Martin Luther & the reformation

Martin Luther

What was his 95 objections that he nailed to the church door?

Why was he a ex-priest?; was de-ordinated or did he leave?

It was 95 theses, or statements. Not all of them were objections; some were statements that set the groundwork for his objections.

Here’s one English translation:

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

Luther was declared a heretic by Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire in the Edict of Worms. I’m not sure whether this carries the same weight as a declaration from the Pope, but papal representatives were heavily involved, and a Papal Bull had already been issued in response to the 95 theses.

How do you know all of this? Did you use to be a christian?

Nope. I thought it was just common knowledge. I guess I like history.

Plus “Diet of Worms” sounds really funny, so that attracted my interest. :smiley:

I’m ashamed that an athiest knows more than me… :blush:

The 95 theses are not the most interesting reading in the theology of Luther and of the German Reformation. They are a call to debate and some are pretty esoteric.

The developments after the Diet of Worms are much more interesting as are some of the writings that Luther was told to recant at that meeting, from where the famous quote, “Here I stand, I can do nothing else.”

What follows is the exile at the Wartburg where he begins his German translation of the Bible. It is still used by many Germans in the same way that the KJV is regarded by many English speaking Christians.

But I really want to know what his 95 objections were! :frowning:
LOL - Have you heard of these; the vinegar bible, the wicked bible and the murderers bible? All terrible results of his new protestant translations?

They’re in the link I gave in my first post.

They’re pretty long - too long to post in this thread as a quote.

Ah, thank you. No doubt they will probably be stupid and groundless objections, but hey, I’m just curious. :smiley: Thank you.

And the seven books that he rejected have been found to actually have ancient copies (which he believed them to be lacking). They were discovered in the dead sea scrolls, weren’t they?

I think that most Catholics today would agree with at least some of them. His objections were largely based on the practice of “selling” indulgences that was going on at the time; from what I’ve read about it, it seems like some of it at least bordered on simony, and sometimes completely crossed over the line.

The core of his objection basically goes like this:

*- there are priests who go from town to town selling indulgences for people’s dead relatives.

  • these priests are taking advantage of the faithful. They are behaving shamefully.*

So far, I think most Catholics would agree (though feel free to correct me). However, he makes another leap:

- not only that, but those priests don’t even have the authority to grant indulgences for the dead anyhow!

AFAIK, this last part does go against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Definitely not the New Testament books he rejected, since all those came after the Dead Sea Scrolls. IIRC, the more recent Old Testament books also post-date the scrolls.

I don’t think it was so much that he didn’t think the books were old; it’s that he didn’t think that they were divinely inspired.

BTW - the Dead Sea Scrolls include things that aren’t in the Catholic canon either. The Book of Enoch, for instance.

Why to people always think atheists don’t know anything about religion? :shrug:

Because I thought that you would think it isn’t worth looking into.

Book of Enoch!? What is that!?:eek:

Oh okay, fair enough. :slight_smile:

The core of his objection basically goes like this:

*- there are priests who go from town to town selling indulgences for people’s dead relatives.

  • these priests are taking advantage of the faithful. They are behaving shamefully.*

pretty well sums up the basic point of the theses. Luther’s great objection was the idea of “When the coin into the coffer clinks, the soul from purgatory blinks.” The idea that mere cash could obtain release from purgatory.

Another objection had to do with the fact that these indulgences were being sold with the idea of raising revenue for St. Peter’s church in Rome and for the Archbishop of Minze to pay off the debt he owed to the Pope for the office, a clear case of simony.

A couple of the theses refer to the Pope’s power to remit time in purgatory, wondering if he had the power, and since Christ’s grace was sufficient, why he did not empty Purgatory and do it for free.

Another abuse of indulgences was the idea of buying forgiveness in advance, kind of a license to sin. Luther’s prince forbade the sale of indulgences in Whittenburg, but they were allowed on the other side of the river.

BTW - the Dead Sea Scrolls include things that aren’t in the Catholic canon either. The Book of Enoch, for instance.

There were other records like “The War Scroll” that are not included in any Jewish writings outside of the Essene community.

:mad: :stuck_out_tongue:

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.