Replies

The source for the article I posted is here:

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Martin_Luther

This came earlier in the article:

“Luther began his work as a Reformer by proposing to discuss the true meaning of Indulgences. The occasion was an Indulgence proclaimed by Pope Leo X., farmed by the archbishop of Mainz, and preached by John Tetzel, a Dominican monk and a famed seller of Indulgences. Many of the German princes had no great love for Indulgence sellers, and Frederick of Saxony had prohibited Tetzel from entering his territories. But it was easy to reach most parts of Electoral Saxony without actually crossing the frontiers. The Red Cross of the Indulgence seller had been set up at Zerbst and at Jizterbogk, and people had gone from Wittenberg to buy the Papal Tickets. Luther believed that the sales were injurious to the morals of the townsmen; he had heard reports of Tetzel’s sermons; he had become wrathful on reading the letter of recommendation of the archbishop; and friends had urged him to interfere. He protested with a characteristic combination of caution and courage. The church of All Saints (the castle church) was closely connected with the university of Wittenberg. Its doors were commonly used for university proclamations. The Elector Frederick was a great collector of relics and had stored them in his church. He had procured an Indulgence for all who attended its services on All Saints’ Day, and crowds commonly gathered. Luther nailed ninety-five theses on the church door on that day, the 1st of November 1517, when the crowd could see and read them.

The proceeding was strictly academic. The matter discussed, to judge by the writings of theologians, was somewhat obscure; and Luther offered his theses as an attempt to make it clearer. No one was supposed to be committed to every opinion he advanced in such a way. But the theses posted somehow touched heart and conscience in a way unusual in the common subjects of academic disputation. Every one wanted to read them. The University Press could not supply copies fast enough. They were translated into German, and were known throughout Germany in less than a fortnight. Within a month they had been heard of all over western and southern Europe. Luther himself was staggered at the way they were received. He said he had never meant to determine, but to debate.

The theses were singularly unlike what might have been expected from a professor of theology. They made no attempt at theological definition, no pretence at logical arrangement; they were anything but a brief programme of reformation. They were simply ninety-five sledge-hammer blows directed against the most flagrant ecclesiastical abuse of the age. They were addressed to the “common” man and appealed to his common sense of spiritual things.”

I believe the writer’s point was that Luther was objecting, not to the theology of indulgences, but their abuse. But once the closet door opened, there was more waiting to fall out...

Well,

The point of the article was about the white-washing of Luther.

Your source is completely unfamiliar with indulgences, seemingly utterly confusing them with pennances.

You’re source is Anglican, trying feverishly to reconcile Luther with their own very non-Lutheran theology. If among Lutherans there’s a whitewashing trend to adapt Luther to their reformation of the reformation, among sectarian anti-Catholic Anglicans it’s in over-drive. The same article even calls Luther, “the greatest religious genius which the 16th century produced.” That’s quite a high praise for a man who had been so devestatingly defeated at the Imperial Council of 1519, destroyed the bible rather than being able to reconcile St. Paul with St. James, swung back and forth on the most important issues of his time, and whose defenders cite his supposedly meager background to explain why his language is rash, self-contradicting, illogical, and prone to outrageous incitement. Luther’s “genius” was his political skills, his theology reads more like a transcript at the imminence of a bar brawl.
3. If such articles are at a mere tangent to truth, you’ve read into them a meaning which is 180 degrees away. Have you read the 95 theses? Luther opposed all indulgences, all pennances, all confessions, the underlying theologies to them, the very understanding of the nature of God by which they make any sense, and even the validity of the scripture from which they were established. Luther didn’t oppose the indulgences because they were corrupted by Tetzel, he used the corruption of Tetzel to provide an emotional undercurrent for his complete denunciation for the notion of atoning for sins, which he freely acknowledges was based on his own desperation of combating his own sins.

Your refutation of sources quotes is entirely generalizations and analysis. Your source, authoritative as it was in 1911 England, makes mere assertions based on the very conventional wisdom I was refuting.