|
| |
English Bible History
Martin Luther
 Martin
Luther had a small head-start on
Tyndale, as Luther declared his intolerance for the Roman Church’s corruption on
Halloween in 1517,
by nailing his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church door. Luther,
who would be exiled in the months following the Diet of Worms Council in
1521
that was designed to martyr him, would translate the New Testament into German
for the first time from the 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus, and
publish it in September of 1522.
Luther also published a German Pentateuch in 1523, and another
edition of the German New Testament in 1529. In the 1530’s he
would go on to publish the entire Bible in German.
Martin Luther (November 10, 1483 - February 18, 1546) was a Christian
theologian and Augustinian monk whose teachings inspired the Protestant
Reformation and deeply influenced the doctrines of Protestant and other
Christian traditions. Martin Luther was born to Hans and Margaretha Luder on 10
November 1483 in Eisleben, Germany and was baptised the next day on the feast of
St. Martin of Tours, after whom he was named. Luther’s call to the Church to
return to the teachings of the Bible resulted in the formation of new traditions
within Christianity and the Counter-Reformation in the Roman Catholic Church,
culminating at the Council of Trent.
His translation of the Bible also helped to develop a standard version of the
German language and added several principles to the art of translation. Luther's
hymns sparked the development of congregational singing in Christianity. His
marriage, on June 13, 1525, to Katharina von Bora, a former nun, began the
tradition of clerical marriage within several Christian traditions.
Martin Luther's early life
Martin Luther’s father owned a copper mine in nearby Mansfeld. Having risen
from the peasantry, his father was determined to see his son ascend to civil
service and bring further honor to the family. To that end, Hans sent young
Martin to schools in Mansfeld, Magdeburg and Eisenach. At the age of seventeen
in 1501 he entered the University of Erfurt. The young student received his
Bachelor's degree after just one year in 1502! Three years later, in 1505, he
received a Master's degree. According to his father's wishes, Martin enrolled in
the law school of that university. All that changed during a thunderstorm in the
summer of 1505. A lightening bolt struck near to him as he was returning to
school. Terrified, he cried out, "Help, St. Anne! I'll become a monk!" Spared of
his life, but regretting his words, Luther kept his bargain, dropped out of law
school and entered the monastery there.
Luther's struggle to find peace with God
Young Brother Martin fully dedicated himself to monastic life, the effort to
do good works to please God and to serve others through prayer for their souls.
Yet peace with God escaped him. He devoted himself to fasts, flagellations, long
hours in prayer and pilgrimages, and constant confession. The more he tried to
do for God, it seemed, the more aware he became of his sinfulness.
Johann von Staupitz, Luther's superior, concluded the young man needed more
work to distract him from pondering himself. He ordered the monk to pursue an
academic career. In 1507 Luther was ordained to the priesthood. In 1508 he began
teaching theology at the University of Wittenberg. Luther earned his Bachelor's
degree in Biblical Studies on 9 March 1508 and a Bachelor's degree in the
Sentences by Peter Lombard, (the main textbook of theology in the Middle Ages)
in 1509. On 19 October 1512, the University of Wittenberg conferred upon Martin
Luther the degree of Doctor of Theology.
Martin Luther’s Evangelical Discovery
The demands of study for academic degrees and preparation for delivering
lectures drove Martin Luther to study the Scriptures in depth. Luther immersed
himself in the teachings of the Scripture and the early church. Slowly, terms
like penance
and righteousness
took on new meaning. The controversy that broke loose with the publication of
his 95 Theses placed even more pressure on the reformer to study the Bible. This
study convinced him that the Church had lost sight of several central truths. To
Luther, the most important of these was the doctrine that brought him peace with
God.
With joy, Luther now believed and taught that salvation is a gift of God's
grace, received by faith and trust in God's promise to forgive sins for the sake
of Christ's death on the cross. This, he believed was God's work from beginning
to end.
Luther’s 95 Theses
On Halloween of 1517, Luther changed the course of human history when he
nailed his 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenberg, accusing the Roman
Catholic church of heresy upon heresy. Many people cite this act as the primary
starting point of the Protestant Reformation… though to be sure, John
Wycliffe, John Hus, Thomas Linacre,
John Colet, and others had already put the life’s work and even their
lives on the line for same cause of truth, constructing the foundation of Reform
upon which Luther now built. Luther's action was in great part a response to the
selling of indulgences by Johann Tetzel, a Dominican priest. Luther's charges
also directly challenged the position of the clergy in regard to individual
salvation. Before long, Luther’s 95 Theses of Contention had been copied and
published all over Europe.
Here I Stand
Luther's Protestant views were condemned as heretical by Pope Leo III in the
bull Exsurge Domine in 1520. Consequently Luther was summoned to either renounce
or reaffirm them at the Diet of Worms on 17 April 1521. When he appeared before
the assembly, Johann von Eck, by then assistant to the Archbishop of Trier,
acted as spokesman for Emperor Charles the Fifth. He presented Luther with a
table filled with copies of his writings. Eck asked Luther if he still believed
what these works taught. He requested time to think about his answer. Granted an
extension, Luther prayed, consulted with friends and mediators and presented
himself before the Diet the next day.
When the counselor put the same question to Luther the next day, the reformer
apologized for the harsh tone of many of his writings, but said that he could
not reject the majority of them or the teachings in them. Luther respectfully
but boldly stated, " Unless I am convinced by
proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and
will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against
conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."
On May 25, the Emperor issued his Edict of Worms, declaring Martin Luther an
outlaw.
Luther in Exile at the Wartburg Castle
Luther had powerful friends among the princes of Germany, one of whom was his
own prince, Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony. The prince arranged for
Luther to be seized on his way from the Diet by a company of masked horsemen,
who carried him to the castle of the Wartburg, where he was kept about a year.
He grew a wide flaring beard; took on the garb of a knight and assumed the
pseudonym Jörg. During this period of forced sojourn in the world, Luther was
still hard at work upon his celebrated translation of the Bible, though he
couldn't rely on the isolation of a monastery. During his translation, Luther
would make forays into the nearby towns and markets to listen to people speak,
so that he could put his translation of the Bible into the language of the
people.
Although his stay at the Wartburg kept Luther hidden from public view, Luther
often received letters from his friends and allies, asking for his views and
advice. For example, Luther’s closest friend, Philipp Melanchthon, wrote to him
and asked how to answer the charge that the reformers neglected pilgrimages,
fasts and other traditional forms of piety. Luther's replied: " If
you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If
the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God
does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your
sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ
who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we
are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says
Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where
justice will reign." [Letter 99.13, To
Philipp Melanchthon, 1 August 1521.]
Martin Luther's German Bible
Martin Luther was the first person to translate the New Testament… and later
the whole Bible, into German. He used the recent 1516 critical Greek edition of
Erasmus, a text which was later called
textus receptus.
The Luther German New Testament translation was first published in September of
1522. The translation of the Old Testament followed, yielding an entire German
language Bible in 1534.
Luther is also know to have befriended William Tyndale, and
given him safe haven and assistance in using the same 1516 Erasmus Greek-Latin
Parallel New Testament that had been the source text for his German New
Testament of 1522, as the trustworthy source text for Tyndale’s English New
Testament of 1525-26.
Luther's Writings
The number of books attributed to Martin Luther is quite impressive. However,
some Luther scholars contend that many of the works were at least drafted by
some of his good friends like Philipp Melanchthon. Luther’s books explain the
settings of the epistles and show the conformity of the books of the Bible to
each other. Of special note would be his writings about the Epistle to the
Galatians in which he compares himself to the Apostle Paul in his defense of the
Gospel. Luther also wrote about church administration and wrote much about the
Christian home.
Luther's work contains a number of statements that modern readers would
consider rather crude. For example, Luther was know to advise people that they
should literally " Tell the Devil he may kiss my
ass." It should be remembered that
Luther received many communications from throughout Europe from people who could
write anonymously, that is, without the specter of mass media making their
communications known. No public figure today could write in the manner of the
correspondences Luther received or in the way Luther responded to them. Luther
was certainly a theologian of the middle-ages. He was an earthy man who enjoyed
his beer, and was bold and often totally without tact in the blunt truth he
vehemently preached. While this offended many, it endeared him all the more to
others.
He was open with his frustrations and emotions, as well. Once, when asked if
he truly loved God, Luther replied " Love God?
Sometimes I hate Him!" Luther was also
frustrated by the works-emphasis of the book of James, calling it "the Epistle
of Straw, and questioning its canonicity. Also irritated with the complex
symbolism of the Book of Revelation, he once said that it too, was not canon,
and that it should be thrown into the river! He later retracted these
statements, of course. Luther was a man who was easily misquoted or taken out of
context. While a brilliant theologian, and a bold reformer, he would not have
made a good politician. But then, he never aspired to any career in politics.
Martin Luther and Judaism
Luther initially preached tolerance towards the Jewish people, convinced that
the reason they had never converted to Christianity was that they were
discriminated against, or had never heard the Gospel of Christ. However, after
his overtures to Jews failed to convince Jewish people to adopt Christianity, he
began preaching that the Jews were set in evil, anti-Christian ways, and needed
to be expelled from German politics. In his On
the Jews and Their Lies, he repeatedly
quotes the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:34, where Jesus called them "a brood of
vipers and children of the devil"
Luther was zealous toward the Gospel, and he wanted to protect the people of
his homeland from the Jews who he believed would be harmful influences since
they did not recognize Jesus as their Saviour. In Luther's time, parents had a
right and a duty to direct their children's marriage choices in respect to
matters of faith. Likewise, Luther felt a duty to direct his German people to
cling to the Jesus the Jews did not accept. It should be noted that church law
was superior to civil law in Luther's day and that law said the penalty of
blasphemy was death. When Luther called for the deaths of certain Jews, he was
merely asking that the laws that were applied to all other Germans also be
applied to the Jews. The Jews were exempt from the church laws that Christians
were bound by, most notably the law against charging interest.
Martin Luther's Death
Martin Luther escaped martyrdom, and died of natural causes. His last written
words were, " Know that no one can have indulged
in the Holy Writers sufficiently, unless he has governed churches for a hundred
years with the prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha, John the Baptist, Christ and
the apostles... We are beggars: this is true."
Martin Luther
General Information
Martin Luther was a German theologian and a major leader of the Protestant
Reformation. He is sometimes called the father of Protestantism, and one of
the major branches of Protestantism - Lutheranism - is named after him.
Early Life
Luther, the son of a Saxon miner, was born at Eisleben on Nov. 10, 1483. He
entered the University of Erfurt when he was 18 years old. After graduation he
began to study law in 1505. In July of that year, however, he narrowly escaped
death in a thunderstorm and vowed to become a monk. He entered the monastery of
the Augustinian Hermits at Erfurt, where he was ordained in 1507. The following
year he was sent to Wittenberg, where he continued his studies and lectured in
moral philosophy. In 1511 he received his doctorate in theology and an
appointment as professor of Scripture, which he held for the rest of his life.
Luther visited Rome in 1510 on business for his order and was shocked to find
corruption in high ecclesiastical places.
|
BELIEVE
Religious
Information
Source
web-site |
|
Our List of 1,000 Religious Subjects |
|
E-mail |
He was well acquainted with the scholastic theology of his day, but he
made the study of the Bible, especially the epistles of Saint Paul, the center
of his work. Luther found that his teachings diverged increasingly from the
traditional beliefs of the Roman church. His studies had led him to the
conclusion that Christ was the sole mediator between God and man and that
forgiveness of sin and salvation are effected by God's Grace alone and are
received by faith alone on the part of man. This point of view turned him
against scholastic theology, which had emphasized man's role in his own
salvation, and against many church practices that emphasized justification by
good works. His approach to theology soon led to a clash between Luther and
church officials, precipitating the dramatic events of the Reformation.
Dispute over Indulgences
The doctrine of Indulgences, with its mechanical view of sin and repentance,
aroused Luther's indignation. The sale by the church of indulgences - the
remission of temporal punishments for sins committed and confessed to a priest -
brought in much revenue. The archbishop of Mainz, Albert of Brandenburg,
sponsored such a sale in 1517 to pay the pope for his appointment to Mainz and
for the construction of Saint Peter's in Rome. He selected Johann Tetzel, a
Dominican friar, to preach the indulgences and collect the revenues. When Tetzel
arrived in Saxony, Luther posted his famous 95 theses on the door of the
castle church at Wittenberg on Oct. 31, 1517. Although some of the theses
directly criticized papal policies, they were put forward as tentative
objections for discussion.
Copies of the 95 theses were quickly spread throughout Europe and unleashed a
storm of controversy. During 1518 and 1519, Luther defended his theology
before his fellow Augustinians and publicly debated in Leipzig with the
theologian Johann Eck, who had condemned the ideas of Luther. Meanwhile, church
officials acted against him. The Saxon Dominican provincial charged him with
heresy, and he was summoned to appear in Augsburg before the papal legate,
Cardinal Cajetan. Refusing to recant, he fled to Wittenberg, seeking the
protection of the elector Frederick III of Saxony. When the Wittenberg
faculty sent a letter to Frederick declaring its solidarity with Luther, the
elector refused to send Luther to Rome, where he would certainly meet
imprisonment or death.
Reforms
In 1520, Luther completed three celebrated works in which he stated his
views. In his Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, he
invited the German princes to take the reform of the church into their own
hands; in A Prelude Concerning the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he
attacked the papacy and the current theology of sacraments; and in On the
Freedom of a Christian Man, he stated his position on justification and good
works. The bull of Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine, issued on June 15 that same year,
gave Luther 60 days to recant, and Decet Romanum Pontificem of Jan. 3, 1521,
excommunicated him.
Summoned before Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in April
1521, Luther again refused to recant and was put under the ban of the empire. He
took refuge in the Wartburg castle, where he lived in seclusion for eight
months. During that time he translated the New Testament into German and wrote a
number of pamphlets. In March 1522 he returned to Wittenberg to restore order
against enthusiastic iconoclasts who were destroying altars, images, and
crucifixes. His reforming work during subsequent years included the writing of
the Small and Large Catechisms, sermon books, more than a dozen hymns,
over 100 volumes of tracts, treatises, biblical commentaries, thousands of
letters, and the translation of the whole Bible into German.
With Philipp Melanchthon and others, Luther organized the Evangelical
churches in the German territories whose princes supported him. He abolished
many traditional practices, including confession and private mass. Priests
married; convents and monasteries were abandoned. These were difficult times.
Luther lost some popular support when he urged suppression of the Knights'
Revolt (1522) and the Peasants' War (1524 - 26); his failure to reach
doctrinal accord with Ulrich Zwingli on the nature of the Eucharist (1529) split
the Reform movement. Nonetheless, Luther found personal solace in his
marriage (1525) to a former Cistercian nun, Katherina von Bora; they raised six
children.
At Worms, Luther had stood alone. When the Evangelicals presented the
Augsburg Confession to Charles V and the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, many
theologians, princes, and city councils subscribed to that classic Protestant
statement of faith. By the time of Luther's death, a large part of northern
Europe had left the Roman Catholic church for new Evangelical communities. Late
in 1545, Luther was asked to arbitrate a dispute in Eisleben; despite the icy
winter weather, he traveled there. The quarrel was settled on Feb. 17, 1546, but
the strain had been very great and Luther died the next day.
Luther left behind a movement that quickly spread throughout the Western
world. His doctrines, especially justification by faith and the final
authority of the Bible, were adopted by other reformers and are shared by many
Protestant denominations today. As the founder of the 16th - century
Reformation, he is one of the major figures of Christianity and of Western
civilization.
Lewis W Spitz
Bibliography
P Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (1966); J Atkinson, Martin Luther and
the Birth of Protestantism (1968) and The Trial of Luther (1971); R Bainton,
Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (1951); H Boehmer, Road to Reformation
(1946); G Brendler, Martin Luther: Theology and Revolution (1990); W D Cargill
Thompson, The Political Thought of Martin Luther (1984); M Edwards, Martin
Luther and the False Brethren (1975); E H Erikson, Young Man Luther (1958); R H
Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther (1957); V H H Green, Luther and the
Reformation (1964); M Hoffman, ed., Martin Luther and the Modern Mind (1985); M
Luther, Luther's Works (1955); A McGrath, Luther's Theology of the Cross (1985);
H A Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil (1990); J Pelikan, ed.,
Interpreters of Luther (1968); G Ritter, Luther: His Life and Work (1964); G
Rupp, Luther's Progress to the Diet of Worms (1964); E G Schwiebert, Luther and
His Times (1950); B Tierney, ed., Martin Luther, Reformer or Revolutionary?
(1977).
Martin Luther (1483 - 1546)
Advanced Information
Martin Luther was a major leader of the German Reformation. Luther's father
came from peasant background, but achieved success in the mining industry so
that he was able to afford an excellent education for his son. Luther began his
studies at the Ratschule in Mansfeld and probably attended the Cathedral School
at Magdeburg, where he came under the influence of the Brethren of the Common
Life. He completed his preparatory education at the Georgenschule in Eisenach
before entering the University of Erfurt in 1501. He received his B A in 1502
and his M A in 1505. In accordance with his father's wishes he had begun study
for a law degree when a brush with death in a thunderstorm, July, 1505, caused
him to make a vow to become a monk.
While in the monastery Luther began the serious study of theology at Erfurt.
In 1508 he was sent to Wittenberg to lecture on moral philosophy at the newly
founded University of Wittenberg. In 1509 he returned to Erfurt, where he
continued his studies and delivered lectures in theology. His teachers at Erfurt
adhered to the nominalist theology of William of Ockham and his disciple,
Gabriel Biel, which disparaged the role of reason in arriving at theological
truth and placed a greater emphasis on free will and the role of human beings in
initiating their salvation than did traditional scholasticism. In 1510 - 11
Luther made a trip to Rome on a mission for his order. While in Rome he was
shocked by the worldliness of the clergy and disillusioned by their religious
indifference. In 1511 he was sent back to Wittenberg, where he completed his
studies for the degree of Doctor of Theology in October, 1512. In the same year
he received a permanent appointment to the chair of Bible at the university.
During the period 1507 - 12 Luther experienced intense spiritual struggles as
he sought to work out his own salvation by careful observance of the monastic
rule, constant confession, and self - mortification. Probably as a result of
the influence of popular piety and the teachings of nominalism Luther viewed God
as a wrathful judge who expected sinners to earn their own righteousness.
Partly because of his contact with the vicar general of his order, Johann von
Staupitz, and his reading of Augustine, but primarily through his study of the
Scriptures as he prepared his university lectures, Luther gradually changed
his view of justification. His "tower experience," in which he achieved
his major theological breakthrough and came to the full realization of the
doctrine of justification by faith alone, has normally been dated before
1517.
However, recent scholarship has suggested that Luther was correct when he
stated near the end of his life that it did not occur until late 1518. This
interpretation maintains that Luther gradually progressed in his understanding
of justification from the nominalist view, which gave human beings a role in
initiating the process, to the Augustinian view, which attributed the beginning
of the process to God's free grace but believed that after conversion human
beings could cooperate. The fully developed Lutheran doctrine, which viewed
justification as a forensic act in which God declares the sinner righteous
because of the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ without any human merit
rather than a lifelong process, was not clearly expressed in Luther's writings
until his sermon Of the Threefold Righteousness, published toward the end of
1518.
The Reformation began in October, 1517, when Luther protested a major abuse
in the sale of indulgences in his Ninety - five Theses. These were translated
into German, printed, and circulated throughout Germany, arousing a storm of
protest against the sale of indulgences. When the sale of indulgences was
seriously impaired, the papacy sought to silence Luther. He was first confronted
at a meeting of his order held in Heidelberg on April 26, 1518, but he used the
Heidelberg disputation to defend his theology and to make new converts. In
August of 1518 Luther was summoned to Rome to answer charges of heresy, even
though he had not taught contrary to any clearly defined medieval doctrines.
Because Luther was unlikely to receive a fair trial in Rome, his prince,
Frederick the Wise, intervened and asked the papacy to send representatives to
deal with Luther in Germany. Meetings with Cardinal Cajetan in October, 1518,
and Karl von Miltitz in January, 1519, failed to obtain a recantation from
Luther, although he continued to treat the pope and his representatives with
respect.
In July, 1519, at the Leipzig debate Luther questioned the authority of
the papacy as well as the infallibility of church councils and insisted on the
primacy of Scripture. This led his opponent, Johann Eck, to identify him
with the fifteenth century Bohemian heretic, Jan Hus, in an effort to discredit
Luther. After the debate Luther became considerably more outspoken and expressed
his beliefs with increasing certainty. In 1520 he wrote three pamphlets of great
significance.
The first, the Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, called
upon the Germans to reform the church and society, since the papacy and church
councils had failed to do so.
The second, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, clearly put Luther in the
ranks of the heterodox, because it attacked the entire sacramental system of the
medieval church. Luther maintained there were only two sacraments, baptism
and the Lord's Supper, or at most three, with penance possibly qualifying as
a third, rather than seven sacraments. He also denied the doctrines of
transubstantiation and the sacrificial Mass.
The third pamphlet, The Freedom of the Christian Man, was written for the
pope. It was nonpolemical and clearly taught the doctrine of justification by
faith alone.
Even before the publication of these pamphlets a papal bull of
excommunication was drawn up to go into effect in January, 1521. In December,
1520, Luther showed his defiance of papal authority by publicly burning the
bull. Although condemned by the church, Luther still received a hearing before
an imperial diet at Worms in April, 1521. At the Diet of Worms he was asked to
recant his teachings, but he stood firm, thereby defying also the authority of
the emperor, who placed him under the imperial ban and ordered that all his
books be burned. On the way home from Worms, Luther was abducted by friends who
took him to the Wartburg castle, where he remained in hiding for nearly a year.
While at the Wartburg he wrote a series of pamphlets attacking Catholic
practices and began his German translation of the Bible. In 1522 Luther returned
to Wittenberg to deal with disorders that had broken out in his absence, and he
remained there for the rest of his life. In 1525 he married Catherine von Bora,
a former nun, who bore him six children. Luther had an extremely happy and rich
family life, but his life was marred by frequent ill health and bitter
controversies.
Luther often responded to opponents in a polemical fashion, using extremely
harsh language. In 1525 when the peasants of south Germany revolted and refused
to heed his call to negotiate their grievances peacefully, he attacked them
viciously in a pamphlet entitled Against the Murdering Horde of Peasants. A
controversy with the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli over the Lord's Supper split
the Protestant movement when an effort to resolve the differences at a meeting
in Marburg failed in 1529. Throughout his life Luther maintained an overwhelming
work load, writing, teaching, organizing the new church, and providing overall
leadership for the German Reformation. Among his more important theological
writings were the Smalcald Articles published in 1538, which clearly defined the
differences between his theology and that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Luther never viewed himself as the founder of a new church body, however.
He devoted his life to reforming the church and restoring the Pauline doctrine
of justification to the central position in Christian theology. In 1522, when
his followers first began to use his name to identify themselves, he pleaded
with them not to do this. He wrote: "Let us abolish all party names and call
ourselves Christians, after him whose teaching we hold . . . I hold, together
with the universal church, the one universal teaching of Christ, who is our only
master." He died at Eisleben on February 18, 1546, while on a trip to
arbitrate a dispute between two Lutheran nobles. He was buried in the Castle
Church at Wittenberg.
R W Heinze
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Bibliography
J Pelikan and H T Lehmann, eds., Luther's Works; H T Kerr, ed., A Compend of
Luther's Theology; P Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther; E G Rupp, The
Righteousness of God; U Saarnivaara, Luther Discovers the Gospel; A G Dickens,
The German Nation and Martin Luther; J Atkinson, Martin Luther and the Birth of
Protestantism; R H Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther; H Boehmer,
Martin Luther: Road to Reformation; R H Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther; H
Grisar, Luther; H G Haile, Luther: An Experiment in Biography; E G Schwiebert,
Luther and His Times; J M Todd, Martin Luther: A Biographical Study.
Theology of the Cross
Luther’s attempts to prove his worthiness failed. He continued to be
plagued by uncertainty and doubt concerning his salvation. Finally, during his
Lectures on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he found solace. Instead of
storehouses of merit, indulgences, habituation, and "doing what is within one,
"God accepts the sinner in spite of the sin. Acceptance is based on who one is
rather than what one does. Justification is bestowed rather than achieved.
Justification is not based on human righteousness, but on God’s
righteousness—revealed and confirmed in Christ.
In St. Paul, Luther finally found a word of hope. He finally found a word of
assurance and discovered the graciousness of God. The discovery of God’s
graciousness pro me (for me) revolutionizes all aspects of Luther’s life
and thought. From now on, Luther’s response to the trials of his life and the
crises of the late medieval period was to be certain of God, but never to be
secure in human society.
A tautology of Luther’s theology becomes: one must always "Let God be God."
This frees human beings to be human. We do not have to achieve salvation;
rather, it is a gift to be received. Salvation thus is the presupposition
of the life of the Christian and not its goal. This belief engendered his
rejection of indulgences and his movement to a theologia crucis (Theology
of the Cross).
Why were indulgences rejected? Simply put, they epitomize everything that
from Luther’s perspective was wrong with the church. Instead of dependence upon
God, they placed salvation in the hands of traveling salesmen hocking
indulgences. They embody his rejection of all types of theology that are based
in models of covenant.
The import of the Theology of the Cross was the discovery of God’s passive
righteousness and theological models based in Testament. From the author
of Hebrews, Luther takes an understanding of Jesus Christ as the last will and
testament of God. God has written humanity in the will as heirs of God and
co-heirs with Christ (See Romans 8).
The rejection of covenant model theologies and the movement to testament is a
fundamental aspect of Luther’s theologia crucis. It is a rejection of any
type of a theology of glory (theologia gloriae). The rejection of the
theology of glory has a profound impact on Luther’s anthropology of a Christian.
This rejection is illustrated by Luther’s small but significant alteration of
Augustinian anthropology. In that system, human beings are partim bonnum,
partim malum or partim iustus, partim peccare (partly good/just,
partly bad/sinner). The goal of a Christian’s life is to grow in righteousness.
In other words, one must work to decrease the side of the equation that is bad
and sinful. As one decreases the sin in oneself, the good and just aspects of
one’s being increase.
Luther’s anthropology, however, is an outright and total rejection of
progress; because no matter how one understands it, it is a work and thus must
be rejected. Luther’s alternative characterization of Christian anthropology was
simul iustus et peccator (at once righteous and sinful.) Now, he begins
to speak of righteousness in two ways: coram deo (righteousness before
God) and coram hominibus (before man). Instead of a development in
righteousness based in the person, or an infusion of merit from the saints, a
person is judged righteous before God because of the works of Christ. But,
absent the perspective of God and the righteousness of Christ, based on one’s
own merit—a Christian still looks like a sinner.
The Law and the Gospel
The distinction between the Law and the Gospel is a fundamental dialectic in
Luther’s thought. He argues that God interacts with humanity in two fundamental
ways – the law and the gospel. The law comes to humanity as the commands of God
– such as the Ten Commandments. The law allows the human community to exist and
survive because it limits chaos and evil and convicts us of our sinfulness. All
humanity has some grasp of the law through the conscience. The law convicts us
our sin and drives us to the gospel, but it is not God’s avenue for salvation.
Salvation comes to humanity through the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ.
The Good News is that righteousness is not a demand upon the sinner but a gift
to the sinner. The sinner simply accepts the gift through faith. For Luther the
folly of indulgences was that they confused the law with the gospel. By stating
that humanity must do something to merit forgiveness they promulgated the notion
that salvation is achieved rather than received. Much of Luther’s career focused
on deconstructing the idea of the law as an avenue for salvation.
Deus Absconditus – The Hidden God
Another fundamental aspect of Luther’s theology is his understanding of God.
In rejecting much of scholastic thought Luther rejected the scholastic belief in
continuity between revelation and perception. Luther notes that revelation must
be indirect and concealed. Luther’s theology is based in the Word of God (thus
his phrase sola scriptura – scripture alone) it is based not in
speculation or philosophical principles, but in revelation.
Because of humanity’s fallen condition, one can neither understand the
redemptive word nor can one see God face to face. Here Luther’s exposition on
number twenty of his Heidelberg Disputation is important. It is an
allusion to Exodus 33, where Moses seeks to see the Glory of the Lord but
instead sees only the backside. No one can see God face to face and live, so God
reveals himself on the backside, that is to say, where it seems he should not
be. For Luther this meant in the human nature of Christ, in his weakness, his
suffering, and his foolishness.
Thus revelation is seen in the suffering of Christ rather than in moral
activity or created order and is addressed to faith. The Deus Absconditus
is actually quite simple. It is a rejection of philosophy as the starting point
for theology. Why? Because if one begins with philosophical categories for God
one begins with the attributes of God: i.e., omniscient, omnipresent,
omnipotent, impassible, etc. For Luther, it was impossible to begin there and by
using syllogisms or other logical means to end up with a God who suffers on the
cross on behalf of humanity. It simply does not work. The God revealed in and
through the cross is not the God of philosophy but the God of revelation. Only
faith can understand and appreciate this, logic and reason – to quote St. Paul
become a stumbling block to belief instead of a helpmate.
| |
Martin Luther
(1483-1546)
stands in history as one of those unique forces, an individual who by
force of will and by his ideas changed the world fundamentally. There
are several ironies incumbent on Luther's pivotal role in history: 1) he
doesn't really represent a break with the past, but rather a flash point
where ideas and trends which had been smoldering in Europe for several
centuries suddenly blazed aflame; 2) Luther initially saw himself as a
great reformer of the Catholic church, a simple monk who thought the
force of his ideas would single-handedly redirect the Leviathan of the
church; in the end, however, he divided Christianity into two separate
churches and that second division, Protestantism, would divide over the
next four centuries into a near infinity of separate churches; 3)
finally, Luther (and all the other reformers) saw themselves as
returning Christianity to its roots, they believed that they were
setting the clock back; in reality, their ideas irreparably changed the
world and pushed it kicking and screaming, not into some ideal past, but
into the modern era.
Luther was not a person you would want to have dinner with; he was
temperamental, peevish, egomaniacal, and argumentative. But this
single-mindedness, this enormous self-confidence and strident belief in
the rightness of his arguments, allowed him to stand against opposition,
indeed, to harden his position in the face of death by fire, the usual
punishment for heretics. Luther became an Augustinian monk in 1505,
disappointing his equally strong-willed father, who wished him to become
a lawyer. He earned a doctorate in theology from the University of
Wittenberg, but instead of settling down to a placid and scholarly
monkish life or an uneventful university career teaching theology, he
began to develop his own personal theology, which erupted into outright
blasphemy when he protested the use of indulgences in his 95 Theses.
Indulgences, which were granted by the pope, forgave individual
sinners not their sins, but the temporal punishment applied to those
sins. These indulgences had become big business in much the same way
pledge drives have become big business for public television in modern
America. Luther's Theses, which outlined his theological argument
against the use of indulgences, were based on the notion that
Christianity is fundamentally a phenomenon of the inner world of human
beings and had little or nothing to do with the outer world, such as
temporal punishments. It is this fundamental argument, not the
controversy of the indulgences themselves, that most people in the
church disapproved of and that led to Luther's being hauled into court
in 1518 to defend his arguments against the cardinal Cajetan. When the
interview focused on the spiritual value of "good works," that is, the
actions that people do in this world to benefit others and to pay off
the debts they've incurred against God by sinning, Cajetan lost his
temper and demanded that Luther recant. Luther ran, and his steady
scission from the church was set in motion. The Northern Humanists,
however, embraced Luther and his ideas.
Luther's first writing was The Sermon on Good Works, in which
he argued that good works do not benefit the soul; only faith could do
that. Things took a turn for the worse: Pope Leo declared 41 articles of
Luther's teachings as heretical teachings, and Luther's books were
publicly burned in Rome. Luther became more passionate in his effort to
reform the church. His treatise, "Address to the Christian Nobility of
Germany," pressed for the German nation to use military means to force
the church to discuss grievances and reform; "A Prelude concerning the
Babylonish Captivity of the Church" literally called for clergy in the
church to openly revolt against Rome.
In 1521, the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, demanded that Luther
appear before the diet of the Holy Roman Empire at Worms. Luther was
asked to explain his views and Charles ordered him to recant. Luther
refused and he was placed under an imperial ban as an outlaw. He managed
to escape, however, and he was hidden away in a castle in Wartburg where
he continued to develop his new church.
|
| |
In a more conciliatory effort, Luther
wrote a letter to Pope Leo explaining the substance of his ideas, Von
der Freiheit des Christenmenschen , "On the Freedom of the
Christian," from which your readings have been selected. This
conciliation didn't work (the treatise is not, in fact, very
conciliatory, but somewhat arrogant), and Luther was excommunicated from
the church in 1521. What had started as a furious attempt to reform the
church overnight turned into a project of building a new church
independent of the Catholic church. Nevertheless, this small work, "The
Freedom of the Christian," is the theological and ideological core of
Luther's thinking; the fundamental term of value, that center around
which every other aspect of his thought rotates, is the concept of
Freiheit, "freedom," or "liberty." This is not our concept of
freedom, but in the eventual turn of time it will give rise to the
notion of "individual freedom," and later "political freedom," and later
"economic freedom." Most of the European Enlightenment revolves around
freedom and the project of "liberating" people: liberating them from
false beliefs, from false religion, from arbitrary authority, etc.--that
is, what we will be calling "liberation discourse." Westerners still
participate in this Enlightenment project today. This idea of
"liberating" people, so common to the international politics of our own
period, comes out of Luther's idea of "freedom." |
THE FREEDOM OF THE CHRISTIAN
| |
Christian faith has appeared to many an
easy thing; nay, not a few even reckon it among the social virtues, as
it were; and this they do because they have not made proof of it
experimentally, and have never tasted of what efficacy it is. For it is
not possible for any man to write well about it, or to understand well
what is rightly written, who has not at some time tasted of its spirit,
under the pressure of tribulation; while he who has tasted of it, even
to a very small extent, can never write, speak, think, or hear about it
sufficiently. For it is a living fountain springing up unto eternal
life, as Christ calls it in John iv.
Now, though I cannot boast of my abundance, and though I know
how poorly I am furnished, yet I hope that, after having been vexed by
various temptations, I have attained some little drop of faith, and that
I can speak of this matter, if not with more elegance, certainly with
more solidity, than those literal and too subtle disputants who have
hitherto discoursed upon it without understanding their own words. That
I may open then an easier way for the ignorant—for these alone I am
trying to serve—I first lay down these two propositions, concerning
spiritual liberty and servitude:—
A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none, a
Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every
one.
Although these statements appear contradictory, yet, when they are
found to agree together, they will make excellently for my purpose. . .
.
Let us examine the subject on a deeper and less simple principle. Man
is composed of a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily. As regards
the spiritual nature, which they name the soul, he is called the
spiritual, inward, new man; as regards the bodily nature, which they
name the flesh, he is called the fleshly, outward, old man. The Apostle
speaks of this: "Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is
renewed day by day " (2 Cor. iv. 16). The result of this diversity is
that in the Scriptures opposing statements are made concerning the same
man, the fact being that in the same man these two men are opposed to
one another; the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit
against the flesh.
We first approach the subject of the inward man, that we may see by
what means a man becomes justified, free, and a true Christian; that is,
a spiritual, new, and inward man. It is certain that absolutely none
among outward things, under whatever name they may be reckoned, has any
influence in producing Christian righteousness or liberty, nor, on the
other hand, unrighteousness or slavery. This can be shown by an easy
argument.
What can it profit the soul that the body should be in good
condition, free, and full of life; that it should eat, drink, and act
according to its pleasure; when even the most impious slaves of every
kind of vice are prosperous in these matters? Again, what harm can ill
health, bondage, hunger, thirst, or any other outward evil, do to the
soul, when even the most pious of men, and the freest in the purity of
their conscience, are harassed by these things? Neither of these states
of things has to do with the liberty or the slavery of the soul.
And so it will profit nothing that the body should be adorned with
sacred vestments, or dwell in holy places, or be occupied in sacred
offices, or pray, fast, and abstain from certain meats, or do whatever
works can be done through the body and in the body. Something widely
different will be necessary for the justification and liberty of the
soul, since the things I have spoken of can be done by any impious
person, and only hypocrites are produced by devotion to these things. On
the other hand, it will not at all injure the soul that the body should
be clothed in secular clothing, should dwell in secular places, should
eat and drink in the ordinary fashion, should not pray aloud, and should
leave undone all the things above mentioned, which may be done by
hypocrites.
And, to cast everything aside, even speculations, meditations, and
whatever things can be performed by the exertions of the soul itself,
are of no profit. One thing, and one alone, is necessary for life,
justification, and Christian liberty; and that is the most holy word of
God, the Gospel of Christ . . .For faith alone, and the efficacious use
of the word of God, bring salvation. . . .
Since then this faith can reign only in the inward man . . . and
since it alone justifies, it is evident that by no outward work or
labour can the inward man be at all justified, made free, and saved; and
that no works whatever have any relation to him. And so, on the other
hand, it is solely by impiety and incredulity of heart that he becomes
guilty and a slave of sin, deserving condemnation, not by any outward
sin or work. . . .
Meanwhile it is to be noted that the whole Scripture of God is
divided into two parts: rules and promises. The rules certainly teach us
what is good, but what they teach is not forthwith done. For they show
us what we ought to do, but do not give us the power to do it. They were
ordained, however, for the purpose of showing man to himself that
through them he may learn his own impotence for good and may despair of
his own strength. For this reason they are called the Old Testament, and
are so.
For example, "Thou shalt not covet," is a precept by which we are all
convicted of sin, since no man can help coveting, whatever efforts to
the contrary he may make. In order therefore that he may fulfil the
precept, and not covet, he is constrained to despair of himself and to
seek elsewhere and through another the help which he cannot find in
himself . . . Thus the promises of God give that which the precepts
exact, and fulfil what the law commands; so that all is of God alone,
both the precepts and their fulfilment. He alone commands; He alone also
fulfils. Hence the promises of God belong to the New Testament; nay, are
the New Testament.
It is clear then that to a Christian man his faith suffices for
everything, and that he has no need of works for justification. But if
he has no need of works, neither has he need of the law; and if he has
no need of the law, he is certainly free from the law, and the saying is
true, "The law is not made for a righteous man" (1 Tim. i. 9). This is
that Christian liberty, our faith, the effect of which is, not that we
should be careless or lead a bad life, but that no one should need the
law or works for justification and salvation. . . .
So, too, His priesthood does not consist in the outward display of
vestments and gestures, as did the human priesthood of Aaron and our
ecclesiastical priesthood at this day, but in spiritual things, wherein,
in His invisible office, He intercedes for us with God in heaven, and
there offers Himself, and performs all the duties of a priest . . . .
Nor does He only pray and intercede for us; He also teaches us inwardly
in the spirit with the living teachings of His Spirit. Now these are the
two special offices of a priest, as is figured to us in the case of
fleshly priests by visible prayers and sermons. . . .
These two things stand thus. First, as regards kingship, every
Christian is by faith so exalted above all things that, in spiritual
power, he is completely lord of all things, so that nothing whatever can
do him any hurt; yea, all things are subject to him, and are compelled
to be subservient to his salvation. . . .
Not that in the sense of corporeal power any one among Christians has
been appointed to possess and rule all things, according to the mad and
senseless idea of certain ecclesiastics. That is the office of kings,
princes, and men upon earth. In the experience of life we see that we
are subjected to all things, and suffer many things, even death. Yea,
the more of a Christian any man is, to so many the more evils,
sufferings, and deaths is he subject, as we see in the first place in
Christ the Firstborn, and in all His holy brethren.
This is a spiritual power, which rules in the midst of . enemies, and
is powerful in the midst of distresses. And this is nothing else than
that strength is made perfect in my weakness, and that I can turn all
things to the profit of my salvation; so that even the cross and death
are compelled to serve me and to work together for my salvation. This is
a lofty and eminent dignity, a true and almighty dominion, a spiritual
empire, in which there is nothing so good, nothing so bad, not to work
together for my good, if only I believe. And yet there is nothing of
which I have need, for faith alone suffices for my salvation, unless
that in it faith may exercise the power and empire of its liberty. This
is the inestimable power and liberty of Christians.
Nor are we only kings and the freest of all men, but also priests for
ever, a dignity far higher than kingship, because by that priesthood we
are worthy to appear before God, to pray for others, and to teach one
another mutually the things which are of God. For these are the duties
of priests, and they cannot possibly be permitted to any unbeliever.
Christ has obtained for us this favour, if we believe in Him: that just
as we are His brethren and co-heirs and fellow-kings with Him, so we
should be also fellow-priests with Him, and venture with confidence,
through the spirit of faith, to come into the presence of God, and cry,
"Abba, Father!" and to pray for one another, and to do all things which
we see done and figured in the visible and corporeal office of
priesthood. But to an unbelieving person nothing renders service or
works for good. He himself is in servitude to all things, and all things
turn out for evil to him, because he uses all things in an impious way
for his own advantage, and not for the glory of God. And thus he is not
a priest, but a profane person, whose prayers are turned into sin, nor
does he ever appear in the presence of God, because God does not hear
sinners. . . .
Here you will ask, "If all who are in the Church are priests, by what
character are those whom we now call priests to be distinguished from
the laity?" I reply, By the use of these words, "priest," " clergy," "
spiritual person," "ecclesiastic," an injustice has been done, since
they have been transferred from the remaining body of Christians to
those few who are now, by a hurtful custom, called ecclesiastics. For
Holy Scripture makes no distinction between them, except that those who
are now boastfully called popes, bishops, and lords, it calls ministers,
servants, and stewards, who are to serve the rest in the ministry of the
word, for teaching the faith of Christ and the liberty of believers. For
though it is true that we are all equally priests, yet we cannot, nor,
if we could, ought we all to, minister and teach publicly. . . . This
bad system has now issued in such a pompous display of power and such a
terrible tyranny that no earthly government can be compared to it, as if
the laity were something else than Christians. Through this perversion
of things it has happened that the knowledge of Christian grace, of
faith, of liberty, and altogether of Christ, has utterly perished, and
has been succeeded by an intolerable bondage to human works and laws;
and according to the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we have become the slaves
of the vilest men on earth, who abuse our misery to all the disgraceful
and ignominious purposes of their own will. . . .
And now let us turn to the other part: to the outward man. . . .
Although, as I have said, inwardly, and according to the spirit, a
man is amply enough justified by faith having all that he requires to
have, except that this very faith and abundance ought to increase from
day to day even till the future life, still he remains in this mortal
life upon earth, in which it is necessary that he should rule his own
body and have intercourse with men. Here then works begin; here he must
not take his ease; he must give heed to exercise his body by fastings,
watchings, labour, and other regular discipline, so that it may be
subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and
faith, and not rebel against them nor hinder them, as is its nature to
do if it is kept under. For the inner man, being conformed to God and
created after the image of God through faith, rejoices and delights
itself in Christ, in whom such blessing have been conferred on it, and
hence has only this task before it: to serve God with joy and for nought
in free love.
But in doing this he comes into collision with the contrary will in
his own flesh, which is striving to serve the world and to seek its own
gratification. This the spirit of faith cannot and will not bear, but
applies itself with cheerfulness and zeal to keep it down and restrain
it . . .
These works, however, must not be done with any notion that by them a
man can be justified before God—for faith, which alone is righteousness
before God, will not bear with this false notion—but solely with this
purpose: that the body may be brought into subjection, and be purified
from its evil lusts, so that our eyes may be turned only to purging away
those lusts. For when the soul has been cleansed by faith and made to
love God, it would have all things to be cleansed in like manner, and
especially its own body, so that all things might unite with it in the
love and praise of God. . . .
On this principle every man may easily instruct himself in what
measure, and with what distinctions, he ought to chasten his own body.
He will fast, watch, and labour, just as much as he sees to suffice for
keeping down the wantonness and concupiscence of the body. But those who
pretend to be justified by works are looking, not to the mortification
of their lusts, but only to the works themselves; thinking that, if they
can accomplish as many works and as great ones as possible, all is well
with them, and they are justified. Sometimes they even injure their
brain, and extinguish nature, or at least make it useless. This is
enormous folly, and ignorance of Christian life and faith, when a man
seeks, without faith, to be justified and saved by works. . . .
We may see the same thing in all handicrafts. A bad or good house
does not make a bad or good builder, but a good or bad builder makes a
good or bad house. And in general no work makes the workman such as it
is itself; but the workman makes the work such as he is himself. Such is
the case, too, with the works of men. Such as the man himself is,
whether in faith or in unbelief, such is his work: good if it be done in
faith; bad if in unbelief. But the converse is not true that, such as
the work is, such the man becomes in faith or in unbelief. For as works
do not make a believing man, neither do they make a justified man; but
faith, as it makes a man a believer and justified, so also it makes his
works good. . . .
So, too, no good work can profit an unbeliever to justification and
salvation; and, on the other hand, no evil work makes him an evil and
condemned person, but that unbelief, which makes the person and the tree
bad, makes his works evil and condemned. Therefore, when any man is made
good or bad, this does not arise from his works, but from his faith or
unbelief . . .
Lastly, we will speak also of those works which he performs towards
his neighbour. For man does not live for himself alone in this mortal
body, in order to work on its account, but also for all men on earth;
nay, he lives only for others, and not for himself. For it is to this
end that he brings his own body into subjection, that he may be able to
serve others more sincerely and more freely . . .
Yet a Christian has need of none of these things for justification
and salvation, but in all his works he ought to entertain this view and
look only to this object—that he may serve and be useful to others in
all that he does; having nothing before his eyes but the necessities and
the advantage of his neighbour. . . .
Here is the truly Christian life, here is faith really
working by love, when a man applies himself with joy and love to the
works of that freest servitude in which he serves others voluntarily and
for nought, himself abundantly satisfied in the fulness and riches of
his own faith. . . .
Hence in the Christian life ceremonies are to be no otherwise looked
upon than as builders and workmen look upon those preparations for
building or working which are not made with any view of being permanent
or anything in themselves, but only because without them there could be
no building and no work. When the structure is completed, they are laid
aside. Here you see that we do not contemn these preparations, but set
the highest value on them; a belief in them we do contemn because no one
thinks that they constitute a real and permanent structure. If any one
were so manifestly out of his senses as to have no other object in life
but that of setting up these preparations with all possible expense,
diligence, and perseverance, while he never thought of the structure
itself, but pleased himself and made his boast of these useless
preparations and props, should we not all pity his madness and think
that, at the cost thus thrown away, some great building might have been
raised?
Thus, too, we do not contemn works and ceremonies—nay, we set the
highest value on them; but we contemn the belief in works, which no one
should consider to constitute true righteousness, as do those hypocrites
who employ and throw away their whole life in the pursuit of works, and
yet never attain to that for the sake of which the works are done. . . . |
Back to school
Luther married a former nun, Kathryn von Bora. Together they had six children
and raised four orphans. He concluded that "marriage is a far better school for
character than any monastery."
| |
|
Indulgences
Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM
Contains 11,632 articles. Browse off-line, ad-free, printer-friendly.
Get it here for only $29.95
The word indulgence (Lat. indulgentia, from indulgeo,
to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in
post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In
Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it was
used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological
language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to
signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which
it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal
punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the
equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio,
condonatio.
WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS NOT
To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence
is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future
sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of
the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It
is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the
obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the
contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner
owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the
possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence
the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases
the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must
be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic
Church really teaches on this subject.
WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal
punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which
remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the
keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and
of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this
definition, the following points are to be noted:
· In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of
sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the
Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it
the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still
remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and
this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or
in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers
the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during
his life on earth.
· Some writs of indulgence--none of them, however,
issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, no.
464)--contain the expression, "indulgentia a culpa et a poena",
i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has
occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, "History"
etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that,
indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent,
after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is
afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence
(Bellarmine, "De Indulg"., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully
pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when
complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as
well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314)
condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who
pretended to absolve" a culpa et a poena" (Clement, I. v, tit.
9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII,
n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV
(1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this
form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the
"quaestores" or purveyors (De Syn. dioeces., VIII, viii. 7).
· The satisfaction, usually called the "penance",
imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral
part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is
extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by
confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs
also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by
the repentant sinner -- prayer, fasting, alms-giving -- in that
these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who
performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent's
disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the
"Treasury" of the Church.
· An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the
Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only
releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or
from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also
from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight
of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to
undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice. This, however, does
not imply that the Church pretends to set aside the claim of
God's justice or that she allows the sinner to repudiate his
debt. As St. Thomas says (Suppl., xxv. a. 1 ad 2um), "He who
gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he
owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it."
The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in
debt nor acquits him of all further accounting; she enables him
to meet his obligations.
· In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or
bishop) does not offer his personal merits in lieu of what God
demands from the sinner. He acts in his official capacity as
having jurisdiction in the Church, from whose spiritual treasury
he draws the means wherewith payment is to be made. The Church
herself is not the absolute owner, but simply the
administratrix, of the superabundant merits which that treasury
contains. In applying them, she keeps in view both the design of
God's mercy and the demands of God's justice. She therefore
determines the amount of each concession, as well as the
conditions which the penitent must fulfill if he would gain the
indulgence.
VARIOUS KINDS OF INDULGENCES
An indulgence that may be gained in any part of the world is
universal, while one that can be gained only in a specified place (Rome,
Jerusalem, etc.) is local. A further distinction is that between
perpetual indulgences,which may be gained at any time, and
temporary,which are available on certain days only, or within certain
periods. Real indulgences are attached to the use of certain objects
(crucifix, rosary, medal); personal are those which do not require the
use of any such material thing, or which are granted only to a certain
class of individuals, e.g. members of an order or confraternity. The
most important distinction, however, is that between plenary indulgences
and partial. By a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the
entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is
required in Purgatory. A partial indulgence commutes only a certain
portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance
with the penitential discipline of the early Church. To say that an
indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an
amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have
been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days
or years of the ancient canonical penance. Here, evidently, the
reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative
value.
God alone knows what penalty remains to be paid and what its precise
amount is in severity and duration. Finally, some indulgences are
granted in behalf of the living only, while others may be applied in
behalf of the souls departed. It should be noted, however, that the
application has not the same significance in both cases. The Church in
granting an indulgence to the living exercises her jurisdiction; over
the dead she has no jurisdiction and therefore makes the indulgence
available for them by way of suffrage (per modum suffragii), i.e.
she petitions God to accept these works of satisfaction and in
consideration thereof to mitigate or shorten the sufferings of the souls
in Purgatory.
WHO CAN GRANT INDULGENCES
The distribution of the merits contained in the treasury of the
Church is an exercise of authority (potestas iurisdictionis), not
of the power conferred by Holy orders (potestas ordinis). Hence
the pope, as supreme head of the Church on earth, can grant all kinds of
indulgences to any and all of the faithful; and he alone can grant
plenary indulgences. The power of the bishop, previously unrestricted,
was limited by Innocent III (1215) to the granting of one year's
indulgence at the dedication of a church and of forty days on other
occasions. Leo XIII (Rescript of 4 July. 1899) authorized the
archbishops of South America to grant eighty days (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI,
758). Pius X (28 August, 1903) allowed cardinals in their titular
churches and dioceses to grant 200 days; archbishops, 100; bishops, 50.
These indulgences are not applicable to the souls departed. They can be
gained by persons not belonging to the diocese, but temporarily within
its limits; and by the subjects of the granting bishop, whether these
are within the diocese or outside--except when the indulgence is local.
Priests, vicars general, abbots, and generals of religious orders cannot
grant indulgences unless specially authorized to do so. On the other
hand, the pope can empower a cleric who is not a priest to give an
indulgence (St. Thomas, "Quodlib.", II, q. viii, a. 16).
DISPOSITIONS NECESSARY TO GAIN AN INDULGENCE
The mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence does not imply
that it can be gained without effort on the part of the faithful. From
what has been said above, it is clear that the recipient must be free
from the guilt of mortal sin. Furthermore, for plenary indulgences,
confession and Communion are usually required, while for partial
indulgences, though confession is not obligatory, the formula corde
saltem contrito, i.e. "at least with a contrite heart ", is the
customary prescription. Regarding the question discussed by theologians
whether a person in mortal sin can gain an indulgence for the dead, see
PURGATORY. It is also necessary to have the intention, at least
habitual, of gaining the indulgence. Finally, from the nature of the
case, it is obvious that one must perform the good works -- prayers,
alms deeds, visits to a church, etc. -- which are prescribed in the
granting of an indulgence. For details see "Raccolta".
AUTHORITATIVE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH
The Council of Constance condemned among the errors of Wyclif the
proposition: "It is foolish to believe in the indulgences granted by the
pope and the bishops" (Sess. VIII, 4 May, 1415; see Denzinger-Bannwart,
"Enchiridion", 622). In the Bull "Exsurge Domine", 15 June, 1520, Leo X
condemned Luther's assertions that "Indulgences are pious frauds of the
faithful"; and that "Indulgences do not avail those who really gain them
for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of God's
justice" (Enchiridion, 75S, 759), The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4,
Dec., 1563) declared: "Since the power of granting indulgences has been
given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest
times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches
and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians
and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in
the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either
declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the
power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de
fide)
· that the Church has received from Christ the power
to grant indulgences, and
· that the use of indulgences is salutary for the
faithful,
BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE
An essential element in indulgences is the application to one person
of the satisfaction performed by others. This transfer is based on three
things: the Communion of Saints, the principle of vicarious
satisfaction, and the Treasury of the Church.
(1) The Communion of Saints
"We being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of
another" (Romans 12:5). As each organ shares in the life of the whole
body, so does each of the faithful profit by the prayers and good works
of all the rest-a benefit which accrues, in the first instance, to those
who are in the state of grace, but also, though less fully, to the
sinful members.
(2) The Principle of Vicarious Satisfaction
Each good action of the just man possesses a double value: that of
merit and that of satisfaction, or expiation. Merit is personal, and
therefore it cannot be transferred; but satisfaction can be applied to
others, as St. Paul writes to the Colossians (i, 24) of his own works:
"Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that
are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body,
which is the Church," (See SATISFACTION.)
(3) The Treasury of the Church
Christ, as St. John declares in his First Epistle (ii, 2), "is the
propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of
the whole world." Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it
constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover
the indebtedness contracted by sin, Besides, there are the satisfactory
works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin,
and the virtues, penances, and sufferings of the saints vastly exceeding
any temporal punishment which these servants of God might have incurred.
These are added to the treasury of the Church as a secondary deposit,
not independent of, but rather acquired through, the merits of Christ.
The development of this doctrine in explicit form was the work of the
great Schoolmen, notably Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiii, m. 3,
n. 6), Albertus Magnus (In IV Sent., dist. xx, art. 16), and St. Thomas
(In IV Sent., dist. xx, q. i, art. 3, sol. 1). As Aquinas declares
(Quodlib., II, q. vii, art. 16): " All the saints intended that whatever
they did or suffered for God's sake should be profitable not only to
themselves but to the whole Church." And he further points out (Contra
Gent., III, 158) that what one endures for another being a work of love,
is more acceptable as satisfaction in God's sight than what one suffers
on one's own account, since this is a matter of necessity. The existence
of an infinite treasury of merits in the Church is dogmatically set
forth in the Bull "Unigenitus", published by Clement VI, 27 Jan., 1343,
and later inserted in the "Corpus Juris" (Extrav. Com., lib. V, tit. ix.
c. ii): "Upon the altar of the Cross ", says the pope, "Christ shed of
His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason
of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a
copious torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind.
This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but
entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that
they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the
faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due
to sin." Hence the condemnation by Leo X of Luther's assertion that "the
treasures of the Church from which the pope grants indulgences are not
the merits of Christ and the saints" (Enchiridion, 757). For the same
reason, Pius VI (1794) branded as false, temerarious, and injurious to
the merits of Christ and the saints, the error of the synod of Pistoia
that the treasury of the Church was an invention of scholastic subtlety
(Enchiridion, 1541).
According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, the source of indulgences
is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints. This treasury is
left to the keeping, not of the individual Christian, but of the Church.
Consequently, to make it available for the faithful, there is required
an exercise of authority, which alone can determine in what way, on what
terms, and to what extent, indulgences may be granted.
THE POWER TO GRANT INDULGENCES
Once it is admitted that Christ left the Church the power to forgive
sins (see PENANCE), the power of granting indulgences is logically
inferred. Since the sacramental forgiveness of sin extends both to the
guilt and to the eternal punishment, it plainly follows that the Church
can also free the penitent from the lesser or temporal penalty. This
becomes clearer, however, when we consider the amplitude of the power
granted to Peter (Matthew 16:19): "I will give to thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall
be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shaft loose on earth, it
shall be loosed also in heaven." (Cf. Matthew 18:18, where like power is
conferred on all the Apostles.) No limit is placed upon this power of
loosing, "the power of the keys ", as it is called; it must, therefore,
extend to any and all bonds contracted by sin, including the penalty no
less than the guilt. When the Church, therefore, by an indulgence,
remits this penalty, her action, according to the declaration of Christ,
is ratified in heaven. That this power, as the Council of Trent affirms,
was exercised from the earliest times, is shown by St. Paul's words (2
Corinthians 2:5-10) in which he deals with the case of the incestuous
man of Corinth. The sinner had been excluded by St. Paul's order from
the company of the faithful, but had truly repented. Hence the Apostle
judges that to such a one "this rebuke is sufficient that is given by
many" and adds: "To whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I
have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done
it in the person of Christ." St. Paul had bound the guilty one in the
fetters of excommunication; he now releases the penitent from this
punishment by an exercise of his authority -- "in the person of Christ."
Here we have all the essentials of an indulgence.
These essentials persist in the subsequent practice of the Church,
though the accidental features vary according as new conditions arise.
During the persecutions, those Christians who had fallen away but
desired to be restored to the communion of the Church often obtained
from the martyrs a memorial (libellus pacis) to be presented to
the bishop, that he, in consideration of the martyrs' sufferings, might
admit the penitents to absolution, thereby releasing them from the
punishment they had incurred. Tertullian refers to this when he says (Ad
martyres, c. i, P.L., I, 621): "Which peace some, not having it in the
Church, are accustomed to beg from the martyrs in prison; and therefore
you should possess and cherish and preserve it in you that so you
perchance may be able to grant it to others." Additional light is thrown
on this subject by the vigorous attack which the same Tertullian made
after he had become a Montanist. In the first part of his treatise "De
pudicitia", he attacks the pope for his alleged laxity in admitting
adulterers to penance and pardon, and flouts the peremptory edict of the
"pontifex maximus episcopus episcoporum ". At the close he complains
that the same power of remission is now allowed also to the martyrs, and
urges that it should be enough for them to purge their own sins --
sufficiat martyri propria delicta purgasse". And, again, "How can the
oil of thy little lamp suffice both for thee and me?" (c. xxii). It is
sufficient to note that many of his arguments would apply with as much
and as little force to the indulgences of later ages.
During St. Cyprian's time (d. 258), the heretic Novatian claimed that
none of the lapsi should be readmitted to the Church; others, like
Felicissimus, held that such sinners should be received without any
penance. Between these extremes, St. Cyprian holds the middle course,
insisting that such penitents should be reconciled on the fulfillment of
the proper conditions. On the one hand, he condemns the abuses connected
with the libellus, in particular the custom of having it made out
in blank by the martyrs and filled in by any one who needed it. "To this
you should diligently attend ", he writes to the martyrs (Ep. xv), "that
you designate by name those to whom you wish peace to be given." On the
other hand, he recognizes the value of these memorials: "Those who have
received a libellus from the martyrs and with their help can,
before the Lord, get relief in their sins, let such, if they be ill and
in danger, after confession and the imposition of your hands, depart
unto the Lord with the peace promised them by the martyrs " (Ep. xiii,
P.L., IV, 261). St. Cyprian, therefore, believed that the merits of the
martyrs could be applied to less worthy Christians by way of vicarious
satisfaction, and that such satisfaction was acceptable in the eyes of
God as well as of the Church.
After the persecutions had ceased, the penitential discipline
remained in force, but greater leniency was shown in applying it. St.
Cyprian himself was reproached for mitigating the "Evangelical severity"
on which he at first insisted; to this he replied (Ep. lii) that such
strictness was needful during the time of persecution not only to
stimulate the faithful in the performance of penance, but also to
quicken them for the glory of martyrdom; when, on the contrary, peace
was secured to the Church, relaxation was necessary in order to prevent
sinners from falling into despair and leading the life of pagans. In 380
St. Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. ad Letojum) declares that the penance should
be shortened in the case of those who showed sincerity and zeal in
performing it -- "ut spatium canonibus praestitum posset contrahere
(can. xviii; cf. can. ix, vi, viii, xi, xiii, xix). In the same spirit,
St. Basil (379), after prescribing more lenient treatment for various
crimes, lays down the general principle that in all such cases it is not
merely the duration of the penance that must be considered, but the way
in which it is performed (Ep. ad Amphilochium, c. lxxxiv). Similar
leniency is shown by various Councils--Ancyra (314), Laodicea (320),
Nicaea (325), Aries (330). It became quite common during this period to
favor those who were ill, and especially those who were in danger of
death (see Amort, "Historia ", 28 sq.). The ancient penitentials of
Ireland and England, though exacting in regard to discipline, provide
for relaxation in certain cases. St. Cummian, e.g., in his Penitential
(seventh century), treating (cap. v) of the sin of robbery, prescribed
that he who has often committed theft shall do penance for seven years
or for such time as the priest may judge fit, must always be reconciled
with him whom he has wronged, and make restitution proportioned to the
injury, and thereby his penance shall be considerably shortened (multum
breviabit poenitentiam ejus). But should he be unwilling or unable (to
comply with these conditions), he must do penance for the whole time
prescribed and in all its details. (Cf. Moran, "Essays on the Early
Irish Church", Dublin, 1864, p. 259.)
Another practice which shows quite clearly the difference between
sacramental absolution and the granting of indulgences was the solemn
reconciliation of penitents. These, at the beginning of Lent, had
received from the priest absolution from their sins and the penance
enjoined by the canons; on Maundy Thursday they presented themselves
before the bishop, who laid hands on them, reconciled them with the
Church, and admitted them to communion. This reconciliation was reserved
to the bishop, as is expressly declared in the Penitential of Theodore,
Archbishop of Canterbury; though in case of necessity the bishop could
delegate a priest for the purpose (lib. I, xiii). Since the bishop did
not hear their confession, the "absolution" which he pronounced must
have been a release from some penalty they had incurred. The effect,
moreover, of this reconciliation was to restore the penitent to the
state of baptismal innocence and consequently of freedom from all
penalties, as appears from the so-called Apostolic Constitutions (lib,
II, c. xli) where it is said: "Eritque in loco baptismi impositio
manuum"--i.e. the imposition of hands has the same effect as baptism
(cf. Palmieri, "De Poenitentia", Rome, 1879, 459 sq.).
In a later period (eighth century to twelfth) it became customary to
permit the substitution of some lighter penance for that which the
canons prescribed. Thus the Penitential of Egbert, Archbishop of York,
declares (XIII, 11): "For him who can comply with what the penitential
prescribes, well and good; for him who cannot, we give counsel of God's
mercy. Instead of one day on bread and water let him sing fifty psalms
on his knees or seventy psalms without genuflecting .... But if he does
not know the psalms and cannot fast, let him, instead of one year on
bread and water, give twenty-six solidi in alms, fast till None
on one day of each week and till Vespers on another, and in the three
Lents bestow in alms half of what he receives." The practice of
substituting the recitation of psalms or the giving of alms for a
portion of the fast is also sanctioned in the Irish Synod of 807, which
says (c. xxiv) that the fast of the second day of the week may be
"redeemed" by singing one psalter or by giving one denarius to a
poor person. Here we have the beginning of the so-called "redemptions"
which soon passed into general usage. Among other forms of commutation
were pilgrimages to well-known shrines such as that at St. Albans in
England or at Compostela in Spain. But the most important place of
pilgrimage was Rome. According to Bede (674-735) the "visitatio liminum
", or visit to the tomb of the Apostles, was even then regarded as a
good work of great efficacy (Hist. Eccl., IV, 23). At first the pilgrims
came simply to venerate the relics of the Apostles and martyrs; but in
course of time their chief purpose was to gain the indulgences granted
by the pope and attached especially to the Stations. Jerusalem, too, had
long been the goal of these pious journeys, and the reports which the
pilgrims gave of their treatment by the infidels finally brought about
the Crusades. At the Council of Clermont (1095) the First Crusade was
organized, and it was decreed (can. ii): "Whoever, out of pure devotion
and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem
to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of
all penance". Similar indulgences were granted throughout the five
centuries following (Amort, op. cit., 46 sq.), the object being to
encourage these expeditions which involved so much hardship and yet were
of such great importance for Christendom and civilization. The spirit in
which these grants were made is expressed by St. Bernard, the preacher
of the Second Crusade (1146): "Receive the sign of the Cross, and thou
shalt likewise obtain the indulgence of all thou hast confessed with a
contrite heart (ep. cccxxii; al., ccclxii).
Similar concessions were frequently made on occasions, such as the
dedication of churches, e.g., that of the old Temple Church in London,
which was consecrated in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 10 February,
1185, by the Lord Heraclius, who to those yearly visiting it indulged
sixty days of the penance enjoined them -- as the inscription over the
main entrance attests. The canonization of saints was often marked by
the granting of an indulgence, e.g. in honor of St. Laurence 0'Toole by
Honorius III (1226), in honor of St. Edmund of Canterbury by Innocent IV
(1248), and in honor of St. Thomas of Hereford by John XXII (1320). A
famous indulgence is that of the Portiuncula (q.v.), obtained by St.
Francis in 1221 from Honorius III. But the most important largess during
this period was the plenary indulgence granted in 1300 by Boniface VIII
to those who, being truly contrite and having confessed their sins,
should visit the basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul (see JUBILEE).
Among the works of charity which were furthered by indulgences, the
hospital held a prominent place. Lea in his "History of Confession and
Indulgences" (III, 189) mentions only the hospital of Santo Spirito in
Rome, while another Protestant writer, Uhlhorn (Gesch. d. Christliche
Liebesthatigkeit, Stuttgart, 1884, II, 244) states that "one cannot go
through the archives of any hospital without finding numerous letters of
indulgence". The one at Halberstadt in 1284 had no less than fourteen
such grants, each giving an indulgence of forty days. The hospitals at
Lucerne, Rothenberg, Rostock, and Augsburg enjoyed similar privileges.
ABUSES
It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have
proved such a stumbling-block, and excited so much prejudice and
opposition. But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which
unhappily have been associated with what is in itself a salutary
practice. In this respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no
institution, however holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice
or unworthiness of man. Even the Eucharist, as St. Paul declares, means
an eating and drinking of judgment to the recipient who discerns not the
body of the Lord. (1 Cor., xi, 27-9). And, as God's forbearance is
constantly abused by those who relapse into sin, it is not surprising
that the offer of pardon in the form of an indulgence should have led to
evil practices. These again have been in a special way the object of
attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther's revolt (see
LUTHER). On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church,
while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences,
has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the
severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were.
Even in the age of the martyrs, as stated above there were practices
which St. Cyprian was obliged to reprehend, yet he did not forbid the
martyrs to give the libelli. In later times abuses were met by
repressive measures on the part of the Church. Thus the Council of
Clovesho in England (747) condemns those who imagine that they might
atone for their crimes by substituting, in place of their own, the
austerities of mercenary penitents. Against the excessive indulgences
granted by some prelates, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215)
decreed that at the dedication of a church the indulgence should not be
for more than year, and, for the anniversary of the dedication or any
other case, it should not exceed forty days, this being the limit
observed by the pope himself on such occasions. The same restriction was
enacted by the Council of Ravenna in 1317. In answer to the complaint of
the Dominicans and Franciscans, that certain prelates had put their own
construction on the indulgences granted to these Orders, Clement IV in
1268 forbade any such interpretation, declaring that, when it was
needed, it would be given by the Holy See. In 1330 the brothers of the
hospital of Haut-Pas falsely asserted that the grants made in their
favor were more extensive than what the documents allowed: John XXII had
all these brothers in France seized and imprisoned. Boniface IX, writing
to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain
religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to
forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded
among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world
and eternal glory in the next. When Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury,
attempted in 1420 to give a plenary indulgence in the form of the Roman
Jubilee, he was severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized his
action as "unheard-of presumption and sacrilegious audacity". In 1450
Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some
preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin as
well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of
the words "a culpa et a poena", the cardinal condemned at the Council of
Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining
indulgences should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment
of the Holy See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly
been granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.).
Traffic in Indulgences
These measures show plainly that the Church long before the
Reformation, not only recognized the existence of abuses, but also used
her authority to correct them.
In spite of all this, disorders continued and furnished the pretext
for attacks directed against the doctrine itself, no less than against
the practice of indulgences. Here, as in so many other matters, the love
of money was the chief root of the evil: indulgences were employed by
mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain. Leaving the
details concerning this traffic to a subsequent article (see
REFORMATION), it may suffice for the present to note that the doctrine
itself has no natural or necessary connection with pecuniary profit, as
is evident from the fact that the abundant indulgences of the present
day are free from this evil association: the only conditions required
are the saying of certain prayers or the performance of some good work
or some practice of piety. Again, it is easy to see how abuses crept in.
Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the
condition of an indulgence, alms giving would naturally hold a
conspicuous place, while men would be induced by the same means to
contribute to some pious cause such as the building of churches, the
endowment of hospitals, or the organization of a crusade. It is well to
observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To
give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is
done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded. Looked at in
this light, it might well seem a suitable condition for gaining the
spiritual benefit of an indulgence. Yet, however innocent in itself,
this practice was fraught with grave danger, and soon became a fruitful
source of evil. On the one hand there was the danger that the payment
might be regarded as the price of the indulgence, and that those who
sought to gain it might lose sight of the more important conditions. On
the other hand, those who granted indulgences might be tempted to make
them a means of raising money: and, even where the rulers of the Church
were free from blame in this matter, there was room for corruption in
their officials and agents, or among the popular preachers of
indulgences. This class has happily disappeared, but the type has been
preserved in Chaucer's "Pardoner", with his bogus relics and
indulgences.
While it cannot be denied that these abuses were widespread, it
should also be noted that, even when corruption was at its worst, these
spiritual grants were being properly used by sincere Christians, who
sought them in the right spirit, and by priests and preachers, who took
care to insist on the need of true repentance. It is therefore not
difficult to understand why the Church, instead of abolishing the
practice of indulgences, aimed rather at strengthening it by eliminating
the evil elements. The Council of Trent in its decree "On Indulgences" (Sess.
XXV) declares: "In granting indulgences the Council desires that
moderation be observed in accordance with the ancient approved custom of
the Church, lest through excessive ease ecclesiastical discipline be
weakened; and further, seeking to correct the abuses that have crept in
. . . it decrees that all criminal gain therewith connected shall be
entirely done away with as a source of grievous abuse among the
Christian people; and as to other disorders arising from superstition,
ignorance, irreverence, or any cause whatsoever--since these, on account
of the widespread corruption, cannot be removed by special
prohibitions--the Council lays upon each bishop the duty of finding out
such abuses as exist in his own diocese, of bringing them before the
next provincial synod, and of reporting them, with the assent of the
other bishops, to the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence
measures will be taken for the welfare of the Church at large, so that
the benefit of indulgences may be bestowed on all the faithful by means
at once pious, holy, and free from corruption." After deploring the fact
that, in spite of the remedies prescribed by earlier councils, the
traders (quaestores) in indulgences continued their nefarious
practice to the great scandal of the faithful, the council ordained that
the name and method of these quaestores should be entirely
abolished, and that indulgences and other spiritual favors of which the
faithful ought not to be deprived should be published by the bishops and
bestowed gratuitously, so that all might at length understand that these
heavenly treasures were dispensed for the sake of piety and not of lucre
(Sess. XXI, c. ix). In 1567 St. Pius V canceled all grants of
indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.
Apocryphal Indulgences
One of the worst abuses was that of inventing or falsifying grants of
indulgence. Previous to the Reformation, such practices abounded and
called out severe pronouncements by ecclesiastical authority, especially
by the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) and that of Vienne (1311).
After the Council of Trent the most important measure taken to prevent
such frauds was the establishment of the Congregation of Indulgences. A
special commission of cardinals served under Clement VIII and Paul V,
regulating all matters pertaining to indulgences. The Congregation of
Indulgences was definitively established by Clement IX in 1669 and
reorganized by Clement XI in 1710. It has rendered efficient service by
deciding various questions relative to the granting of indulgences and
by its publications. The "Raccolta" (q.v.) was first issued by one of
its consultors, Telesforo Galli, in 1807; the last three editions 1877,
1886, and 1898 were published by the Congregation. The other official
publication is the "Decreta authentica", containing the decisions of the
Congregation from 1668 to 1882. This was published in 1883 by order of
Leo XIII. See also "Rescripta authentica" by Joseph Schneider (Ratisbon,
1885). By a Motu Proprio of Pius X, dated 28 January, 1904, the
Congregation of Indulgences was united to the Congregation of Rites,
without any diminution, however, of its prerogatives.
SALUTARY EFFECTS OF INDULGENCES
Lea (History, etc., III, 446) somewhat reluctantly acknowledges that
"with the decline in the financial possibilities of the system,
indulgences have greatly multiplied as an incentive to spiritual
exercises, and they can thus be so easily obtained that there is no
danger of the recurrence of the old abuses, even if the finer sense of
fitness, characteristic of modern times, on the part of both prelates
and people, did not deter the attempt." The full significance, however,
of this "multiplication" lies in the fact that. the Church, by rooting
out abuses, has shown the rigor of her spiritual life. She has
maintained the practice of indulgences, because, when these are used in
accordance with what she prescribes, they strengthen the spiritual life
by inducing the faithful to approach the sacraments and to purify their
consciences of sin. And further, they encourage the performance, in a
truly religious spirit, of works that redound, not alone to the welfare
of the individual, but also to God's glory and to the service of the
neighbor. |
Norms on Indulgences
Norms on Indulgences
[from the Enchiridion of Indulgences issued on 29 June 1968.]
1. An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal
punishment due for sins already forgiven as far as their guilt is
concerned. This remission the faithful with the proper dispositions and
under certain determined conditions acquire through the intervention of
the Church which, as minister of the Redemption, authoritatively
dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and
the Saints.
2. An indulgence is partial or plenary, according as it removes
either part or all of the temporal punishment due for sin.
3. No one, acquiring indulgences, can apply them to other living
persons.
4. Partial as well as plenary indulgences can always be applied to
the departed by way of suffrage.
5. The grant of a partial indulgence is designated only with the
words "partial indulgence," without any determination of days or years.
6. The faithful, who at least with contrite heart perform an action
to which a partial indulgence is attached, obtain, in addition to the
remission of temporal punishment acquired by the action itself, an equal
remission of punishment through the intervention of the Church.
7. The division of indulgences into "personal," "real" and "local" is
abolished, so as to make it clearer that indulgences are attached to the
actions of the faithful, even though at times they may be linked with
some object or place.
8. Besides the Roman Pontiff, to whom the dispensation of the whole
spiritual treasury of the Church has been entrusted by Christ our Lord,
they only can grant indulgences by ordinary power, to whom this is
expressly conceded by law.
9. In the Roman Curia, whatever pertains to the granting and use of
indulgences is committed to the Sacred Penitentiary exclusively, saving
the right of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to examine
whatever pertains to dogmatic teaching concerning indulgences.
10. No one below the Roman Pontiff can:
1. Give to others the faculty of granting indulgences, unless
he has this right by express indult from the Apostolic See;
2. Add another indulgence to a work already indulgenced by
the Apostolic See or by someone else, unless new conditions to
be fulfilled are prescribed.
11. Diocesan Bishops, and others equated to them in law, have the
right from entrance upon their pastoral office:
1. To grant a partial indulgence to persons or in places
under their jurisdiction;
2. To impart in their respective dioceses, according to the
prescribed formula, the Papal Blessing with a plenary indulgence
three times a year on solemn feasts of their own choice, even if
they only assist at the solemn Mass.
12. Metropolitans can grant a partial indulgence in their suffragan
Sees, as in their proper diocese.
13. Patriarchs can grant a partial indulgence in each place, even if
exempt, of their respective patriarchates, in churches of their rite
outside the territory of their patriarchates, and to the faithful of
their rite everywhere. Major Archbishops have the same faculty.
14. Cardinals have the faculty of granting a partial indulgence in
places or to institutes or persons under their jurisdiction or
protection; in other places also, but only to persons present and for
that time only.
15.
1. 1. All books of indulgences, as well as pamphlets,
leaflets and the like, whose contents include grants of
indulgences, may not be published without the permission of the
Ordinary or Hierarch of the place.
2. 2. The express permission of the Apostolic See is required
to print and publish in any language the authentic collection of
prayers and pious works, to which the Apostolic See has attached
indulgences.
16. Those who have asked and obtained from the Sovereign Pontiff
grants of indulgences for all the faithful are obliged, under penalty of
nullity of the favor thus obtained, to submit to the Sacred Penitentiary
authentic copies of these same grants.
17. If a feast or its external solemnity is legitimately transferred,
it is understood that an indulgence, attached to the feast, is
transferred to the same day.
18. A visit to a church or oratory, if required
to gain an indulgence attached to a certain day, can be made from noon
of the preceding day to midnight at the close of the day itself.
19. The faithful, who devoutly use an article
of devotion (crucifix or cross, rosary, scapular or medal) properly
blessed by any priest, obtain a partial indulgence.
But if the article of devotion has been blessed by the Sovereign
Pontiff or by any Bishop, the faithful, using it devoutly, can also gain
a plenary indulgence on the feast of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul,
provided they also make a profession of faith according to any
legitimate formula.
20.
1. Indulgences attached to a visit to a church do not cease
if the church is totally destroyed, provided the church is
rebuilt within fifty years in the same or almost the same place
and under the same title.
2. An indulgence attached to the use of an article of
devotion only ceases, when the article is completely destroyed
or is sold.
21. Holy Mother Church, extremely solicitous for the faithful
departed, has decided to apply suffrages to them as abundantly as
possible in every Sacrifice of the Mass, abolishing every particular
privilege in this regard.
22. To be capable of gaining an indulgence for
oneself, it is required that one be
1. baptized,
2. not
excommunicated,
3. in the
state of grace at least at the completion of the prescribed
works, and
4. a subject
of the one granting the indulgence.
In order that one who is capable may actually gain indulgences,
5. one must
have at least a general intention to gain them
6. and must
in accordance with the tenor of the grant perform the enjoined
works at the time and in the manner prescribed.
o Unless the tenor of the grant clearly indicates otherwise,
indulgences granted by a Bishop can be gained by his subjects even
outside his territory and by others within his territory who are exempt
or who have or do not have a domicile elsewhere.
o
1. A plenary indulgence can be acquired once only in the
course of a day.
2. But one can obtain the plenary indulgence for the moment
of death, even if another plenary indulgence had already been
acquired on the same day.
3. A partial indulgence can be acquired more than once a day,
unless otherwise expressly indicated.
1. The work prescribed for acquiring a plenary
indulgence connected with a church or oratory consists in a devout visit
and the recitation during the visit of one Our Father and the Creed.
1. To acquire a plenary indulgence
it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached
and to fulfill the following three conditions:
2. sacramental confession,
3. Eucharistic Communion, and
4. prayer for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff.
It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin,
be absent.
If the latter disposition is in any way less than perfect or if the
prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be
partial only, saving the provisions given below in Norm 34 and in Norm
35 concerning those who are "impeded."
1. The three conditions may be fulfilled
several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work; it
is, however, fitting that Communion be received and the prayer for the
intention of the Sovereign Pontiff be said on the same day the work is
performed.
1. A single sacramental confession suffices for
gaining several plenary indulgences; but Communion must be received and
prayer for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff must be recited for
the gaining of each plenary indulgence.
1. The condition of praying for the intention
of the Sovereign Pontiff is fully satisfied by reciting one Our Father
and one Hail Mary; nevertheless, each one is free to recite any other
prayer according to his piety and devotion.
1. The norms regarding plenary indulgences, particularly the one
stated above in Norm 24, 1, apply also to what up to now have been
customarily called "toties quoties" ["as often as"] plenary indulgences.
1. An indulgence cannot be gained by a work, to which one is obliged
by law or precept. unless the contrary is expressly stated in the grant;
one, however, who performs a work which has been imposed as a
sacramental penance and which happens to be one enriched with an
indulgence, can at the same time both satisfy the penance and gain the
indulgence.
1. An indulgence attached to a prayer can be acquired by reciting the
prayer in any language, provided the fidelity of the translation is
vouched for by a declaration either of the Sacred Penitentiary or of any
Ordinary or Hierarch of those places, where the language of the
translation is the one commonly spoken.
1. To gain an indulgence attached to a prayer, it is sufficient to
recite the prayer alternately with a companion or to follow it mentally
while it is being recited by another.
1. Confessors can commute either the prescribed
work or conditions, in favor of those who, because of a legitimate
impediment, cannot perform the work or fulfill the conditions.
1. Local Ordinaries or Hierarchs, moreover, can grant to the
faithful, over whom they exercise legitimate authority and who live in
places where it is impossible or at least very difficult to go to
confession or Communion, permission to gain a plenary indulgence without
confession and Communion, provided they have true contrition for their
sins and have the intention of receiving these Sacraments as soon as
possible.
1. The deaf and dumb can gain indulgences attached to public prayers,
if they devoutly raise their mind and affections to God, while others of
the faithful are reciting the prayers in the same place; for private
prayers it suffices, if they recite them mentally or with signs, or if
they merely read them with their eyes.
Martin Luther, Father of the Reformation
Luther posting his 95 Theses on the door of Wittenberg's Castle
Church.
The Forgiveness of God
I was feeling depressed about all this one day while studying in the reading
room. I was looking in the New Testament at St. Paul's epistle to the Romans
when I came upon the Scripture in Romans 1:17, "The just shall live by faith." I
suddenly sprang from my chair with greater happiness than I'd ever known!
I realized, in this one flashing moment, that God freely gives forgiveness of
sins and eternal life to all who believe in Jesus Christ. Oh, what a relief!
What a great hope for heaven! It wasn't my good works that earned me a place in
heaven. God would give it as a free gift to those who trusted Him and believed
the message of the gospel. I felt as though the gates of heaven had just been
opened to me! I was finally able to sense God's love.
The Work of God
Imagine my surprise one day when a monk named John Tetzel began selling pieces
of paper to people. He claimed that if they bought that piece of paper called an
indulgence, God would forgive their sins. People actually believed they could
have God's forgiveness by buying a piece of paper.

John Tetzel wouldn't listen to what I had to say, so I needed a way to make
my point that indulgences were wrong. It was a common practice for scholars to
write down their positions on religious subjects and tack them on the door of
Wittenberg's Castle Church. I decided this was the best way to start the debate
on what Tetzel was doing. On October 31,1517, I tacked my 95 Theses, or 95
reasons, onto the door of the Castle Church.
That day, I had no idea that my 95 theses would be the spark that lit the
fire of what came to be known as The Great Reformation.
PostScript
Martin Luther had a big problem: How did he dare stand against a powerful
church, long traditions, and great teachers? Yet before God, he felt he had no
choice.
There are now about 65 million people in the world who are Lutherans.
However, Martin Luther never intended to start a new or separate church. He
wanted to see the Roman Catholic Church reformed.
FACT: Martin Luther is one of the most famous persons who ever lived, but
that is not what he wanted. He only wanted to live in quietness as a monk, to
seek God and to save his soul.
FACT: Some years after he was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, Luther
married a former nun named Kathryn. They had six children.
FACT: Luther was declared a heretic and condemned to be captured or killed.
But he was kidnapped by Duke Frederick and kept hidden in his castle for his
protection.
Make It Real! Questions to make you dig a little deeper and think a little
harder.
1. As a child and young man, Martin Luther thought of God as angry
and harsh. When you think of God, what characteristics do you think of?
2. Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses in order to begin a debate on
topics he felt strongly about. Can you hold a mock debate in your
classroom or in your family? What modern topics would be good to debate?
3. Luther said, "Next to the Word of God, music deserves the highest
praise." He was especially inspired by Mary's song, the "Magnificat." Do
you have a particular song that inspires you?
4. A "defining moment" can be described as an event that changes the
course of your life. Can you describe some of Martin Luther's defining
moments?
Issue # 154: Highlights of Luther's Life in His Own Words
It is claimed that there have been more books written about Martin Luther
than anyone else other than Jesus Christ. The name Martin Luther inevitably
shows in the top ten on those lists pundits compile about who were the most
influential in shaping our modern world. He is one of those few who can be
indisputably proclaimed a "hinge of history."
Martin Luther, second most written-about man.
Yet Luther never wanted to be a renowned world shaper. He was more concerned
to save his own soul and entered a monastery to get away from the world and seek
his own salvation. But in finding his salvation he rediscovered foundations of
Biblical Christianity that shook the late Medieval world and challenged its
assumptions about religious authority, what God was like, how we are to approach
him, and how God saves us. So hear from the man who rocked the world in the 16th
century and did much to pave the way for the modern world.
Peasant Parents, Strict Parents
"I am the son of a peasant; my father, my grandfather, and all my ancestors were
genuine peasants. . . . My father was a poor miner and my mother carried the
wood from the forest on her back; they both worked their flesh off their bones
in order to bring up their children."
"My mother once beat me up with a cane for stealing a nut until the blood
came. Such strict discipline drove me to the monastery, although she meant well.
. . . My father once flogged me so cruelly that I fled away from him, and came
to bear a grudge against him. It was a long time until he again won my
confidence."
Free inquiry packet! Find out more about Glimpses and Glimpses
for Kids simply by requesting our full-color information packet. Its free!
You'll find them ideal for your church, club or school. But don't take our word
for it. Download sample issues of
Glimpses
and Glimpses for
Kids in pdf format and see for
yourself. These leaflets are attractively designed, competitively priced and
well-suited for church bulletin inserts or Sunday school handouts.
As a Child, the Name of Christ Made Him Cringe
"From early childhood I was accustomed to turn pale and tremble whenever I heard
the name of Christ mentioned, for I was taught to look upon Him as a stern and
wrathful Judge." "We were taught that we ourselves had to atone for our sins,
and since we could not make sufficient amends or do acceptable works, our
teachers directed us to the saints in heaven, and made us call upon Mary the
Mother of Christ and implore her to avert from us Christ?s wrath, and make Him
inclined to be merciful to us."
As a Monk He Tried So Hard, but to No Avail
"I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got
to heaven by his monkery, it was I. All my brothers in the monastery who knew me
will bear me out. If I had kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with
vigils, prayers, readings and other works."
The Gates of Paradise Opened with His Great Discovery: Justification by Faith
"As I meditated day and night on the words 'as it is written, the righteous
person shall live by faith,' I began to understand that the righteous person
lives by the gift of a passive righteousness, by which the merciful God
justifies us by faith. This immediately made me feel as though I had been born
again, and as though I had entered through open gates into paradise itself. God
accepts Christ's righteousness, which is alien to our nature, as our own. Though
God does not actually remove our sins -- we are at the same time righteous and
sinful -- he no longer counts our sins against us. And now, where I had once
hated the phrase, 'the righteousness of God,' I began to love and extol it as
the sweetest of phrases, so that this passage in Paul became the very gate of
paradise to me."
Luther's Self Understanding Grows Through Friendship with his Fellow
Theologian and Colleague -- Philip Melanchthon
"I prefer the books of Magister Philippus to my own. I am rough, boisterous,
stormy, and altogether warlike. I am born to fight against innumerable monsters
and devils. I must remove stumps and stones, cut away thistles and thorns, and
clear the wild forests. But Magister Philippus comes along softly and gently,
sowing and watering with joy according to the gifts which God has abundantly
bestowed upon him."
Dare One Man Stand Against the Power of Christendom and Rome? "Just Show Me
from Scripture," He Pleads Before the Diet of Worms in 1521 "If convicted, I am
willing and ready to revoke any error and shall be the first one to throw my
books into the fire."
"Unless I can be instructed and convinced with evidence from the Holy
Scriptures or by clear and distinct grounds of reasoning. . . then I cannot and
will not recant because it is neither safe nor wise to act against conscience."
Luther on the Bible
?No clearer Book has been written in this wide world than the Bible. Compared
with all other books it is like the sun over all other lights. Don't let them
lead you out of and away from it, much as they may try to do so. For if you step
out, you are lost; they take you wherever they wish. If you remain within, you
will be victorious.Ӽ/p>
When Peasants Rose Up in Revolt, Luther Came Down Hard for "Law And Order"
"Wrongs perpetrated by those in authority are no excuse for rebellion. If the
rulers refuse to do right, God will find a way to punish them, but Christians
must always defend law and order against mob-rule, self-help, and anarchy. The
revolutionists cannot call upon God, since they rely exclusively on their own
fists."
"Smite, strangle, and stab the peasants, secretly or openly, for nothing can
be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one
must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you and a whole
land with you. Do not hesitate to cut, knock down, and kill. This is a service
of love, to save your neighbor from the bonds of the devil and of hell."
The Tender Heart of a Combative Theologian Over the Deaths of His Daughters,
Magdalena and Elizabeth
"Magdalena, my little daughter, would you like to stay with your father here, or
would you willingly go to your Father in heaven?"
"I love her very much, but, dear God, if it be thy will to take her, I submit
to thee."
"Beloved Lena, you will rise and shine like a star, yea, like the sun."
"My little daughter Elizabeth is dead. It is marvelous that how sick at heart
it has left me, so much do I grieve for her. I would never have believed that a
father's heart could be so tender for his child. Pray the Lord for me."
"So strong is natural affection that we must sob and groan in heart, under
the oppression of killing grief. . . . Even the death of Christ is unable to
take all this away as it should."
Luther on Music and the Arts
"I am not of the opinion that all arts are to be cast down and destroyed on
account of the Gospel, as some fanatics protest. On the other hand, I would
gladly see all arts, especially music, in the service of Him who has given and
created them. Why should the devil have all the good music?"
Facing the End
"When I return from Eisleben, I shall lay me down in a coffin and give the worms
a plump doctor to feast on. I am tired of this world. So we shall depart all the
more gladly, like a weary guest from a humble inn."
"O Lord Jesus Christ, I commend my poor soul to Thee. O Heavenly Father, I
know that, although I shall be taken away from this life, I shall live forever
with Thee. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that
whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Into
Thy hands I commend my spirit, for Thou has redeemed me, Thou God of truth."
His Hope in Death and Succinct Summary of His Theology
"Without works, and only through Faith, we are made wholly safe and secure, so
that we shall not be condemned, not because of our own holiness or purity, but
because of Christ, because through faith alone do we cleave to Him as our mercy
seat--sure that in Him no wrath remains, but only love, pardon, and
forgiveness."
With the Advance of Reformation the Requirement that Pastors Be Single Was
Challenged. . . . Luther Allowed and Encouraged Pastors to Marry. For Himself,
Though, He Hesitated for a While. Here is a Sampling of His Comments on Married
Life.
"Good heavens! Will our Wittenbergers give wives to monks? They won't force a
wife on me!"
"If one could serve one's neighbor in holy orders, then one should remain. On
the other hand, if one could serve the neighbor better outside the monastery or
cloister, then one should live in the world, and monastic vows were not
binding."
"Like Abraham, I am the father of a great people for I am responsible for all
the children of the monks and nuns who have renounced their monastic vows."
"I am not now inclined to take a wife. Not that I lack the feelings of a man,
for I am neither wood nor stone, but my mind is averse to marriage because I
daily expect the death decreed to the heretic."
"I hope to live a short time. Yet to gratify my father, who asked me to marry
and leave him descendants; and moreover so that I would confirm by my example
what I have taught, God has willed and caused my act. For I neither love my wife
nor burn for her, but esteem her."
"If I had not married her quickly and quietly, only a few friends knowing it,
they all would have prevented it; for even my best friends cried, 'Not this one
but someone else.'"
"Kate, you have a man who loves you."
"I would not surrender my Katie for France and Venice together."
" If, in a marriage, the husband shows no forbearance toward his wife and the
wife none toward her husband, then the married state will soon become a tyranny,
and everything will be ruined."
"It was a right and proper part of the Christian faith for a man to join his
wife at the wash-tub and wash the swaddling clothes."
"I am an inferior lord, she the superior; I am Aaron, she is my Moses."
"If I can survive the wrath of the Devil in my sinful conscience, I can
withstand the anger of (my wife) Katherine von Bora."
"This life has nothing more lovely and delightful than a woman who loves her
husband."
|