Luther Really Did Want to Start a New Religion: Documentation

He saw exactly what was happening. He could have chosen to change any time he wanted to, but he didn’t.

Heretics are usually never alone. Heresy by itself, divides. His mindset divided.

Does the Catholic Church still sell indulgences?

Yes, heresy is never alone…and nationalism was on the rise in Germany and England. I don’t know how much, but suspect alot in the wave of such temporal interests.

Very true. It actually goes back to the Great Western Schism and the aftermath of the concilliarist controversies and schisms after the Council of Constance. The decrees of the the Council of Constance fostered an environment for the spread of concilliarism. Then, with the Great Schism finally healed and peace generally restored, Pope Martin V convoked the Council of Basel which declared itself ecumenical from the get-go (he died but Pope Eugene IV continued it). It was convoked for really no other reason than the Council of Constance decreed that Councils should be convoked every 10 years or so. This Council quickly became an organ for promoting Conciliarism. The Pope then transferred it to Ferrara, but many bishops remained in Basel leading to a schism in which that council attempted to depose Pope Eugene and elected the antipope Felix V. This schism led to all sorts of confusion and rivalries among the rising nation-states as they took sides in the conflict.

This is significant because these events coupled with the preceding Great Western Schism made the authority of the Church all too human. It created an environment where the papacy was associated more with national interests and not universal Christian authority. Germany, which remained neutral during the schism of Basel/Felix V, grew accustomed to life without allegiance to a Pope. Similarly, the doctrine of the papacy itself was watered down or altogether obscured in many places (in England, the learned St. Thomas More was ignorant of its divine origin until he was instructed about it by St. John Fisher surprisingly very shortly before both would die for it) . It is for these very reasons that the Reformation was so “successful” and why there was little resistance to it in many regions especially among the princes. It was also why there was so much controversy regarding the decision to convoke another Council to deal with it (one was finally convoked by Paul III at Trent of course).

I am confused about Leo X’s decree when it condemns that following:

  1. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

Are not prayers always effective? It seems like the Pope was saying the psychological fright one receives from knowing prayers can’t be said for him can outbalance the power of prayers prayed for him. Is this correct?

The old Catechism of St. Pius X might be helpful in this regard:

[quote=Catechism of St. Pius X]17 Q. Who are the excommunicated?
A. The excommunicated are those who, because of grievous transgressions, are struck with excommunication by the Pope or their Bishop, and consequently are cut off as unworthy from the body of the Church, which, however, hopes for and desires their conversion.

18 Q. Should excommunication be dreaded?
A. Excommunication should be greatly dreaded, because it is the severest and most terrible punishment the Church can inflict upon her rebellious and obstinate children.

19 Q. Of what goods are the excommunicated deprived?
A. The excommunicated are deprived of public prayers, of the Sacraments, of indulgences and of Christian burial.

20 Q. Can we in any way help the excommunicated?
A. We can in some way help the excommunicated and all others who are outside the true Church, by salutary advice, by prayers and good works, begging God in His mercy to grant them the grace of being converted to the faith and of entering into the Communion of Saints.

Note it says the “public prayers” don’t benefit the person (#19), but they can be helped by other prayers(#20).

So essentially by being excommunicated (assuming it is just and valid) you are no longer a member of the Body of the Church and are therefore deprived of all the blessings and graces that flow from Christ the head through His body, the Church. This includes the graces obtained for the good of the Church through the Church’s public prayer which is the Liturgy, especially the Eucharistic sacrifice. That doesn’t mean, however, that prayers for your conversion or your own prayers for the grace of repentance, etc. won’t work.

The point of the condemnation is that excommunication has real spiritual meaning, it’s not just empty words or a mere social penalty.

Perhaps indulgences were not officially sold, but many Catholics certainly believed that they could pay their way out of purgatory by making donations and that belief does seem to have been encouraged by some preachers. It is uncertain whether Johann Tetzel actually said it, but the popular little jingle, “When the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs” (“Sobald der Pfennig im Kasten klingt, die Selle aus dem Fegfeuer springt”) can be traced back to at least 1482, and Luther wrote to Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz:

Under your most distinguished name, papal indulgences are offered all across the land for the construction of St. Peter. Now, I do not so much complain about the quacking of the preachers, which I haven’t heard; but I bewail the gross misunderstanding among the people which comes from these preachers and which they spread everywhere among common men. Evidently the poor souls believe that when they have bought indulgence letters they are then assured of their salvation. They are likewise convinced that souls escape from purgatory as soon as they have placed a contribution into the chest (Luther’s Works, Vol. 48:45)

Would you please document this claim? How do you know that “many” Catholics believed they could pay their way out of purgatory?

Johann Tetzel is addressed in the Catholic Encyclopedia

Where in that article does it substantiate that “many Catholics believed they could pay their way out of purgatory”?

One of the reasons I did not quote from the Encyclopedia was to avoid what this blog did. It quotes that which is favorable to its position and leaves out what isn’t for instance it used the Catholic Encyclopedia but fails to acknowledge this passage

History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald caricature, than Tetzel. “Even while he lived stories which contained an element of legend gathered around his name, until at last, in the minds of the uncritical Protestant historians, he became the typical indulgence-monger, upon whom any well-worn anecdote might be fathered” (Beard, “Martin Luther”, London, 1889, 210). For a critical scholarly study which shows him in a proper perspective, he had to wait the researches of our own time, mainly at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Paulus, who is closely followed in this article. In the first place, his teaching regarding the indulgences for the living was correct. The charge that the forgiveness of sins was sold for money regardless of contrition or that absolution for sins to be committed in the future could be purchased is baseless. An indulgence, he writes, can be applied only “to the pains of sin which are confessed and for which there is contrition”. “No one”, he furthermore adds, “secures an indulgence unless he have true contrition”. The confessional letters (confessionalia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrition. But such document did not secure an indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary indulgence (Paulus, “Johann Tetzel”, 103).

Who was the Catholic who debated Luther? It started with an e. Eck? Something like that

Johann Eck

I agree!! It was sooo obvious that he wanted to start a new religion. If you look at his actions.from.beginning to end it was so obvious that he was looking to create his own religion.

Luther`s exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. Do you know.who.was the person who actually wanted people to live their religion the way Jesus intended and had radical ideas and thought his ideas were an accurate representation of the Catholic faith and he truthfully wanted to be a Catholic.but wanted the church to.change its ways to truly live what Jesus taught? His name was st. Francis of Assisi! He did reform.the church in the right way while remaining the church and today he is one of.our biggest saints. st Francis` actions with Luther’s action. Big big difference. Words.are meaningless, what counts is.your actions.

I will certainly concede that his actions/attitude fostered a schism, but I don’t think that was his intention. He wanted Catholicism without the Pope.

It is true that one cannot read Luther and find a saintly soul as we find with St. Francis. The difference between the two (or one big one) is that St. Francis perceived the Church. He understood that she is Holy and without blemish, with Christ as her Head and the Holy Spirit as her Soul. Luther confused the corrupted leaders with the Holy Bride.

But that is not what the thread is about, is it? This thread is about intentions. Luther did not intend to start a new religion. His actions resuled in a terrible fragmentation of the Western Church, but he did not intend for this to happen. On the contrary, he was quite upset that other reformers rejected the Real Presence, and thought they could interpret Scripture apart from the Church.

Luther was knowledgeable enough to know that Catholicism without the Pope was a different religion. To me saying that he didn’t intend to create a new.religion is like if I grab a knife and stab someone.else while.saying that I don’t intend to stab the person. I am voluntarily choosing to stab you and I know my action will result in stabbing but I am.saying that I don’t intend to do it. If I don’t intend to do it why am I doing it? .Same with Luther, he knew what he was doing and he was actively doing it. If he would have been.someone.without the knowledge and without the education then I would believe it, but he clearly knew.what he was doing so he was trying to.create a new religion.

No he wasn’t and didn’t form a new religion

Nooo, he just created a schism and created Lutheranism and Protestantism and every other religion that came.from.there.

  1. " Protestantism" isn’t even real , but just an offensive label
  2. Lutheranism is a church Within a religion , not a new religion
  3. It was and still is a reformation not schism
  4. Happy ( late ) Chanukah , Merry Christmas and Happy Advent :slight_smile:

Yes what Luther did was a Schism of the Roman.Catholic.Church. it is.not a reformation.because he did not.reform.anything in the church. He separated himself from.the Church.creating something completely different. That is schism.

Protestants and.Lutherans are two.different things. Lutherans are the biggest denomination within.Protestants but not.all.Protestants are Lutherans.

I don’t.see how it is not a new religion if it is completely different to the original religion. I agree that it is within Christianity and that if we speak about major religions is part of.christianity, but it broke apart from the original religion.

  1. I’d argue that he was kicked out for reforming the church .
  2. Partially correct , although Reformation churches is often used instead of the often derogatory " Protestant"
  3. I agree that the Catholic Church is the church , however we don’t see the church as just visible , thus we veiw the Orthodox , OO and others as Catholics not in communion with the bishop of Rome , and we pray for full cummunion between our Churches .

Keep the faith , Mary , Starwars

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit