Author Topic: The 95 Theses: An objective look (Read 2577 times)

islander · « **on:** May 02, 2012, 08:18:53 PM »

first things first, i am a catholic. i am a catholic interested in church history; any church, any faith. given the chance, i wish to have the patience and the time to learn more the history and development of various faiths. so far, i only have the inclination, not the time and the patience.

since the 95 theses of martin luther had been mentioned many times in another thread in this board, what else is there to do but look for the 95 theses once and for all. why this tract came to be and why it led to church reformation seems very interesting indeed.

enough of sounding defensive.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #1 on:** May 02, 2012, 08:34:40 PM »

the background

At the start of the [16th century], the Roman Catholic Church was all powerful in western Europe. There was no legal alternative. The Catholic Church jealously guarded its position and anybody who was deemed to have gone against the Catholic Church was labelled a heretic and burnt at the stake. The Catholic Church did not tolerate any deviance from its teachings as any appearance of â€˜going softâ€™ might have been interpreted as a sign of weakness which would be exploited.

The Catholic Church [at that time] raised revenue, among others, through:

Relics: These were officially sanctioned by the Vatican. They were pieces of straw, hay, white feathers from a dove, pieces of the cross etc. that could be sold to people as the things that had been the nearest to Jesus on Earth. The money raised went straight to the church and to the Vatican. These holy relics were keenly sought after as the people saw their purchase as a way of pleasing God. It also showed that you had honored Him by spending your money on relics associated with his son.

Indulgences: These were â€˜certificatesâ€™ produced in bulk that had been pre-signed by the pope which pardoned a personâ€™s sins and gave you access to heaven. Basically if you knew that you had sinned you would wait until a pardoner was in your region selling an indulgence and purchase one as the pope, being Godâ€™s representative on Earth, would forgive your sins and you would be pardoned. This industry was later expanded to allow people to buy an indulgence for a dead relative who might be in purgatory or Hell and relieve that relative of his sins. By doing this you would be seen by the Catholic Church of committing a Christian act and this would elevate your status in the eyes of God.

Pilgrimages: These were very much supported by the Catholic Church as a pilgrim would end up at a place of worship that was owned by the Catholic Church and money could be made by the sale of badges, holy water, certificates to prove you had been etc. and completed your journey.

It was the issue of indulgences that angered Martin Luther into speaking out against them - potentially a very dangerous thing to do.

(excerpts from Roman Catholic Church in 1500, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #2 on:** May 02, 2012, 08:44:44 PM »

Martin Luther

Martin Luther (10 November 1483 â€“ 18 February 1546) was a German monk, priest, professor of theology and iconic figure of the Protestant Reformation. He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God's punishment for sin could be purchased with money. He confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel with his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the Pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.

Luther taught that salvation is not earned by good deeds but received only as a free gift of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood. Those who identify with Luther's teachings are called Lutherans. (wikipedia)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #3 on:** May 02, 2012, 08:45:31 PM »

[Martin Luther's] translation of the Bible into the vernacular (instead of Latin) made it more accessible, causing a tremendous impact on the church and on German culture. It fostered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation, and influenced the translation into English of the King James Bible. His hymns influenced the development of singing in churches. His marriage to Katharina von Bora set a model for the practice of clerical marriage, allowing Protestant priests to marry.

In his later years, while suffering from several illnesses and deteriorating health, Luther became increasingly antisemitic, writing that Jewish homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed. These statements have contributed to his controversial status. (wikipedia)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #4 on:** May 02, 2012, 11:33:34 PM »

In October 1517, Luther pinned his "95 Theses" to a church door in Wittenburg. This was his views on indulgences. There was nothing unusual about this process. It was the standard practice to put up an idea you had for others to read and then to comment on. Lutherâ€™s work was. His thoughts were not a direct attack on the Catholic Church rather an attack on Tetzel and indulgences. What happened next is unclear. Someone took down the pamphlet and translated it into German and had it printed. Once in circulation the "95 Theses" gained much attention. In fact, so much attention that Luther tried to withdraw the pamphlet but he was too late.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #5 on:** May 02, 2012, 11:39:54 PM »

The Archbishop of Mainz, Albrecht of Brandenburg-Hohenzollern under whom Tetzel (John Tetzel, the indulgences salesman) was operating, sent a copy to Rome requesting that Luther be prohibited from expanding on his ideas. Wittenburg was in the archbishopâ€™s diocese. Pope Leo X assumed that it was a "monkish quarrel". He did not hold this view once he read the copy. He summoned Luther to Rome to answer charges of heresy and rebelling against church authority. The man appointed to lead the churchâ€™s attack against Luther was Cardinal Cajetan - a major intellect in the Catholic Church. Cajetan was also Papal legate in Germany.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #6 on:** May 02, 2012, 11:42:42 PM »

In July 1519, Luther met the famous German theologian John Eck. Eck accused Luther of being a Hussite. Luther said that the doctrine of Hus had contained some truths and that he should not have been condemned. Luther had now moved well beyond his original position in that 1) he denied the authority of the popes 2) he denied the authority of the general councils and 3) he re-iterated "justification by faith alone."

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #7 on:** May 02, 2012, 11:48:16 PM »

THE 95 THESES
by Martin Luther

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.

4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.

http://www.reformed.org/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #8 on:** May 02, 2012, 11:51:31 PM »

11. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).

12. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.

14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.

15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.

17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.

18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.

19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.

20. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words "plenary remission of all penalties," does not actually mean "all penalties," but only those imposed by himself.

http://www.reformed.org/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2012, 11:53:17 PM »

21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.

22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.

23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.

24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.

25. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish.

26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.

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.

28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.

30. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.

http://www.reformed.org/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #10 on:** May 02, 2012, 11:57:25 PM »

31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.

32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.

33. Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.

34. For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.

35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.

36. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.

37. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.

38. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission.

39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition.

40. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them -- at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.

http://www.reformed.org/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #11 on:** May 02, 2012, 11:59:29 PM »

41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.

46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.

47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.

48 Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.

http://www.reformed.org/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #12 on:** May 03, 2012, 12:02:00 AM »

51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.

52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.

53. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.

55. It is certainly the pope's sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ.

57. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.

http://www.reformed.org/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #13 on:** May 03, 2012, 12:03:38 AM »

61. For it is clear that the pope's power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.

62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Mt. 20:16).

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.

66. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.

67. The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.

68. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.

70. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.

http://www.reformed.org/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #14 on:** May 03, 2012, 12:12:21 AM »

71. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.

72. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed.

73. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.

74. Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.

75. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.

76. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.

77. To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

78. We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written, 1 Co 12[:28].

79. To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this.

http://www.reformed.org/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #15 on:** May 03, 2012, 12:14:51 AM »

81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity.

82. Such as: "Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.

83. Again, "Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84. Again, "What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love's sake?"

85. Again, "Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?"

86. Again, "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?"

87. Again, "What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?"

88. Again, "What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?"

89. "Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?"

90. To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.

http://www.reformed.org/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #16 on:** May 03, 2012, 12:16:08 AM »

91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace! (Jer 6:14)

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

94. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell.

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).

http://www.reformed.org/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #17 on:** May 03, 2012, 12:26:07 AM »

is there a single thesis of these 95 theses that could make one honestly say that martin luther was unchristian?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #18 on:** May 03, 2012, 12:28:00 AM »

In 1520 Luther developed his ideas further.

In July 1520, Leo X issued a papal Bull - "Exsurge Domine". This condemned Lutherâ€™s beliefs and ordered the public burning of Lutherâ€™s work. Luther was ordered to recant on the threat of excommunication. Luther burnt a copy of the Bull in Wittenburg and the book of canon law. Interestingly, the Bull condemned Luther as the "bull who has got into the vineyard"......(Leo had a healthy liking for wine).

In July 1521, Luther was formally excommunicated and Charles was ordered to enforce this by the pope. Charles V was a devout catholic but he could not risk antagonising the German princes and public due to Lutherâ€™s popularity in the northern states. Charles condemned Lutherâ€™s beliefs and forbade the publication of his works. Luther was summoned to Worms to defend his case before an Imperial Diet. Luther set out from Wittenburg on April 1521 on a triumphal journey but aware that John Hus had been granted safe conduct by the authorities but had been condemned and burnt at the stake.

It was at Worms that Luther made his "Here I Stand" speech.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #19 on:** May 03, 2012, 12:48:02 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQsCtpcj_E#

excerpt:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. May God help me. Amen.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #20 on:** May 03, 2012, 12:54:53 AM »

Luther is sometimes also quoted as saying: "Here I stand. I can do no other". Recent scholars consider the evidence for these words to be unreliable, since they were inserted before "May God help me" only in later versions of the speech and not recorded in witness accounts of the proceedings. (wikipedia)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #21 on:** May 03, 2012, 01:01:12 AM »

The speech story apparently received some quick touch-up treatment. Dr. Scott H. Hendrix, author of Luther and the Papacy: Stages in a Reformation Conflict (Fortress, 1981) writes:

In April 1521, Luther appeared before Emperor Charles V to defend what he had taught and written. At the end of his speech, the story goes, he spoke the famous words, "Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me."

The earliest printed version of Luther's address added these words, which were not recorded on the spot. It's possible they are genuine, but for almost a half century now, most scholars have believed they were probably not spoken by Luther.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #22 on:** May 03, 2012, 01:02:46 AM »

A second misunderstanding arises when the words "Here I stand" are quoted as evidence of Luther's modern stand against the medieval powers of church and empire. Luther's speech was not a defiant, solitary protest, but a calm, reasoned account of why he had written the books piled on the table before him and why he could not recant their content.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #23 on:** May 03, 2012, 01:04:35 AM »

"Luther asserted that his conscience was captive to the Word of God and that he could not go against conscience. This was not, however, a modern plea for the supremacy of the individual conscience or for religious freedom. Though already excommunicated by Rome, Luther saw himself as a sworn teacher of Scripture who must advocate the right of all Christians to hear and live by the gospel."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #24 on:** May 03, 2012, 01:07:19 AM »

Without "Here I stand," is Luther's shining moment forever dulled, like the March on Washington without "I have a dream" or the Gettysburg Address without "Four score and seven years"? Hardly. In his seminal Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (English edition Yale, 1989), Reformation scholar Heiko Oberman renders Luther's speech like this:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #25 on:** May 03, 2012, 01:08:33 AM »

Whoever first printed that speech and added the famous phrase apparently wanted very much to stand by it. Luther could hardly have minded.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #26 on:** May 03, 2012, 01:16:53 AM »

To protect the authority of the Pope and the Church, as well as to maintain the doctrine of indulgences, ecclesiastical officials convinced Charles V that Luther was a threat and persuaded him to authorize his condemnation by the Holy Roman Empire. Luther escaped arrest and remained in seclusion at Wartburg castle for several years where he continued to write and translate the New Testament into German.

While the Edict was harsh, Charles was so preoccupied with political and military concerns elsewhere that it was never enforced. Eventually Luther was allowed to return to public life and became instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Protestant Reformation. (wikipedia)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

islander · « **Reply #27 on:** May 03, 2012, 01:21:55 AM »

meanwhile, the roman catholic church continued to stand strong and veered towards aggiornamento. here i sit. amen.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #28 on:** May 03, 2012, 11:19:24 AM »

Thank You for posting this, Isles. It was a very interesting read.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0

chicogon · « **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2012, 11:51:21 AM »

Thanks for the info, Isles

(I need to review these sometime...)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=50002.0