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.
dangus,
Just a quick comment about the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. I remember very clearly in graduate school when I was working on my master’s in medieval history, our professor, a Protestant, pointed out that historians loved the 1911 edition because it had so many well know historians on the editorial board and writing staff. It was well known, however, that that staff also leaned heavily toward the anti-Catholic side.
Take, for instance, the author of the following articles:
“Celibacy; Concubinage; Indulgence; Knighthood and Chivalry.”
The author was none other than the well known anti-Catholic G. G. COULTON. What is all the more interesting in his case is that he was thoroughly wipped, and embarrassed, in a battle with Fr. Herbert Thurston over exactly those topics because - like a devout anti-Catholic - he relied far too heavily on anti-Catholics for material and believed them implicitly without ever checking their work. Here’s the story of how G.G. Coulton was thoroughly embarrassed: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9605clas.asp although the whole article doesn’t seem to be posted anymore. Perhaps it is only posted here because it is only in book form these days: http://books.google.com/books?id=ik0MVInYfF8C&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=HERBERT+THURSTON,+S.J+on+g.+g.+coulton&source=bl&ots=wxoUMug9kL&sig=LmEevNh_6DiTBLMgEN7xTdq2P_s&hl=en&ei=FFk9SufXF5LaMYnNiKwO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
In either case, it’s worth the read.
Catholics generally were allowed to only write articles that could not be disputed:
“DELEHAYE, REV. HIPPOLYTE, S.J. (H. DE.)
Bollandists; Canonization; Hagiology; januarius, St; Lawrence, St; Margaret, St; Martyrology; Saint; &c”
So, known anti-Catholics got to write most if not all of the articles about both Protestant and Catholic things that might be disputed, while Catholic got to write ZERO articles about Protestant things and little of controversy about their own faith. Convenient, huh?
"Luther opposed all indulgences, all pennances, all confessions, the underlying theologies to them..."
Good for Luther. I was appalled reading what the Catholic Church teaches on indulgences and penances - contrary to scripture and common sense.
Nor do we require confession to a human priest, "24 For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him... 11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
Hebrews 9/10.
10.14 is becoming a favorite verse of mine, since it says so much in so little. "... by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
Not will make perfect, or perfect as long as they do XYZ - but HAS MADE perfect FOREVER. Past tense, and good for eternity. Who? "...those who are being made holy". Justification and sanctification described in 14 words!
Neither penance nor indulgence is needed or acceptable. God knows the heart of man, and knows if our repentance is true or a sham.
"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1.13-14.
"4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."