we cannot consider them individually, and impose specific rates accordingly, we have therefore concluded that the rates should be determined according to the recognized classes of persons.

Kings and Queens and their offspring, archbishops and bishops, and other great rulers as well, provided they seek the places where the cross is raised, or otherwise present themselves, shall pay at least five and twenty Rhenish guilders in gold. Abbots and the great prelates of Cathedral churches, counts, barons, and others of the higher nobility, together with their consorts, shall pay for each letter of indulgence ten such guilders. Other lesser prelates and nobles, as also the rectors of celebrated places, and all others, who, either from permanent incomes or merchandise, or otherwise, enjoy a total yearly revenue of five hundred gold guilders, shall pay six guilders. Other citizens and tradespeople and artisans, who have individual incomes and families of their own, shall pay one such guilder; others of less means only a half. And where it is impossible to adhere rigidly to the schedule above indicated, then we declare that the said kings, bishops, dukes, abbots, prelates, counts, barons, members of the higher nobility and rectors, together with all others above mentioned, shall place or cause to be placed in the chest a sum in accordance with the dictates of sound reason, proportionate to their magnificence or generosity, after they have listened to the advice and council of the subcommissioners and penitentiaries and of their confessors, in order that they may fully obtain the grace and privileges. All other persons are confided to the discretion of the confessors and penitentiaries, who should have ever in view the advancement of this building, and should urge their penitents to a freer contribution, but should let no one go away without some portion of grace, because the happiness of Christian believers is here concerned not less than the interests of the building. And those that have no money, they shall supply their contribution with prayer and fasting; for the Kingdom of Heaven should be open to the poor not less than to the rich.

And although a married woman may not dispose of the husband's goods against his will, yet she shall be able to contribute in this instance against the will of her husband of her dowry or of her own private property, which has come to her in a regular manner. Where she has no such possessions, or is prevented by her husband, she shall then supply such contribution with prayer; and the same we wish to have understood concerning sons who still remain under parental control.

Where, however, the said poor wives and sons who still remain under parental control may obtain by entreaty or otherwise from other rich and pious persons the means needed for such payments and contributions, they shall place the sums so acquired in the chest. Where, however, they have absolutely no way of procuring such contributions, then they may obtain through prayer and supplication the said treasures of grace as well for themselves as for the dead.

In all the cases above indicated, however, some room shall be left for the exercise of discretion on the part of the subcommissioners and confessors, who shall have regard to God and their consciences, so that peace of conscience and the welfare of all the above said persons shall be happily secured.

The second signal grace is a confessional letter containing the most extraordinarily comforting and hitherto unheard of privileges, and which also retains its virtue even after our bull expires at the end of eight years, since the bull says: "they shall be participators now and for ever." The meaning of the same, preachers and confessors shall explain and bring unto all possible prominence ; for there will be granted in the confessional letter, to those who buy : first, the power to choose a qualified confessor, even a monk from the mendicant orders, who shall absolve them first and foremost, with the consent of the persons involved, from all censures by whomsoever imposed; in the second place, from each and every crime, even the greatest, and as well from those reserved to the apostolic see, once in a lifetime and in the hour of death; third, in those cases which are not reserved, as often as necessary; fourth, the chosen confessor may grant him complete forgiveness of all sins once in life, and at the hour of death, as often as it may seem at hand, although death ensue not; and, fifth, transform all kinds of vows, excepting alone those solemnly taken, into other works of piety (as when one has vowed to perform the journey to the Holy Land, or to visit the holy Apostles at Rome, to make a pilgrimage to St. James at Compostella, to become a monk, or to take a vow of chastity) ; sixth, the confessor may administer to him the sacrament of the altar at all seasons, except on Easter day, and in the hour of death.

We furthermore ordain that one of these confessional letters shall be given and imparted for the quarter of a Rhenish gold guilder, in order that the poor shall not thereby be shut out from the manifold graces therein contained; it may however happen that nobles and other wealthy persons may, out of devotion and liberality, be disposed to give more. Whatever is given over and above the ordinary fee shall be placed in the chest. In cases where such letters are demanded by colleges or cloisters, whether of men or women, the fee which they shall be obliged to pay must be computed by the subcommissioners according to their number and their property. The same subcommissioners must seal the confessional letters which shall be issued, and sign them with their own hand, setting forth the fee which has been paid for the letter.

It is also our desire that the name of only one person should be written in the confessional letter, except in case of man and wife, who are one in the flesh. To these may also be added the sons and daughters who are still under parental control, and have as yet nothing of their own. And in order that each and every one of the said persons, as well as the poor and those of moderate means, may be able to obtain such confessional letters, we hereby clothe our general subcommissioner with power to fix a certain sum to be paid collectively by the persons whose names are written in a confessional letter, as it may best subserve the interests of the aforesaid church building.

We desire also, that the names of each and every one who buys a letter, or obtains one for any cause without remuneration shall be written by him who issues the same in a special book. And he that issues shall endorse his name upon each letter, in order that an account of the sales may be given later, and that no mistakes may creep in.

We desire, moreover, that the said confessional letters be issued in all places covered by our commission for the sale of indulgences, even where the cross has not been raised, during the period of eight years, by those who hold authentic written commissions either from us or from our general subcommissioners.

The third most important grace is the participation in all the possessions of the church universal, which consists herein, that contributors toward the said building, together with their deceased relations, who have departed this world in a state of grace, shall from now and for eternity, be partakers in all petitions, intercessions, alms, fastings, prayers, in each and every pilgrimage, even those to the Holy Land; furthermore, in the stations at Rome, in the masses, canonical hours, flagellations, and all other spiritual goods which have been brought forth or which shall be brought forth by the universal, most holy church militant or by any of its members. Believers will become participants in all these things who purchase confessional letters. Preachers and confessors must insist with great perseverance upon these advantages, and persuade believers that they should not neglect to acquire these along with their confessional letter...

We also declare that in order to acquire these two most important graces, it is not necessary to make confession, or to visit the churches and altars, but merely to purchase the confessional letter.

The fourth distinctive grace is for those souls which are in purgatory, and is the complete remission of all sins, which remission the pope brings to pass through his intercession to the advantage of said souls, in this wise; that the same contribution shall be placed in the chest by a living person as one would make for himself. It is our wish, however, that our subcommissioners should modify the regulations regarding contributions of this kind which are given for the dead, and that they should use their judgment in all other cases, where in their opinion modifications are desirable. It is furthermore not necessary that the persons who place their contributions in the chest for the dead should be contrite in heart and have orally con- fessed, since this grace is based simply on the state of grace in which the dead departed, and on the contribution of the living, as is evident from the text of the bull. Moreover, preachers shall exert themselves to give this grace the widest publicity, since through the same, help will surely come to departed souls, and the construction of the Church of St. Peter will be abundantly promoted at the same time.

Using a Popular Protestant Luther Biography to Discredit Luther

Recently the Catholic Answers Forums has had a number of Luther / Reformation related discussions.  I was going to comment on the thread, Little Known Facts About Martin Luther, but it appears this discussion crossed the line even for the CA moderators and they deleted it. One other hostile discussion that hasn't been shut down is entitled, Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated? This one is an interesting read, as it shows some of Rome's laymen appear to think that selling indulgences to rebuild St. Peter's was all fine and good, and Luther, a doctrinally ill-informed monk and severe sufferer of scrupulosity was way out of line to make such a stink over the whole thing.

Note for instance, this post, in which one of Rome's defenders used Martin Brecht's biography of Luther against Luther and argues for the validity of the indulgences to rebuild St. Peter's Cathedral:

Aug 13, '14, 12:34 pm

Topper17  Junior Member Join Date: October 25, 2013 Posts: 438 Religion: Catholic

Re: Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated? What baffles me is how people can possibly think that Luther deserved anything but excommunication, or that in reality, he didn't really excommunicate himself by being SO far outside of accepted Catholic teaching. Ref your thoughts on Luther vs. Indulgences: It seems that there is a great deal at stake in Luther’s rejection of Indulgences and also in his criticism of Tetzel. In the same manner, whether Tetzel was correctly preaching Indulgences is also important. After all, if Tetzel was right and Luther was wrong, then it would appear that the Reformation was begun over a misunderstanding by Martin Luther. German Lutheran Professor of Reformation and Modern Church History Martin Brecht’s massive three volume biography of Martin Luther is correctly known for it’s attention to detail. It is also known for generally accepting Luther’s side of many situations. As such, when Brecht makes comments that show Luther in a negative light, they must be viewed as being credible. Brecht deals with the indulgence controversy in Volume 1, pages 175-221. I will be posting Brecht’s comments in the order that they appear. The generally accepted story about the Indulgence and Tetzel’s administration of them was that they were solely for the purpose of profit by the Church. Not so. While many people paid on the basis of their status: “The indigent were to fast and pray.” (Vol. I, pg. 182) This means that the Church granted the indulgence to the poor even if they could not pay to help build St. Peter’s. Clearly, the Church wanted to have everyone receive the Indulgence regardless of the ability to pay. The standard Protestant version of John Tetzel is not exactly flattering. He has been pilloried for centuries and was supposedly rude, crude, lewd, and greedy. “Probably unjustly, he (Tetzel) was usually caricatured as a crude, ignorant, and morally disreputable indulgence preacher. The charges of an immoral life-style, which Luther later repeated about him, appear to have rested on unsubstantiated rumors. Tetzel was not uneducated. He had studied theology and was for a time not only a preacher in Leipzig, but also the second theological teacher of the order’s school there. In 1518, probably through his superiors in the order, he was granted the doctor of theology degree.” Ibid, pg. 182 Much has been made here of Luther’s understanding of indulgences. Again, if Luther had a poor understanding of the issue, then it would appear that he should not have presumed to have the background necessary to challenge the teachings of the Church in their regard. “Around Easter 1517, as the Wittenbergers were running like mad to Zerst and to Juterbog (22 miles from Wittenberg), in the territory of the archbishopric of Magdeburg in order to obtain indulgence letters and then amending their lives, he first attempted to set things right through sermons. He himself was not completely clear about indulgences, but he was convinced that he could do better, that there was something more certain than obtaining indulgence letters.” Ibid, pg. 184 Here we should remember that with Luther, the key issue was the ‘certainty’ of his Salvation. So, whereas indulgences were not ‘certain’ according to Luther, the doctrine that he ‘found’ in Scripture, Salvation by Faith Alone, provided that certainty. This doctrine had never before been ‘discovered’ in Scripture was really the result of his extreme form of scrupulosity. “Again and again he testifies that the demand for complete and perfect confessions caused severe tribulations for him.” Ibid, pg. 184 Here in this section on Indulgences, Brecht ties in Luther’s extreme scrupulosity, which was obviously the foundation for his ‘problem’ with indulgences, since they were in opposition to where Luther ‘was headed’, Salvation by Faith Alone, even if he didn’t understand it at this point. “Around 1514……Luther was already complaining that people were trying to make the way to heaven easy with indulgences, and with minimal demands – a sigh was sufficient – they were making grace cheap.” Ibid, pg. 185 How ironic is it that Luther complained that indulgences made grace cheap and then went on to invent Salvation by Faith Alone. In analyzing Luther’s “Treatise on Indulgences” Brecht makes the following comments: “Luther himself is uncertain about liberation from purgatory. He is also not certain whether God remits through indulgences an imperfect repentance or imperfect love of God.Fundamentally indulgences are of value only to those who are contrite. But it is precisely for them that an indulgence is really of no significance. Perfect contrition in itself already removes all punishment. Thus indulgences also are unnecessary. Therefore Luther does not know what use indulgences have.” Ibid, pg. 189 Here we see Luther’s ‘uncertainty’ with regards to indulgences, and how the fact of his craving for the certainty of his salvation impacted his ‘problem’ with indulgences. I would suggest that maybe Luther shouldn’t have taken it upon himself to stand Christianity on its ear over a matter on which he lacked understanding. It is also interesting to note that Luther believed that perfect contrition removes all punishment. We know that Luther was terrified by the idea of God’s punishment and here we see how much it drove his probably unconscious agenda to refute indulgences. In seems we need to spend more time studying Luther’s mental health issues. What was it that was so unique about him that he was able to 'find' things in Scripture (like SBFA) that nobody else had noticed prior. God Bless You Spina, Topper More from Brecht to follow

One good thing about the CA forums is that they have word counts. My original response was much longer, but I edited it down to fit CA's parameters.

Aug 17, '14, 8:46 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 754 Religion: Reformed

Re: Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated? Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  when Brecht makes comments that show Luther in a negative light, they must be viewed as being credible. Brecht's primary purpose in this section is to explain the rampant abuse of indulgences and Luther's involvement in the controversy. In his words, there is nothing out of the ordinary describing this or Luther personally. It's standard stuff within Luther studies. Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  The generally accepted story about the Indulgence and Tetzel’s administration of them was that they were solely for the purpose of profit by the Church. Not so. Brecht states: “How much the indulgence could become or had become a scandalous financial business, mixed up with political and commercial interests, is shown precisely by Pope Leo X's plenary indulgence of 31 March 1515 which was intended to finance the building of the new St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome… it was this that touched off Luther’s protest that led to the Reformation…” (178) “Pope Leo X’s bull of indulgence on 31 March 1515… openly displayed the connection between pastoral and financial interests from the outset.” (179) Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  While many people paid on the basis of their status: “The indigent were to fast and pray.” ... Clearly, the Church wanted to have everyone receive the Indulgence regardless of the ability to pay. On page 180-181 Brecht points out that everyone paid (including the sick and disabled) except those who had nothing (the indigent). Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  The standard Protestant version of John Tetzel is not exactly flattering. He has been pilloried for centuries and was supposedly rude, crude, lewd, and greedy. While Brecht notes the education and speaking abilities of Tetzel, as well as Luther's opinion of him, he points out that in regard to preaching on indulgences “He was in complete command of the indulgence propaganda” (183), and then cites from Tetzel directly: “Have mercy upon your dead parents,” “Whoever has an indulgence has salvation; anything else is of no avail” (183). Brecht notes also, “His remarks about the treasure of the church caused offense, and he cheapened grace because he was interested chiefly in as large a financial gain as possible” (183). “As an indulgence commissioner Tetzel was paid extremely well” (183). Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  Much has been made here of Luther’s understanding of indulgences. Again, if Luther had a poor understanding of the issue, then it would appear that he should not have presumed to have the background necessary to challenge the teachings of the Church in their regard. The lack of clarity goes beyond Luther. There was no complete dogma on the indulgence at this time. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory. Brecht also notes the lack of official doctrinal clarity of indulgences present to this day (176-177). Early on, Luther did not deny the validity of indulgences, but was concerned with the abuse of the indulgence. That there was an abuse of indulgences during this period and that Luther pointed it out, and that the church later sought to correct the abuses, is indisputable. Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  “Around Easter 1517, as the Wittenbergers were running like mad to Zerst and to Juterbog (22 miles from Wittenberg), in the territory of the archbishopric of Magdeburg in order to obtain indulgence letters and then amending their lives, he first attempted to set things right through sermons. He himself was not completely clear about indulgences, but he was convinced that he could do better, that there was something more certain than obtaining indulgence letters.” Ibid, pg. 184 This is a misquote. “22 miles from Wittenberg” is not in the immediate text, and crucial words have been left out as well. The sentence actually reads: "Around Easter 1517, as the Wittenbergers were running like mad to Zerst and to Juterbog in the territory of the archbishopric of Magdeburg in order to obtain indulgence letters and then later wishing Luther to absolve them without repenting and amending their lives, he first attempted to set things right through sermons.” In context, Brecht explains that Luther’s concern over the indulgence literature at this time was to safeguard the sacrament of penance. Brecht notes Luther came to maintain the following: “Repentance is sorrow over the sins one has committed because of the love one has for God” (185) and that this was something “which could only be reconciled with the practice of indulgences only with difficulty” (185). Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  “Around 1514……Luther was already complaining that people were trying to make the way to heaven easy with indulgences, and with minimal demands – a sigh was sufficient – they were making grace cheap.” Ibid, pg. 185 How ironic is it that Luther complained that indulgences made grace cheap and then went on to invent Salvation by Faith Alone. According to Brecht, Luther at this time was concerned with the inner repentance of the heart (187), and that inner repentance is demonstrated by “the outward repentance which consists of confession of sin and satisfaction” (187). Brecht states: “Luther comes to the following conclusion: indulgences presuppose true contrition; they have value only in regard to the satisfactions imposed in private confession” (187). For Luther, a truly contrite and repentant person does not seek indulgences, but rather the cross (187-188). The entire section from Brecht is well worth reading, because it demonstrates the great piety of Luther and his great concern for a real and personal relationship with God. What I think is fascinating is how Luther and the indulgence controversy demonstrates a reoccurring problem within Christianity- that some people preach and think paying money is a way to God without actually having a real relationship with God.

Amazing stuff. Once again, context is key.


Addendum
The same person arguing for the validity of Tetzel and his preaching of indulgences also made the following assertion:

In fact, there actually were executions in Wittenberg in the 1530’s during Luther’s reign there.

Over the years on this blog I've documented Luther's vacillation on capital punishment. It's fairly easy to document that the magisterial Reformers advocated a state / church relationship in which heresy and those causing societal unrest would face extreme punishment, including the death penalty. It's also easy to document the persecution of these people in Protestant lands, including Lutheran lands. I've yet to find though any documentation for Luther's role in public executions in Wittenberg in the 1530's, or any actual public executions in Wittenberg in the 1530's.

 I responded to this assertion as follows:

I'd like to have some clarification on this point, if possible. I don't recall Luther being elected to political office or having a political reign in Wittenberg. As far as I know, he was an influential preacher and a theologian in Wittenberg in an age in which the church and state had a close relationship. Nor do I recall Luther specifically having individuals executed in Wittenberg in the 1530's. I am aware of some people being executed for witchcraft in Wittenberg in the early 1540's, and I'm familiar with the severe interrogations of some Anabaptists in Wittenberg in the 1530's.

As someone always willing to learn (or to be reminded of what I've forgotten), I'd like to know (or be reminded) exactly who Luther had executed in Wittenberg in the 1530's. While it certainly is within the realm of possibility that the secular authorities of Wittenberg during the 1530's carried out capital punishment, I don't recall this actually happening in the 1530's, or more specifically, that Luther was involved with the carrying out of executions during the 1530's, especially against Anabaptists.

It's quite possible there were executions in Wittenberg during the 1530's. It seems to me though this overzealous Roman defender is trying to make Luther worse than he was, or perhaps was thinking of other areas of strong Lutheran influence in which capital punishment was carried out. If there was some sort of situation in which Luther was directly involved with a public execution as carried out by the authorities in Wittenberg in the 1530's, I think I would have come across it. Consider Calvin's involvement in the Servetus affair- if there was some similar situation involving Luther in Wittenberg in the 1530's, I think Rome's defenders would make it a front and center attribute of Luther's career.

I have a few books specific to the relationship of the magisterial Reformers to the radicals that may have the documentation for this person's assertion. My suspicion though is that when it was asserted "there actually were executions in Wittenberg in the 1530’s during Luther’s reign" the comment was written without any actual research, or perhaps it was just a mis-statement by an over-zealous defender of Rome.