Luther Broke His Solemn Religious Vows and Got Married?

Here's a snippet from the Catholic Answers forums discussion, "Did Martin Luther allow divorce?":

Well, considering [Luther] broke his solemn Religious vows and induced a consecrated nun to break her solemn Religious vows to ‘marry’ him I would presume that he did not take serious the ‘vows’ of sacramental marriage.

Rome's defenders have discussed Luther rejecting his vows for years. The Catholic Answers folks went through this some years back, as did the Defenders of the Catholic Faith. Under the heading, "Luther Perverts Morality," the Catholic Family News blog states, "Luther, an ordained priest and consecrated Augustinian religious, broke his vow of celibacy and married a nun, also under the vow of celibacy. Luther encouraged many other priests and religious to break their vows and marry." Going beyond contemporary online banter, Father William Most (via EWTN) stated,

Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) 5.4-5: "When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill it." Luther broke all his vows. 

Father Patrick O'Hare stated long ago, "...we cannot forget that Luther, in order to wed, had to commit an act of infidelity towards God and disregard his vow of celibacy. No excuse can be offered to palliate or condone his infidelity." Denifle stated, Luther had "broken his vows and misled others." A letter to the Catholic Magazine from 1831 stated, "An Augustinian monk, broke his vow of chastity made to God, seduced Catherine Boren, a nun, who was under the same vow, and lived with her to the end of his life." Many more examples could be provided, from either laymen or published Roman Catholic works, spanning the centuries.

During the recent Catholic Answers discussion, this bit of Luther-bashing was answered cleverly by a Lutheran participant here. He stated in part,

Luther was released from his religious vows by his father confessor, Johann von Staupitz, who did so in order to protect both himself and Father Martin. Had Luther remained under his charge, Staupitz would’ve been both responsible for Luther’s future actions and required to turn him over to the authorities. No father would want any part in the (what was then assumed to be imminent) death of his son.

From a broad Protestant worldview, Luther abandoned an unbiblical illegitimate vow, so Rome's defenders can cry foul all they want to.  But, If indeed Staupitz released Luther from his religious vows, then according to their own worldview,  Rome's defenders have no grounds against Luther for marrying. Let's explore this and look at the proof for the assertion that Luther was released from his vows.

Documentation

I did ask for documentation. I was directed to Heiko Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, page 197. Oberman states, 

Oberman documents this, "Cf. Th. Kolde, Augustiner-Congregation, 321. Cf. Staupitz's letter to Elector Frederick on 15, Oct. 1518; supplement 16, pp. 443f." "Kolde" refers to German Protestant theologian,  Theodor von Kolde (1850-1913). "Augustiner-Congregation" refers to his book, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation und Johann von Staupitz; ein Beitrag zur Ordens- und Reformationsgeschichte nach meistens ungedruckten Quellen. Here is page 321. Kolde states,

Kolde here doesn't add anything all that different than Oberman. The second reference, "Staupitz's letter to Elector Frederick on 15, Oct. 1518; supplement 16, pp. 443f" refers to page 443 of Kolde's book which provides the Staupitz letter being alluded to. The letter has been translated into English by Preserved Smith and can be found here. There is nothing in this letter that specifically states Staupitz release Luther from his vows.

I was also informed, "Every good Luther biographer will document his relationship with Staupitz and, necessarily, the former’s release from the latter’s authority. " So, let's take a look at two of the most popular Luther biographies in English. Let's look first at Here I Stand by Roland Bainton. On page 96, Bainton states:

Staupitz released Luther from his vow of obedience to the order. He may have wished to relieve the Augustinians of the onus, or he may have sought to unfetter the friar, but Luther felt that he had been disclaimed. "I was excommunicated three times," he said later, "first by Staupitz, secondly by the pope, and thirdly by the emperor."

Bainton provides two references: "Koestlin-Kaweru, 211" and "TR, 225, 409." The first refers to
"Kostlin, Julius and Kawerau, Georg. Martin Luther. I and II (1903)." Here is page 211 from volume I. This source states,

This information is basically the same as that reported by Oberman. The paragraph ends with the Staupitz release, "Ich absolviere Dich von meiner Obedienz und befehle Dich Gott dem Herrn" (I absolve you of obedience to me and commend you to the Lord God). There are a number of footnotes. BR 1, 541 refers to Luther's letter to Staupitz, January 14, 1521, but nothing in that letter says that Staupitz absolved Luther. "Diet. 158" refers to Veit Dietrich's collection of Table Talk utterances (this will be discussed below). "St Kr 1878" refers to Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1878, page 705, in which footnote 1 refers to Veit Dietrich's Table Talk statement of Staupitz's absolution of Luther "Absolvo te ab oboedientia mea et commendo te Domino Deo" (I absolve you of obedience to me and commend you to the Lord God) (see below).

Bainton's second reference, "TR, 225, 409" refers to two of Luther's Table Talk comments. The first is entry 225 in WATR 1. This entry has been included in LW 54:30,

No. 225: Luther “Excommunicated” Three Times Between April 7 and 15, 1532
 “Three times have I been excommunicated. The first time was by Dr. Staupitz, who absolved me from the observance and rule of the Augustinian Order so that, if the pope pressed him to imprison me or command me to be silent, he could excuse himself on the ground that I was not under his obedience. The second time was by the pope and the third time was by the emperor. Consequently I cannot be accused of laying aside my habit, and I am now silent by divine authority alone.”

The second entry, 409, from WATR 1, 177, is another accounting of the same information, but includes the words from Staupitz, "Absolvo te ab oboedientia mea et commendo te Domino Deo" (I absolve you of obedience to me and commend you to the Lord God):

Second, let's look at Martin Brecht's massive biography of Luther. He states,

Brecht cites "Kolde 443" (explained above), and "WA, TR 1, nos. 884, 1203." These also refer to Table Talk utterances. Here is 884 and 1203. Both of these repeat the same sentiment documented in the previously mentioned Table Talk quotes.  "Scheuris Briejbuch 2:52" refers to a letter and can be found here. Nothing on this page mentions the release of Luther from his monastic vows. WA Br 2:245 refers to Luther's letter to Staupitz January 14, 1521 (explained above).

Conclusion
Granted, I only checked three popular English sources. Of these three, the consensus is that Luther was released from his monastic vows as documented by the Table Talk. Unfortunately, the Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written, or some probable historical fact mentioned elsewhere. In this instance, it does seem quite likely that Staupitz probably did release Luther from his monastic vows, but none of the references I checked above verify this other than via the Table Talk. Even LW 31 says,  "When Staupitz heard a rumor to the effect that Cajetan was planning to arrest Luther and him, he absolved Luther of his monastic vow and left Augsburg without bidding the cardinal farewell" (LW 31:257). That rumor is verified by a letter from Staupitz himself: "He says also that there is in the land a letter of the General against Luther. Dr. Peutinger has heard that it is also against me, with the purpose of throwing us in prison and using force against us. God be our guard!" Unfortunately, the letter does not say anything about releasing Luther from his vows.  The fact though of this release from Staupitz seems generally accepted, even by those unfavorable Luther. For instance, Hartmann Grisar stated,

Staupitz, who had stood by him at Augsburg, dispensed him for the journey from any part of the Rule which might have proved to his disadvantage, even from the wearing of the Augustinian habit. This Superior had again shown himself at Augsburg as a man of half-measures who allowed his prejudice for Luther to outweigh the demands of the Church and of his Order.  

And also:

It is scarcely necessary to say that the fact that, in 1518 (at Augsburg), Staupitz released Luther "from the observance" has nothing whatever to do with the question in hand. Luther says : "me absolvit ab observantia et regula ordinis." (Weim. ed., of the Table-Talk, 1, p. 96.) All that his superior did was to dispense him from his obligation of carrying out outwardly the rule of the Order, e.g. from dressing as a monk, etc. Even had Luther been a Conventual he could still have spoken thus of his having been absolved from the " observance." It may be that Staupitz, for his own freedom of action, also absolved Luther from his duty of obedience to him as Vicar. Even so, however, Luther remained an Augustinian, returned to his monastery, wrote on behalf of the vows, and, long after, still continued to wear the Augustinian habit.

I'm not exactly sure how Grisar arrived at the interpretation he did based one quote from the Table Talk , that Staupitz meant only to release Luther "from dressing as a monk, etc." This seems to be a reading into the sparse historical facts. Regardless of Grisar's spin, his comments demonstrate that the Table Talk is generally accepted on this issue. 

Echoing Grisar, Roman Catholic scholar Franz Posset says we should not be so quick to think Luther no longer considered himself an Augustinian after his release from Staupitz:

If in fact Staupitz did release Luther from his vows, whether or not Luther considered himself an Augustinian is besides the point. There's one other aspect to this that should also be mentioned in closing. I know of no instances in which Luther argued his marriage was legitimate because he was released from his vows.

I've chastised Rome's defenders for a number of years for putting the wrong value on the Table Talk. Unless I find some other historical evidence beyond that source arguing Luther was released from his vows, I would only use such reasoning tentatively in applying it to Luther's later marriage. On the other hand, since many of Rome's defenders put the wrong historical value on the Table Talk, why not use the argument? Using the argument would be reasoning according to their worldview!

Martin Luther Advocated the Raping of Nuns?

Rome's defenders are a constant (and seemingly never-ending) source of blog material. The picture to the left comes from the Tweets of "Toronto Catholic":

MARTIN LUTHER - RAPIST. The Vatican is SILENT on Luther's endorsement of the rape of nuns - Holy Saturday,1523

 This statement accompanies their website article at Witness For Church And Pope:

Martin Luther advocated the raping of Nuns ~ how can any Catholic praise him, or this hideous, evil "Reformation"? Jacques Maritain in "Three Reformers", documents Martin Luther's view of women and especially Nuns. The heresiarch was a vicious, sadistic proponent of rape. Like the other "reformers", Luther was a debauched and grossly immoral man. 

After a rape of nuns which took place on the night of Holy Saturday, 1523, Luther calls the citizen Koppe, who organized the exploit, a "blessed robber," and writes to him, " Like Christ, you have drawn these poor souls from the prison of human tyranny. You have done it at a time providentially indicated, at that moment of Easter when Christ destroyed the prison of His own." (Ibid., 40; Weim., IX, 394-395.)

We'll see below there was not a "rape of nuns - Holy Saturday,1523," nor was "the citizen Koppe" a rapist, nor was anyone praised by Luther for being a rapist. Rome's defenders are interpreting the historical account of a group of 12 nuns escaping from the Marienthron Cistercian monastery on April 4, 1523 to be an account of rape. In that group of 12 nuns was Luther's future wife, Katherine von Bora.  Nuns escaping from a monastery is not rape.

Documentation
Witness for Church And Pope cites "Jacques Maritain in 'Three Reformers' " without any indication of edition or page number. Maritain was a Roman Catholic writer, hostile towards both Luther and the Reformation. Maritain has been characterized as being in the tradition of destructive criticism in the vein of Denifle and Grisar (see: Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther, Roman Catholic Prophet, p. 28-29).

"Three Reformers" refers to his book Trois Reformateurs: Luther - Descartes - Rousseau (1925). The book was translated into English. The edition I have is a 1947 reprint by Sheed and Ward LTD. The section from Maritain beiong cited is from a lengthy footnote on page 184:

After a rape of nuns which took place on the night of Holy Saturday, 1523, Luther calls the citizen Koppe, who organized the exploit, a "blessed robber," and writes to him, "Like Christ you have drawn these poor souls from the prison of human tyranny. You have done it at a time providentially indicated, at that moment of Easter when Christ destroyed the prison of His own." (Ibid., 40; Weim., IX, 394-395.) He himself was surrounded by nuns thus restored to nature. His Catherine Bora was one of them. It is curious to note that a base contempt for womanhood is the normal price of this war against Christian virginity. "The work and word of God tell us clearly that women must be used for marriage or prostitution." (Weim., XII, 94, 20-22 [1523].) "If women get tired and die of bearing, there is no harm in that; let them die, so long as they bear; they are made for that," (Erl., 20, 84; Weim., X, p. II, 301, 13, Sermon on Marriage, 1522.) And I quote only what can be transcribed.

The "Ibid., 40" cited by both Witness for Church And Pope and Maritain refers to the French edition of Heinrich Denifle's Luther et Lutheranisme Vol. 1, p. 40.  This corresponds to page 23 of the English edition. Denfile states:

Yes, truly, Luther's teachings were their inspiration. They lived, acted, and preached in accordance with them. Luther was the author of the above assembled texts for the violation of the vows, the wiving of priests and monks. He put the words on the prohibition of the vow of chastity into the large catechism. He set up the principle that God imposed an impossible thing upon us, that the (sexual) instinct of nature cannot be resisted, that it must be satisfied. He depicted himself as burning with carnal concupiscence, although some years before he had condemned it and discovered its genesis in the lack of communion with God; he admitted that his own fervor of spirit was decreasing and that he was neglecting prayer. As his teachings were depopulating the monasteries, so he himself furnished the incentive to the abduction of the consecrated virgins, the perpetrator being called by him a "blessed robber," and compared with Christ, who robbed the prince of the world of what was his. (76) He took one of the abducted nuns, put up for sale, as a witness of his gospel, as his concubine, and called her his wife. He severed the bonds of marriage and destroyed its indissolubility by his theory, which in practice found expression in the whoredoms and adulteries so bitterly complained of.

(76) Weim. IX, 394 sq. The rape and abduction of the consecrated nuns was carried out by the burgher Koppe in the night of Holy Saturday, 1523. Luther carried his blasphemy so far, that he wrote to the abductor: "Like Christ you have also led these poor souls out of the prison of human tyranny at just the appropriate time of Easter, when Christ led captive the captivity of His own."

Witness for Church And Pope, Maritain, and Denifle all refer to WA 9: 394-395. This text has nothing to do with nuns, Koppe, or the year 1523. It appears that Denifle made a documentation error in his original German. In the Weimar edition, Luther's letter to Koppe appears in WA BR 3:320-327 ( the quote in question is on page 321). The letter appears to have also been published as a short treatise: Urfach und Antwort, daß Jungfrauen Klöster göttlich verlassen mögen (1523). This text can be found in WA 11:387-400 with the quote appearing on page 394-395 (Denifle apparently meant WA XI, not WA IX). To my knowledge, no complete English translation of this letter / treatise  is available, however, it is scheduled to be included in a future English edition of Luther's Works [6.4 Ursache und Antwort, daß Jungfrauen Klöster göttlich verlassen mögen / Rationale and response, that virgins may piously abandon their convents (1523). Aland 378.WA 11:394-400].

Context

Conclusion
The above text is from Luther's letter to Leonhard Koppe (or Coppe) of April 10, 1523. The reason why Luther wrote this letter was due to the Koppe's help in freeing 12 nuns from a monastery. Martin Brecht explains how the escape occurred,

 In the section of Luther's letter cited above, he does use the phrase "blessed robber" just like Christ was a robber when through his death on the cross he stole from "the prince of this world."  So likewise Koppe  rescued the souls of 12 nuns from the prisons of human tyranny, at an ironic time: right before Easter. I know of no credible historical account that the 12 escaped nuns from the Marienthron Cistercian monastery on April 4, 1523 were raped. The information appears to indicate they were not forcibly removed, but were willing escapees.

Addendum
For what it's worth, I did leave a comment at Witness For Church And Pope, and it was published (correction: now deleted!). In another comment, the author claimed to have seen "Luther's original writings at the Library of Congress years ago," so I stated:


James Swan said...

Above you document your claim "Ibid., 40; Weim., IX, 394-395." Well, there's nothing in your entry that the "Ibid." refers to. Also, "Weim., IX, 394-395" is easily accessible online (without going to the Library of Congress). WA 9: 394-395. Can you show me exactly where this text says what you say it does?

Thanks.

3 November 2016 at 16:35 

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).

Martin Brecht: Tetzel did not say, " As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs"?

Here's one from the Catholic Answers forums that demonstrates why it's important to read out of the meaning of a text rather than reading something in to the text.

Scholars have debated for quite a while as to whether or not Tetzel preached something like, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings,  the soul from purgatory springs." The better scholarship says there's no proof from Tetzel's extant writings that he either coined this phrase or used this phrase (see here for more information). On the other hand, it does appear that he did teach something like the sentiment of this during his indulgence preaching.  In the following excerpt, note how the historical discussion as to whether Tetzel said "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs" is read into a section from Martin Brecht's first volume on Luther, whereas Brecht is talking about something entirely different:

First of all, how, specifically and exactly (of course), did Tetzel actually ‘provoke’ Luther? A few pages earlier Brecht reviews, in general, the 95 Theses. He mentions Thesis # 27, which is as follows: “27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.” Luther, “95 Theses” “The phrase ‘as soon as the coin in the coffer rings the soul from purgatory springs’ is also extremely questionable.” Brecht, pg. 194 Here Brecht admits what virtually every reputable Scholar (Protestant and otherwise) now understands, that Tetzel never said ‘as soon as the coin…….”. This means that Luther was mistaken about how Tetzel was preaching the Indulgence. Had he not gone off half-cocked but had bothered to actually make sure of the facts of the matter, he would not have made this mistake, and maybe, just maybe, without the misperception [sic] of a ‘provocation’ by Tetzel, possibly Luther might not have started the ‘Reformation’.


This is a mis-reading of page 194. Brecht isn't saying this at all. He isn't discussing whether or not Tetzel said, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings,  the soul from purgatory springs." Rather, Brecht is describing what Luther is saying in Theses 27-29 of the 95 Theses.  Luther states:

27.There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.

28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.

29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).

Brecht is describing Luther's points section by section in the 95 Theses. It's Luther saying that the phrase " the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest" is questionable.

 On page 182 Brecht explains that the phrase, "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs" had been around as early as 1482. I don't recall a discussion from Brecht in this section exactly as to whether Tetzel said it or not. Regardless, while Tetzel may not have coined the phrase, he taught it's sentiment.