Luther


#1

Luther

I recently saw the film “Luther.” I was quite moved by the film and want to know the Catholic Church’s position on the “Selling of Indulgences” as portrayed in the film. Even though I am a Catholic, it seems to me Luther was right to condemn this practice?

I would like to get some feedback on this. This is my first posting and I hope I am doing it correctly?

Sincerely,

Peter Carroll


#2

Go to www.catholic.com and do a search on the word indulgences.


#3

What bothers me about the whole thing was Luther’s logic. From my understanding, selling indulgences was not a practice support by the Church, but an illicit practice by some currupt preists or bishops. Luther was right to speak against it. But for some reason, his method of solving the problem was to claim that Purgatory isn’t real and split the Church in two. :ehh:

What gives?


#4

Catholics accept that there were excesses in the middle ages, but maintain that reform was taking place, however slowly, from within.

Mister Luther was a drama queen. Certainly he brought the issue to a head.

And then he proceeded to challenge the Church’s authority to teach and interpret scripture, which doesn’t have anything to do with indulgences.

At this point the real agenda was clear: a free-for-all in Sacred Scripture.

He broke the Church. Don’t weep when you’re told poor Mister Luther was excommunicated. All heretics get excommunicated, and he was a heretic.

For a brief moment in time, it would have been possible to put the Church together again. But Mister Luther’s insistence on a Scriptural free-for-all resulted in the splintering of thousands and thousands and thousands of sects. Because of this, it is frankly no longer possible to repair the Church.

If it’s any consolation, Mister Luther later in life realized that he had unleashed a destructive force with his Scriptural free-for-all, but the damage has been done.

I don’t see anything heroic in what he did. I see him as a self-centered opportunist.


#5

Reform was occurring within the Church before Luther came along.

The problem with Luther is that along with his reform of questionable usage of indulgences came the destructive idea that anyone could form a brand new religion based on his own private interpretation of Scripture.

The damage from indulgences has waned with time. The damage of Luther grows worse with every age.

That sums it up for me.


#6

[quote=Peter Carroll]I recently saw the film “Luther.” I was quite moved by the film and want to know the Catholic Church’s position on the “Selling of Indulgences” as portrayed in the film. Even though I am a Catholic, it seems to me Luther was right to condemn this practice?
[/quote]

Hi Peter,

While I greatly enjoyed the Luther movie, it does have some historical/factual problems. For a consice review, see the comments of Lutheran scholar Eric Gritsch:
ltsg.edu/luthercolloquy/themovie.htm#historicity

About indulgences. Father Patrick O’Hare’s book, The Facts About Luther states:

“Julius II had it brought under his notice that the ancient basilica of St. Peter, which had been given to the Church by the Emperor Constantine, was now falling into decay. He determined to use the opportunity and to employ all the architectural talent of that brilliant period in order to erect a new basilica in its place, which by its magnificence should be worthy of its position as the memorial of the great Apostle and the central church of the Catholic world. Julius II commenced the work and devoted large sums to its accomplishment. These, however, were far from sufficient, and it became evident that the cost of a building of such magnitude could be defrayed only by a successful appeal to the piety of the Christian world. Accordingly, Leo X, the successor of Julius, who died in 1513, proclaimed an Indulgence; that is to say, he granted an Indulgence of a most simple kind to all, wherever they might be, who would contribute according to their means towards the expense of the rising edifice.”

Source: Father Patrick O’Hare, The Facts About Luther (Reprint 1987) Tan Publishers, 60-61

Now, as far as the Luther movie goes, this was accurate. Of course, the corruption of the practice of indulgences was far more complicated. The practice over time developed, or should I say, became corrupted. The indulgence developed from the practice of penance. The indulgence originally was a granted permission to relax or commute the penance imposed upon a repentant sinner as an outward sign of sorrow. It was the opportunity to substitute one penalty for another. The original intent was to help the penitent. Serious sins required extreme satisfaction. If the penitent was unable to perform acts of extreme satisfaction due to health reasons or extenuating circumstances, the church in its mercy allowed a substitution: often amounted to a reduction in the satisfaction required, or, as it developed giving money.

Pope Boniface VIII (14th century) made use of the idea of a “general” indulgence. Certain times a year/years (like every 100 years) pilgrims could come to Rome and could receive a general indulgence: the removal of all the penalties for their sins. This general indulgence also required one to engage in the whole scope of penance (contrition and confession) as well the payment of certain amount of money. Through this, the original intent of the personal, internalized sacrament of penance became external and commercialized. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) declared that general indulgences could apply also to the dead. By this he increases money revenue.

Also worth mentioning is the development of a type of indulgence granted to soldiers who fought for the Papacy against Islam. Remember, Mohammed had let his soldiers know that everyone who died fighting for Isalm would be immediately allowed into paradise. What of the Papal army? Pope Leo IV gave assurances to some of his troops they would likewise receive a heavenly reward. John VIII promised those going on the crusade absolution for their sins. Leo IX used the promise of a remission of penance in his recruiting of troops. Eventually, the forgiveness granted included not only those involved in penance, but purgatory as well.

Now about Luther. A few points. There was no complete dogma on the indulgence when Luther posted the 95 Theses. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory. Hence, Luther was not really a heretic (in official “Thus spoke Rome” terms). The Roman Catholic Church attacked Luther with no good cause. Interestingly, the 95 Theses does not deny the validity of the indulgence. Rather, Luther attacked and exposed the abuse of the sale of indulgences. Luther was troubled that those he was ministering to were ignoring the good works he was directing them towards, but rather were purchasing indulgences as a means of satisfaction. They were also being purchased to alleviate suffering of those in Purgatory.

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm


#7

There is an article on Indulgences in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Section II of the article on The Reformation in the Catholic Encyclopedia may also be helpful.


#8

Luther’s objection was to the selling of indulgences by corrupt priests. Indulgences are never to be sold. Giving *donations *to the Church is not objectionable but some priests made it appear that one could buy indulgences. As someone else mentioned, how do you leap from corruption of some priests to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? The Church was certainly in need of reform, as it had been many times before. Reforming corrupt clergy is one thing but reforming the deposit of faith given to us by Christ and the Apostles? Saints such as St. Charles Borromeo have been “reformers” within the Church. To reform the Church from within has been necessary over the past two millenia. Saints such as St. Charles Borromeo have risen to the occasion as “reformers”. To create a new church and alter the “deposit of faith” given to us by Christ and the Apostles is not the right of any man.

The movie was financed by the Lutheran church of Germany and the United States. If it hadn’t portrayed Luther in the best light, I would be surprised. Here is another thread about the movie:

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=53342&highlight=Luther+Movie


#9

Even though I am a Catholic, it seems to me Luther was right to condemn this practice?

Absolutely Luther was correct. The practice was not official policy and this corruption was condemned at the Council of Trent. Luther could have been a great, reformer saint but he went on to reform the faith. The faith is not ours to change.

What the underlined phrase is saying, is that the Pope was asking for donations to rebuild a church on the site of the one that was falling apart. These were to be donations “according to their means” meaning “what they could comfortably contribute”. The selling of indulgences is not what this is describing. There is nothing objectionable to the Church asking for donations.

From the official St. Peter’s Basilica site:

“Thus the notion of buying and selling indulgences, while certain individuals may have taken part in this forbidden and sinful practice, has never been compatible with Catholic teaching. How can buying anything take away all our attachment to sin?”

stpetersbasilica.org/Docs/seminarians3.htm

The corruption by some priests travelling through Germany who gave faithful the idea that they were “buying” something was not official policy of the Church and is sinful. The selling of indulgences was never Church teaching and the corruption of the use of indulgences by sinful clergy was condemned before the Council of Trent:

**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). **

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm


#10

There was no complete dogma on the indulgence when Luther posted the 95 Theses. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory.

Please look at the post above in bold. The knowledge of this abuse was not new. Unfortunately, it appears the abuse was difficult to control. Luther’s condemnation of the selling of indulgences was compatible with the Church teaching. That is not the reason that he was declared a heretic. When the corruption of some clergy was condemned at the Council of Trent, what excuse did anyone have for belonging to Luther’s church?

Hence, Luther was not really a heretic (in official “Thus spoke Rome” terms). The Roman Catholic Church attacked Luther with no good cause.

It was not Luther’s objection to the selling of indulgences that led to his becoming anathema. It was his corruption of the faith. Had he reformed from within, he most likely would have been a saint. It is a biblical imperative that those who attempt to poison the faith be declared a heretic:

Heresy, in the sense of falling away from the Faith, became possible only after the Faith had been promulgated by Christ. Its advent is clearly foretold, Matt., xxiv, 11, 23-26: " . . . many false prophets shall rise. and shall seduce many. . . . Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall rise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not. "Christ also indicated the marks by which to know the false prophets: “Who is not with me is against me” (Luke, xi, 23); “and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matt., xviii, 17); “he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark, xvi, 16). The Apostles acted upon their Master’s directions. All the weight of their own Divine faith and mission is brought to bear upon innovators. “If any one”, says St. Paul, “preach to you a gospel, besides that you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal., i, 9).

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

Luther had many opportunities to work within the Church for reform but he chose, in the end, to create a new religion. How does one go from a valid disgust for the corrupted ones selling indulgences to creating a new religion which slices and dices the faith? The deposit of faith cannot be reformed as it is passed down from Christ and the Apostles from its source God the Father. This is where the heresy begins.


#11

[quote=Peter Carroll]Luther

I recently saw the film “Luther.” I was quite moved by the film and want to know the Catholic Church’s position on the “Selling of Indulgences” as portrayed in the film. Even though I am a Catholic, it seems to me Luther was right to condemn this practice?

I would like to get some feedback on this. This is my first posting and I hope I am doing it correctly?

Sincerely,

Peter Carroll
[/quote]

You sure chose the best title to get a lot of responses. If you ever have a question that seems too trivial to ask, work Luther into the title and post it here.

Anyway, try this link.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm


#12

Here’s a link to a Catholic response for the movie “Luther” from Dave Armstrong:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ244.HTM


#13

[quote=TertiumQuid]The Roman Catholic Church attacked Luther with no good cause.
[/quote]

Peace be with you!

I know how big of a Luther fan you are, James, but this statement is completely inaccurate. The Church did not attack Luther’s condemning of the sale of indulgences by corrupt priests; the Council of Trent did the same thing. Luther also attacked the papacy, the canon of Scripture (and yes, I’ve read your website on playing the Luther card), Purgatory, and added the word “only” to Romans 3, changing the meaning of the passage (and yes, I’ve read his explanation of why he did that).

In Christ,
Rand


#14

[quote=Rand Al’Thor]Peace be with you!

I know how big of a Luther fan you are, James, but this statement is completely inaccurate. The Church did not attack Luther’s condemning of the sale of indulgences by corrupt priests;
[/quote]

Hi Rand,

Nice talking with you again. My comment was directed toward the indulgence controversy. I realize eventually the papacy attempted to reform the corrupted practice, but initially, Luther’s protest as waged in the 95 Theses was not met with a spirit of thanksgiving.

The bull by Pope Julius II from 1510 which promoted an indulgence to help rebuild St. Peter’s was part of an extremely corrupted money-making web. Thus, there was a lot of money at stake, and Luther needed to be silenced.

The Catholic writer John Todd notes the bull said, “Moreover all Christians of either sex, secular as well as regular… who shall effevtively place a pious alms in the chest for the above-mentioned building {St. Peter’s}, may gain the fullest remission of their sins…” Todd notes the bull “seems deliberately loose in places” that would lead one to believe that sins are forgiven by an indulgence.

Now the money collected from this indulgence campaign did not go directly to Rome. No less than half of the money collected went to German bankers, because (according to the Catholic writer John Todd) the Archbishop of Mainz had "bargained with Rome to be allowed to keep half what was contributed for the indulgence…" which he owed to the German bankers. Todd also notes that Tetzel’s pay for his preaching work was a “princely sum”. There was a lot of money involved. Luther needed to be silenced rather than understood.

When Tetzel got a copy of Luther’s 95 Theses, he said " The heretic would be in the flames within 3 weeks." Recall, Tetzel was a Dominican, and recall the Dominicans directed the Inquisition. Todd notes the Dominicans “were all-powerful in the Curia at Rome.” The request to charge Luther for heresy did come, because Luther attacked not only indulgences, but a Dominican as well.

In notifying Rome about Luther, the Dominicans charged Luther’s 95 Theses were teaching “new doctrines.” They prepared counter-theses against Luther. The ball began to roll. Luther had to be silenced because the Dominicans wanted it so. Thus began the unjust attack against Luther by the Papacy.

A review of Todd’s work states,

"Moreover, with a praiseworthy frankness, Todd describes again Rome’s attitude in the conflict following on the affair of the indulgences. Imbued with a sense of her own power, caught up by all sorts of political demands, the Papacy was incapable of taking Luther seriously, incapable of conducting a careful examination of the Ninety-five Theses and their manifold theological implications. To the appeals for reform addressed to her from Germany, she replied “in the form of a personal and canonical attack”. When he was accused of heresy and excommunicated by the Bull, Exsurge Domine, Luther began to doubt Papal authority. And when he had broken his ties with Rome by burning the code of the Canon Law, opposition to the Pope became a “psychological necessity” to him. Yet even when he was convinced that the Papacy was the Antichrist, he never set out to create a new institution; he still continued “to see himself simply as a 'reformer* of the Church”.

The Catholic writer Father Leonard Swidler said it best:

“The kindred temptation for the catholic historian is, after having found unpleasant facts in the history of the Church, to attempt to explain them away with specious, post-factum arguments; to maintain that the actions taken were necessary, were the best possible at the time and under those circumstances, and that if those measures had not been taken, matters would have been worse. Sometimes, this will be true. But to assume that it is always true is to canonize the past merely because it is past, a slightly paraphrased version of Hegel’s dictum ‘Whatever is, is right.”

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm


#15

You identify Dr. Leonard Swidler, a professor at Temple University, as a priest (you identify him as “Father Leonard Swidler”) which is incorrect. Here is his profile:

temple.edu/religion/faculty/swidler.html

Is the quote from Dr. Swidler specifically referring to Martin Luther? I see no specific mention in the quote about Martin Luther. It appears that you have taken a quote from Dr. Swidler out of context. He has written extensively on ecumenical topics and the quote is more likely a broader statement; perhaps in relation to Pope John Paul II’s apology for any wrongs committed by members of the Catholic Church over the centuries. If you could provide the expanded statement showing the perspective on Martin Luther specifically (if any), that would be more useful. The quote from Dr. Swidler is not, in and of itself, anything unusual given the ecumenical efforts of the Church since Vatican II.

It seems unlikely to me that Dr. Swidler was referring specifically to Luther in the quote that you provided for many reasons. One reason is that his area of expertise is inter-religious dialogue, not the Reformation. In fact, on a side note, he attended a conference on Catholic inter-dialogue with Muslims in Sarajevo with a professor of religious studies from my own Philadelphia-area alma mater. He and the professor from my college have also co-authored several books and articles on Muslims relations.

The titles of Swidler’s books on the profile link also lead me to believe that that you are misrepresenting the quote as a defense of Martin Luther which it was never intended to be.


#16

I can’t find the Papal Bull from 1510 to which you are referring. Could you please provide a link? Or are you referring to the 1513 Bull?

Pope Julius II died in Feb. 1513 after issuing a Bull the same year requesting contributions to build the new church.

There is nothing objectionable in the request by Pope Julius II’s request for donations to replace the old church which was crumbling and becoming unusable. Here is the history of St. Peter’s Basilica and Pope Julius II:

In the autumn of 1506 the victorious pope returned from his military campaign against Bologna accompanied by Bramante. At once the two men resumed work upon St. Peter’s with increased gusto. On 10th April 1507 the Archbishop of Taranto laid the foundation stones of the three other piers of the great crossing to support the dome. Since the crossing piers were the first part of the structure to be raised, they were largely to dictate the size and even shape of the future basilica, no matter how far subsequent architects deviated from the original scheme. Alas, work on the colossal undertaking took its time! There were other pressing demands upon Julius’s energies, and funds were not disgorged quickly enough even from the fat papal coffers. In 1513 the pope issued a bull announcing to the world that the new basilica would eclipse in size and magnificence every church in Christendom. Graciously he promised an extension of indulgences to those pious benefactors who agreed to pay contributions on an annual basis.

(This was a request for “benefactors” with the means to do it, to make donations yearly to build the church. This is a primative pledge-drive. We are not talking about a scheme to trick peasants into believing that they are buying their way out of purgatory in an evil plot to steal their money. The request is clearly for contributions to build the church. The benefactors knew to what they were donating. How is this Bull part of an “extremely corrupted money-making web”?)

The idea that a generous offering to some good cause*,* made with the right intention, should be rewarded with an indulgence from ‘the Church’s treasure chest’, is quite in accordance with Catholic doctrine. But, inevitably, *it came to be **interpreted ***that anyone could buy remission from his time in purgatory. Indulgences in fact were offered by some preachers as if they were for sale. The abuse was subsequently forbidden by the Council of Trent; but it was too late. It provided the spark that ignited the fires of the Protestant Reformation which consumed the chaff and the grain alike. One of the ironies of history is that the means devised to finance the building of a great shrine over the tomb of the first pope should have done much to destroy the authority of his successors.

Source: stpetersbasilica.org/Docs/JLM/SaintPeters-6.htm

While we all can agree that there were members of the clergy who corrupted the intention of Pope Julius II, it borders on hysteria to claim that “The bull by Pope Julius II from 1510 which promoted an indulgence to help rebuild St. Peter’s was part of an extremely corrupted money-making web.”


#17

Thus, there was a lot of money at stake, and Luther needed to be silenced.

This is hyperbole. From the same book that you quote below, John M. Todd (in* Luther: A Life*) states " On the argument about Indulgences as such, he had an open mind. They were for ever being denounced — Luther was only the last in a long line of denouncers."

Further, a full reading of the Chapter “Crisis” is referring to local corruption within the German Church:

religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=801&C=1061

The Catholic writer John Todd notes the bull said, “Moreover all Christians of either sex, secular as well as regular… who shall effevtively place a pious alms in the chest for the above-mentioned building {St. Peter’s}, may gain the fullest remission of their sins…” Todd notes the bull “seems deliberately loose in places” that would lead one to believe that sins are forgiven by an indulgence.

Here is the appendix to John M. Todd’s book which is “a brief account of the theory and practice of indulgences in relation to Luther’s criticism”:

religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=801&C=1073

Now the money collected from this indulgence campaign did not go directly to Rome. No less than half of the money collected went to German bankers, because (according to the Catholic writer John Todd) the Archbishop of Mainz had "bargained with Rome to be allowed to keep half what was contributed for the indulgence…" which he owed to the German bankers. Todd also notes that Tetzel’s pay for his preaching work was a “princely sum”. There was a lot of money involved. Luther needed to be silenced rather than understood.

The absence of any reference to Frederick - ruler of Ernestine Saxony in your summary of the corruption is striking.

From John M. Todd’s chapter “Crisis”: The Elector Frederick had been ruling Ernestine Saxony for thirty years. He was able to look at some substantial achievements. Government itself was more efficient. More money was coming into the fisc. An important matter here was that he confined permission for the preaching of Indulgences to those sponsored locally; he would not grant permission for papal Indulgences issued from Rome to be preached in his lands. Money did not flow out. He was able to achieve a substantial surplus in the balance of payments in and out of his territory. From this he undertook public works, roads, bridges, buildings, among which, and most notable, were the University and new buildings at the castle at Wittenberg.

According to Todd’s chapter “Crisis”, the corruption of indulgences witnessed by many in Germany, including Luther, was a local problem that he was addressing which involved Frederick of Saxony, Fr. Tetzel and the Bishop of Mainz. They were indeed corrupt.

Here is John M. Todd’s chapter “Crisis”: religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=801&C=1061

(John M. Todd is a convert to the Catholic faith.)


#18

The little I know about Luther comes from the book, “The Facts about Luther.” It isn’t a book for the weekend reader. I had to “plow” my way through it. But I believe it was fairly written. Especially since it uses Luther’s own words, as well as those of his supporters and friends, to help show what was going on. Come to think about it, I could probably stand to read it again. :yup:


#19

[quote=Christy Beth]The little I know about Luther comes from the book, “The Facts about Luther.” It isn’t a book for the weekend reader. I had to “plow” my way through it. But I believe it was fairly written. Especially since it uses Luther’s own words, as well as those of his supporters and friends, to help show what was going on. Come to think about it, I could probably stand to read it again. :yup:
[/quote]

Uh-oh. Prepare for the wrath of TertiumQuid. :bigyikes:


#20

Hello Eden,

I haven’t visited these forums in a while, and believe it or not Eden, I forgot all about you. I had to revisit our previous discussion about the *Luther movie * to recall how our interaction “went down” so to speak. I appreciate your zeal for your beliefs; though I don’t think this time I’m going to spend a significant amount of time interacting with all your points.

I do though need to address some minor details you brought up.

  1. At the time of his writing and critique of Luther (1964), Leonard Swidler was a professor at Dusquesne University in Pittsburgh, and his title was “Father”. For verification, see his study on the Reformation: “The Use and Abuses of History: Reappraising the Reformation” (The Commonwealth, 81, 1964). The quote I utilized is from page 156, column 2.

  2. The context of the quote is thus: Swidler (in the above before-mentioned article on the Reformation), seriously questioned the long-standing attitude of Roman Catholic historians that defend the Roman Catholic Church at all costs, right or wrong in its role in the Reformation. Swidler also declares, “The historian must live in an atmosphere of freedom, of freedom to search out the truth and speak, regardless of the embarrassment it may cause” (page 4). It would be beneficial to you to heed Swidler’s advice in your studies on the Reformation.

  3. The Papal bull issued by Pope Julius was *Liquet omnibus * (1510). I do most of my research via books, so I do not have a “link”. In 1515, Leo X commissioned Albert, Archbishop of Mainz to conduct the indulgence in the dioceses of Mainz and Magdeburg. It was Albert who “hired” John Tetzel. I stand by my comments that the indulgence, as put forth by these men, was for nothing more than to make money.

  4. Thank you for the links to John Todd’s material. I was unaware it was available on-line. But you are in error, I was not quoting from the book *Luther a life * (Great Britain: Hamish Hamilton ltd, 1982), but rather from his earlier book: Martin Luther: A Biographical Study (New York: Paulist Press, 1964).

  5. Frederick the wise was not mentioned in my comments simply because his behavior is not relevant to the discussion about the corruption of the Papacy, Albert Archbishop of Mainz, and the Dominicans. Interestingly, John Todd points out in Martin Luther: A Biographical Study that Luther also severely criticized Frederick for his involvement with indulgences.If I recall, Frederick would eventually come to cease any involvement with indulgences, as well as get rid of his large collection of relics. Frederick died in 1525.

I hope this information helps.

Have a nice day,

     James Swan

ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm


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