Is The Tres Dias heretical and unbiblical

I v kEtzEr h I Er, ant Ichr I st patrons and rulers there: The Popes of the Renaissance Development of their own views, public controversy - and a heretic trial: there was a lot that came to Martin Luther within a short time. A moment ago he had been a promising candidate for a career in religious orders and university, now everything seemed to be turning against him. The heretic was threatened not only with exclusion from the church, but also from the legal context of the empire: the ban, the excommunication, was usually followed by the eight. The charges, which were sent to Rome by the court of the Archbishop of Mainz and probably also by the Dominicans, posed an existential threat - to life and limb. In the 19th century people got used to portraying Luther's conflict with Rome or between Rome and Luther as the struggle of the lonely hero against a decrepit control center of the universal church. But just as one must realize that in this dispute theologically one medieval option stood against another, one must also bear in mind that with the monk from Wittenberg and the Renaissance papacy, two different options for renewal faced each other. With a lustful schizophrenia one has got used to admiring the Vatican, the Sistine Chapel, Raphael's rooms and St. Peter's Basilica as a consequence of the Renaissance in Rome - and to be angry about the culture that produced these works of art, too The very 86 KETCHER HER, ANTI-CHRISTIANS belonged there to the worldly conduct of the Popes. Alexander VI is always the peak. (1492–1503), who did not hesitate to celebrate the weddings of his illegitimate children in the Vatican. Holy Rome, which Luther welcomed on his arrival in 1510 or 15111, was also the most unholy den of sin. Luther's later memory that here priests said to the host in the performance of the Eucharist: "Bread is you and bread you will remain", 2 confirmed for centuries the conviction that Rome had long been corrupted. The moralizing outrage does not capture the impressive phenomenon represented by the Renaissance papacy. It unfolded against the background of one of the greatest crises in the medieval church: The Council of Constance (1414–1418) and even more so the Council of Basel, which began to meet in 1431, undermined the primacy of the Roman headquarters in one to As Luther to Rome traveled, St. Peter's Basilica in Rome was still a building site: Maarten van Heemskerck, sketch for the construction of St. Peter's Basilica with the crossing pillar of New St. Peter and the rest of the northern cross arm of the old basilica, 1536 (from the "Roman Sketchbook"). patrons and rulers: the popes of renaissance 87 an unimagined extent. The Council of Constance had become necessary because at times three popes competed for the highest power in the church. Obviously it was up to the bishops and scholars from all over Europe to bring the church back into an orderly state. This was also done, combined with the canonically justified claim that the council assembled for this purpose stood above the Pope. The decree Haec Sancta of April 6, 1415 could and still had to be related to this one specific council. A principled conciliarism was not yet claimed. Such a person would have asserted the sovereignty of the council in general and in principle. Only then did the Council of Basel achieve this. Its radicalism was reinforced by the fact that Eugene IV (1431–1447) used favorable circumstances to draw the council closer to his sphere of influence, to Ferrara and finally to Florence. Not all participants followed this, so that a radical remnant remained north of the Alps, who in Felix V (1440–1449; died 1451), by the grace of the Council, created the last antipope in church history for the time being. With these disputes at the latest, the specter of conciliarism was born and had to be banned from then on. The Popes' concern was to put a stop to the decentralized forces. And one of the ways to achieve this was to develop Rome and the Vatican into a magnificent residence. Even with Eugen's direct successor Nicholas V (1447–1455), measures began to intervene in the architecture and streets of the Eternal City. And if you recall Sixtus IV as the person responsible for the enormous expansion of indulgences, you shouldn't forget that the Sistine Chapel bears his name; it was built under him. Its side walls were decorated by the most important painters in Italy as early as the 15th century, before Michelangelo completed the paintings in the 16th century that still attract travelers from all over the world today. The Renaissance popes also acted as patrons in other areas, largely through the expansion of their library. 88 KETCHER HERE, ANTI-CHRISTIAN THERE As much as the Renaissance popes stood for a secularization of the church, they also tried hard to reform it. Julius II (1503–1513) forbade such “simonistic practices” in 1506, although he himself owed his election to cousins ​​and favoritism as well as the simple purchase of offices, and convened the 5th Lateran Council, which met from 1512 to 1517. However, even under his successor Leo X, this did not bring about any radical reform decisions, but it did sharpen the papal sovereignty: Expressly in response to the Basel Council, the Bull Pastor aeternus gregem 1516 emphasized that only the Pope had the right to convene councils embarrassed and dissolve. This was not by chance: the occasion for the convening of the V Lateranum was given by a council that met in Pisa in 1511 at the instigation of the French king. This Conciliabulum, Council, was condemned by canon law and starved diplomatically. Through the Concordat of Bologna in 1516, the claims of the French crown to be able to exert far-reaching influence over the church in their own country were taken up in such a way that the curia did not lose face. Originally, France had invoked the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges for its Gallican special rights, which Charles VII (1422–1461) had issued in 1438 in agreement with the Basel Council. Such a document could not remain valid from a Roman perspective and had to be replaced by a proper concordat. In the Bull Pastor aeternus gregem, the lifting of the pragmatic sanction was confirmed. The matter of conciliarism seemed decided, and a trend in late medieval theology such as was represented by Juan de Torquemada (d. 1468) gained momentum: papalism, the central authority of the church, the papacy, clearly as its head and supreme Management authority defined. Against this background one can say: Just like Luther's Anrom 1518: THE EXTENSION OF THE PAPAL POWER 89 lie on fertile ground in Germany, they had to face the greatest resistance in Rome. In Germany there was an audience interested in reforming piety, and there were councilors and sovereigns who could have liked nothing more than a strengthening of the decentralized forces in the church. The Pope, Curia and Vatican, on the other hand, saw the salvation of reform in a strengthening of their central position. Behind it was an undisguised striving for power. But that alone does not explain the ignorance that was shown to the concerns from Germany. There was also concern that the Church would again sink into chaos if one gave in to concerns that undermine the Pope's power. What, from Luther's point of view, presented itself as an alternative between internal and external piety, in Rome concerned the contrast between central and decentralized church leadership. The spirits of conciliarism that had just been believed to have been overcome seemed to reawaken when they heard that in distant Germany, precisely on the occasion of St. Peter's Indulgence, critical voices were voiced against the papal indulgence authority. Rome 1518: The expansion of papal power The Luther cause got caught up in a machinery that was primarily concerned with securing papal power. This is what Leo X stood for, who was ruling in Rome when the charges against Luther arrived there. He was baptized as Giovanni de ’Medici and thus came from the influential Florentine banking and ruling family who, through money and skillful influence, had managed to gain social connection with the established noble families and to climb the Petri chair themselves. As befits good administration, Leo had officials to conduct heretic trials. For the Causa Lutheri 90 KEtzEr HIEr, ANTIchrIst there, these were Mario de Perusco, who, as Procurator fiscalis, held one of the highest legal offices at the Curia, and Bishop Girolamo Ghinucci, who, as auditor generalis, was generally responsible for investigating legal cases, and consequently who was responsible became the key figure in initiating the trial against Luther. Theologically relevant, however, was a third curial figure who could hardly have been selected more appropriately: Silvester Mazzolini (1456–1527), who is called Prierias because of his place of birth Prierio in Piedmont. He was commissioned to give an opinion on the 95 theses against indulgences. Prierias cannot simply be classified as a hardliner, yes, in some respects Staupitz ’and Luther's concerns were even close to him. In 1501 his Opere vulgare appeared, in which he taught a bridal mysticism in the footsteps of Bernhard in delicate tones. Rome and Wittenberg were sometimes closer to one another, as Contarini's example already showed, than it appears in retrospect of those who know of the split in the Church. But the point at which the paths parted was the question of what authority could be valid in the church. The piety theologian Prierias did not rely on decentralization, but on the regulatory authority of Rome. From 1515 he was employed as Magister Sacri Palatii and, as a court theologian, he listened to the Pope. The office meant that he was particularly preoccupied with heresy trials, insofar as these reached Rome and could not be dealt with at the episcopal level. He also seemed well equipped for this: he was one of those who had been concerned with the condemnation or, rather, the judgment of the Pisan Conciliabulum. As a Magister Sacri Palatii, he was then directly responsible for the Reuchlin affair, even if not at the forefront. He was a member of a twenty-two-person commission that negotiated the matter controversially, but ultimately decided to forbid Reuchlin's "eye mirror," in which he had voted for the preservation of the Jewish books. As a result of his participation in this judgment, Prierias had rome in 1518: THE EXPANSION OF THE PAPALIANS already had a bad reputation in humanist circles in Germany when he turned to Luther. Prierias perceived Luther from a very limited perspective: he wanted to defend the church against Luther's attacks "against the truth itself and against this Holy See" 3 and believed that he had an easy opponent in front of him. In just three days he drafted a dialogue that probably does not correspond exactly to the expert opinion that became relevant in the process, but shows the spirit that the - Raphael, Pope Leo X (Giovanni de 'Medici) with the Cardinals Giulio de' Medici and Luigi de 'Rossi, 1517/18 92 KEZER HER, ANTI-CHRISTIANS most involved there followed. As the title indicates, it was laid out as a kind conversation with Brother Martin, to whom Prierias proves his mistakes bit by bit, for example by emphasizing, contrary to Luther's first two theses, that Jesus' word of repentance does refer to to refer to sacramental penance, yes, it must refer to it. However, it was not so much questions of penance that were decisive for the progress of the matter, but rather ecclesiological questions, on which Prierias laid down four principles, fundamenta.4 They postponed the debate and thus shaped the further dealings with Luther. In them, the understanding of the church experienced an intensification that was hardly surprising in Prierias: the general church is indeed the community of all believers. But it is precisely this totality, according to the internal power (virtualiter), that is contained in the Church of Rome and the Pope, who, of course, in a different way from Christ, is the head of the Church. And just as the Church as a whole cannot err, so does her head, the Pope. Such a far-reaching statement shifted things in a highly problematic direction: In the medieval church, the conception of the Pope's infallibility was by no means commonplace; it only became Roman Catholic doctrine through the First Vatican Council in 1870. So what Prierias represented here was strict taken a special opinion such as that represented by Juan de Torquemada, not a general church teaching. The process is worth considering and dubious: The expert's word made a doctrine, which was by no means clearly defined as authoritative, into the standard of heresy and underlined this by declaring that everyone had to follow the teaching of the Roman Church as an infallible guideline. If you consider that Luther's theology, as it is shown in the theses against indulgences, in no way detaches him from the medieval consensus, then you are faced with the difficult task of explaining how the huge conflict came about , from which two separate churches in Herrom 1518: THE EXPANSION OF THE PAPAL POWER 93 proceeded. Luther did not want this. Certainly not his opponents either. But the standard set by people like Prierias has led to precisely this. For Prierias, a very simple conclusion could be drawn from the principles of the Church outlined: "Anyone who says with regard to indulgences that the Roman Church cannot do what it actually does is a heretic." no more room for discussion. Prierias even went so far as to criticize Luther's remark that the Pope himself had rightly declared that his power only extended intercessionally into the hereafter and even to extend the papal power: The latter had actual jurisdiction in purgatory. 6 With such statements one can to ask with justification whether the Magister Sacri Palatii was actually still within the framework of the previously valid church doctrine. Overall, however, his dialogue was of course about statements that were possible and acceptable in the late Middle Ages within a wide range of theological and ecclesiological positions. As this late medieval possibility was included in the official report on the Luther case, it became an official ecclesiastical certainty. Luther's commitment had actually contributed to a clarification, as he wished, but not in his own interest, and this in two ways: on the one hand, he was not found to be right in his concerns about the question of penance, on the other hand, and that was the really dramatic step for the further development, the debate was shifted from the question of penance to the question of the understanding of the Church and the papacy. The mystic and piety theologian Martin Luther was suddenly on the political stage - and was little prepared for it. The ideas of the church that he had developed so far in his lectures did not fall out of line with the times, and his swipes at the Pope were not carried out with the intention of fundamentally questioning his competence. But now this was described to him in a way that he was not able to share and support. Perhaps this was the first decisive turning point that made the mystical penance movement and reform of theology study into a matter affecting the entire Church, indeed the beginning of a schism. The tragic thing is that Luther was not pushed into the corner of heretics because of a violation of generally accepted medieval doctrines, but because of a special papal opinion of Prierias, which in turn can be described as radical. Sola scriptura: With the one authority against the authorities Conversely, Luther also radicalized his position when he suspected that he was considered a heretic. The reference to the Bible mentioned in the third chapter in the treatise Freedom of the Sermon concerning papal indulgence and grace, with which he turned against Wimpina and Tetzel, is an important theological and historical stage on the way to the scriptural principle of the Sola scriptura, after that for the Christian Faith alone the teachings of Scripture are authoritative. In the immediate context of the dispute, however, it initially meant that Luther took the same path that medieval heretics had taken: In a situation in which one stood against the church authorities, one fell back on a factor that was undoubtedly binding for all Christians had to be: the Bible. Even medieval church law provided for it when it declared that the Holy Scriptures were to be preferred to all letters from bishops (D. 9 c.8) and even the Pope was not allowed to decide anything against the Old and New Testaments (C. 25 q. 1 c. 8) .7 The fact that the Bible had a special meaning in Luther's spiritual life is due to the commitment of his confessor Staupitz with the ONE AUTHORITY AGAINST THE AUTHORITIES 95 for your reading at hand. The fact that it was given a special function as a criterion for assessing all doctrine was a consequence of the defensive situation into which Luther was forced. Where else should he find support if not here? That in no way meant that he had generally and in principle advocated a theology in which Scripture alone counted. But where it was pointed out and a decision had to be made about heresy or truth, only this first and last criterion could count. Luther was not the first to do this: none other than the poet Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) had declared that divine law was found only in the two testaments of the Bible, 8 and his contemporary Wilhelm von Ockham (d. 1347) had relied on Scripture alone in the battle with the Pope.9 Here alone could one gain support in such a conflict. With impressive confidence, Luther built on the direct evidence of this decisive criterion for the dispute with the Pope - and thus also on the fact that the statements of his opponents were self-directed: when he got his hands on the Prierias Dialogue, he simply had it reprinted . Uncommented. So absurd seemed to him what was coming from Rome. At the same time, however, he added his own font, in which he dismantled the dialogue piece by piece. Anyone looking for arguments could and should find them. Luther now countered the church-theoretical foundations of Prierias with his own, invoking authorities that had it all. He referred to the apostle Paul with the sentence: "But test everything and keep what is good." (1 Thess 5:21) 10 Now it was difficult to say anything against a biblical text - but here it was the unequivocal appeal to the independence of the believer not to allow himself to be simply determined by an ecclesiastical authority. This is not yet a modern autonomy, but again simply the legacy of the argumentation strategies of medieval disputes: Medieval canons had outlined the idea of ​​a «remnant church», according to which it was possible for all clerics, yes, the majority of the Christianity, possibly all men were wrong. Therefore, every Christian could count on the possibility of belonging to this remnant, regardless of external class characteristics, which must examine the official church teaching and, if necessary, reject it. But while Ockham believed that, like the prophet Elijah, he was alone against all Baal priests (cf. 1 Kings 18), 11 Luther acted in a new public situation. The order to check everything was not just for him - he passed it on to the audience and immediately gave them the criterion according to which they should carry out the check. The next basis came from Augustine and was at the same time - particularly powerful - a passage from canon law: «I have learned to grant this honor only to those books that are called canonical, to believe with certainty that none of their writers in Error has fallen. ”12 So that argument came back, but now not from the mouth of a potential heretic, but of a church father. With this certain foundation in Scripture, Luther wanted to turn against the mere "opinions" of Thomas Aquinas, which he saw as the basis of Prierias, 13 whose conception was "scholastic and Thomistic, yes, Aristotelian." 14 Luther had a keen sense for the fact that Prierias did not speak for the Church in general, but for a certain theological direction, against which he had long been railing. Luther continued to argue theologically, but brought the struggle to a political and public level, even if he wrote against Prierias in Latin, so here, unlike in the freedom of the sermon and devotional writings, he focused more on the scholar than on the laity. It was the printing press that advanced his cause. He had recognized their usefulness sooner than his opponents. The publication of the Prierias report was only one indication of this, the publication of the Acta Augustana mentioned above was another. AUGSBURG 1518 AND THE THREE EXCommunication 97 Augsburg 1518 and the threefold excommunication However, the Augsburg interrogation of autumn 1518, which the Acta Augustana reproduced, represented a further escalation of the process: it was set to end the Luther affair quickly - and that was Roman Perspective: in order to silence Luther - it led Rome to see things even more clearly than before - and Luther recognized the drama of the development and now also reacted, legally, in his own way. The suggestions for spiritual reform quickly found their way into the machinery of legal practice. The very simple and at the same time serious alternative “heretical or orthodox” emerged from a multitude of possibilities. Rome did not make it easy for itself, not least because the imminent death of Emperor Maximilian I (1486–1519) became more and more apparent. A few years ago he himself had ordered that a coffin should always be carried on his travels. So he was prepared for death - and the political forces took care of his successor. As a member of the previously ruling Habsburg dynasty, the young King Charles (ruled since 1516; died 1558) stood ready in Spain, but Francis I of France (1515–1547) also had ambitions. The Pope would have preferred the latter. Charles V had ruled Sicily and Naples since 1516 and now had the prospect of ruling northern Italy as Roman emperor and thus gripping the papal state. That must have frightened the popes - and his opponent as their favorite. It was therefore important to get the German electors to the side of Rome, especially Frederick the Wise, who, as the Northern Alpine regent, held a key position in the electoral college in times of imperiality. This constellation led to the dilatory treatment of the Luther affair already mentioned and to a concession in the truest sense of the word, precisely that interrogation by Cajetan in 98 kEtzEr HIEr, antIchrIst there Augsburg. This interrogation was the replacement obtained by Friedrich on the basis of Staupitz's intercession15 for an interrogation in Rome, to which Luther had already received a summons on August 7, 1518.16 In terms of the matter, however, Cajetan was by no means benevolent. Already beforehand, after examining Luther's writings, the cardinal had declared: “That means building a new church.” 17 Given such a clear assignment to the heretical camp, Luther quickly realized that the audience, to whom he immediately turned, was a judge was no longer enough. The willingness to bow to the judgment of the church18 also had a legal function, as it showed that Luther did not have the typical characteristic of the heretic, the stubborn uninformability. Luther now pulled out all the stops: on October 16, 1518, he turned to the higher authority in a notarized act: He appealed from Cajetan to the Pope19 so that he could decide the matter himself. He soon learned, however, that the instructions that Cajetan had taken with him to Augsburg made it clear that he was basically already regarded as a heretic by the curia. At least now, Luther began to have deep doubts about the legitimacy of the Pope, which led him to a courageous act: On November 28th, again accompanied by a notary, he issued another appeal, but now to a future council, «that as the most holy council, legitimately gathered in the Holy Spirit, representing the holy Catholic Church, in matters that concern faith, stands above the Pope. ”20 With this act and its justification, it was Luther who ushered in a new stage of escalation: the bare one The statement that a council stands above the Pope in matters of faith had to appear to his opponents as a resurgence of conciliarism, which had only just supposedly been overcome. If you look at the escalation on both the Roman and Wittenberg sides, you get the impression that since the moment when the debate in Augsburg in 1518 and THE THREE EXCommunication 99 of penitential piety had shifted to church doctrine, two traits inexorably rushed towards each other and on both Pages the pace was constantly accelerated. The conversation in Augsburg also had consequences on the part of Rome - and not good ones for Luther: soon afterwards Leo X, addressed to Cajetan, issued the decree Cum postquam21: The Pope has the right to grant indulgences to souls, “they are now in this life or in purgatory ». Anyone who teaches otherwise will be excommunicated. This should have made it clear that Luther would be silenced, be it through punishment or through his fear of excommunication, which would have forbidden him to further teach on this matter. But the Roman platoon leaders underestimated their counterparts. The fact that a heretic would not give up his fundamental convictions was nothing new - as "tenacity" this was part of the heretic definition. But the fact that he had friends among the scholars, supporters among the people and increasingly sympathizers among the rulers had never existed in this form. Nevertheless, Luther was only too aware of the balance of power and felt it even in the closest circle of friends: According to Luther's later memories, his foster dog confessor Johannes Staupitz played anything but the role of hero here. Obviously, he was more concerned with the protection of the order than with the cause that Luther advocated. Impressed by the dignity of the legate from Rome, he even tried to persuade Luther to withdraw, and when the latter presented him with the relevant passages from the scriptures, Staupitz, order general and former professor, withdrew from the fact that it was beyond his strength to face the problems that this posed 22 It was probably mainly about washing the order clean when he absolved Luther of his obedience to him.23 From then on, Luther had to and was allowed to act on his own - even if Staupitz did not deny him any support. He even got him the horse on which he fled Augsburg. The Augsburg council gave Luther a companion who could show him the 100 kEtzEr HER, antIchrIst there way, and even an imperial councilor, Christoph Langemantel, helped open a gate through which Luther could leave the city.24 But that stayed Happened for him all his life extremely ambivalent: Years later he reported it so that Staupitz fell into line with his future enemies: I was excommunicated three times, the first time by Doctor Staupitz, he released me from obedience to the rules of the order in Augsburg so that if the Pope urged him to take me prisoner or to silence me, he could exonerate himself by reprimanding that I was not under his obedience; the second time by the Pope himself, the third time by the Emperor himself.25 That was extraordinarily sharp, and yet it may aptly reflect the emotional situation of autumn 1518: Luther, who cared so much about his friends and his audience, stood alone. So alone that he occasionally considered leaving Wittenberg - the elector apparently already had plans to hide him in a secret place, 26 as he actually did later at the Wartburg - and it was Staupitz of all people who now took refuge offered "so that we may live and die together" .27 Luther later adorned the events with a talent for drama. At that time he was referring to Psalm 27:10: "For my father and my mother forsake me, but the Lord welcomes me." 28 For the first, not the last time in his life, Luther felt the great loneliness of him who was not ready is to bow to the balance of power. That a chamberlain of the Pope from Saxony, Karl von Miltitz, used the diplomatic mandate to deliver the virtuous rose to Frederick the Wise, 29 for an act of diplomacy on his own, and on January 5 and 6, 1519, secret negotiations with Luther at Altenburg led, is one of the antics on the edge of the action. The proposed agreement that Luther should keep silent, even if his opponents do not speak out. LEIPZIG 1519: FOR OR AGAINST THE POPE? 101 said more, 30 was unrealistic from the start: How could one have made all of Luther's lively opponents stand still? And how could Luther have suppressed what he believed to be truth? Leipzig 1519: For or against the Pope? So it soon came to the next highlight: the clash with the former friend Johannes Eck. This had been striving for a long time to challenge the Wittenbergers to debate. Trusting in his vaunted art of disputation, he wanted to show them their limits, but at the same time also the heretical character of their teaching, but above all of Luther's. Just as Luther crossed the line between academic teaching and pastoral care, Eck wanted to make the line between university form and legal process permeable. The mediaeval disputation system had opened up a great deal of freedom: for example, one could argue about the question of whether there was God - and of course also consider the opposite. It was more about practicing the foil of argumentation and supporting the truth - in this case, of course, irrefutable - all the more. Now it was Eck's unmistakable intention to use the intellectual finger exercise for definitive proof of Luther's error. Of course, this did not have to take place in the field of spirituality, doctrine of penance or indulgence, but in the field of doctrine of the Church. Above all: from the Pope. In doing so he proceeded as keenly and one-sidedly as a trained censor. In an effort to explain his 22nd thesis against indulgences, according to which the Pope could not impose any penalties on souls in purgatory, Luther had pointed out in his resolutions that the Roman Church had up until the time of Gregory the Great (590–590). 604) evidently had no priority over the other kEzEr HER, anti-Christ there had their churches, as one can see in the Greeks.31 The way in which the events rolled over had made this connection highly explosive, it acted is precisely the point of contention between Luther and Cajetan - and the question that Leo X had decided against Luther in retrospect through his decree. Now Eck was also able to prove that Luther provided a justification that was difficult to reconcile with the tradition of the church. Almost triumphantly, he put forward the sentence as a thesis that he wished to dispute: We reject the fact that the Roman Church did not stand above the other churches before New Year's Eve, but we constantly recognize that the one who the Peter holds the chair and is his faith, successor of Peter and general representative of Christ.32 With unbelievable skill, Johannes Eck turned the screw further: Not only did he fix Luther on a topic that was not his, but above all how he did it , was of malicious brilliance. Luther's reference to Gregory was more or less accidental, and later statements show that he did not care much about connecting the decline of the papacy with this great figure at the transition between antiquity and the Middle Ages. But Eck put his finger in the wound that a serious representative of the papal church actually had to feel: According to legend, Pope Silvester I (314–335) was that pope, Constantine the Great's lordly insignia, who held power over the papal state and had transferred legal sovereignty over the Western Church. The report on this "Constantinian donation" was even included in canon law, albeit expressly only as an addition (D. 96 c. 14) .33 In the 15th century, however, the later Cardinal Nikolaus von Kues and the later Cardinal Nikolaus von Kues had papal law The humanist Lorenzo Valla, who rose to the service of the service, has proven that this alleged donation was a legend.34 Ulrich von Hutten had just published deslEIpzIg 1519: For or against the Pope? The question was acute - and Eck immunized himself in a clever way: Establishing papal power earlier than in the time of New Year's Eve and Constantine made him independent of the question of the authenticity of the deed of gift, yes, it actually asked him on the side of the learned humanists, who considered them a forgery, - did not use this to weaken, but to strengthen the papal power. Because this should be older, not younger than the 4th century! But the publicist and scholar was also an intriguer: he sent the series of theses containing this phrase to Rome before April 10, 1519.36 Once again it became clear that the academic discussion was certainly not taking place in the ivory tower. So the disputation between the opponents turned into a public event that did not take place on the premises of the university, but on the Pleißenburg near Leipzig.As in Heidelberg, the academic event opened up to a wider, urban and courtly audience. The whole thing began on June 27, 1519, and Karlstadt and Eck got into the ring first. But the climax that everyone expected came when Luther and Eck were confronted with each other. From July 4th to 13th, the two faced each other. It was a good two years ago that Eck had courted the friendship of the Wittenberger, now he had a clearly different agenda. Committing Luther to the papal question was one thing. The task now was to prove one's heresy as quickly as possible. The easiest way to do this was if you could simply explain what you said as a notorious, well-known heresy. And even in the run-up to the disputation, Eck had made it clear who he wanted to bring Luther closer: that of the Hussites. The movement, which was based on the Prague scholar and preacher Jan Hus (d. 1415), had campaigned against the pomp of the popes and for a simpler church. Its symbol had become the demand that lay people should also drink from the chalice at the Lord's Supper. Soon the movement - not least because of the execution of Jan Hus on the Konstanzer KEtzEr HIEr, anti-Christ there council - mixed with political and social endeavors in Bohemia. As a result, extensive wars broke out, which at times also affected Saxony. So in Leipzig they knew very well who was talking about. It was also easy to refer to the Hussites because sentences about the papacy also played a role in the condemnation of Hus. Eck now advanced the debate in Leipzig with perseverance and skill in such a way that in the end Luther could not help but acknowledge the articles condemned in Constance: Some of them were truly Christian.37 Eck had the opponent where he wanted him. Jan Hus was burned as a heretic on July 6, 1415 at the Council of Constance - despite all assurances of safe conduct. Illustration to Ulrich von Richental's Chronicle of the Council of Constance. LEIPZIG 1519: FOR OR AGAINST THE POPE? 105 Ingolstadt residents drew the conclusions: Luther made himself an advocate for heretics. 38 That meant, of course, that Luther himself had become a heretic. The Pope's question, about which he himself had not wanted to speak, had become a pitfall - and at the same time an impetus for Luther to further radicalize his views. It was hardly more than six months since he had appealed to a council and spoke of it in such a way that one had to take him for a representative of conciliarism. Now he himself stated for Constance, where this movement had experienced its first climax, that a council could also be wrong: «So we are put in our mouths that we, we don't want to or don't want to, have to say: The Concilium has been wrong 39 The reciprocal rocking, which since the turn of the year 1517/18 turned the reform movement into heresy or the rebuilding of the church, depending on one's opinion, had thus reached a new climax: for Eck, Luther's heresy was certain. The Wittenbergers, however, now saw all sorts of reasons to break away from the Pope. It went so far that Luther was now more and more certain that what he had suspected since the interrogation in Augsburg was true: that the Pope was the Antichrist.40 The winner of the disputation was initially Johannes Eck.41 He had achieved the goal he had set for himself But the medium-term effect was different: Luther's reputation as a rebel attracted people who perhaps only partially shared his concerns, which stem from mysticism and theology of piety, but who were given the courage to express their unease in the current church more clearly and louder than before . 106 KETZER HER, ANTI-CHRISTIAN THERE Zurich 1521: Lawsuits against Zwingli The rebellious monk's fama now extended to distant Zurich. There the people priest Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531) cheered Luther as the returned Elijah.42 Even if the alliance between Zurich and Wittenberg broke up after a few years, it shows to what extent the Luther affair was now able to bring together different threads. Zwingli had started as a preacher at Zurich's Großmünster on January 1, 1519 - and immediately caused a sensation: He broke away from the usual sermon order according to pericopes, which had to be interpreted Sunday after Sunday from certain thematic points of view, without their order being anything with the biblical context had to do. Instead, Zwingli began with a lectio continua, an ongoing exposition of the Gospel of Matthew. However, Zwingli's new approach did not stop there. In December 1521 or at the beginning of the following year, Konrad Hofmann, who, as canon, belonged to the chapter that had to oversee Zwingli, filed a complaint that summed up what Zwingli had done wrong in recent years. It is not very easy to distinguish which doctrines he formulated under Luther's influence and which previously based on his own development. In the indictment, for example, it was specifically emphasized that one should not propagate Luther's teachings unless they were definitely confirmed by the Scriptures.43 However, the criticism that Zwingli apparently brought against scholastics in a rather sweeping manner should have been heard in the pulpit for a long time 44 One of the allegations was that Zwingli had damaged the cult of Mary, and even generally cast doubt on the service of the saints. While one can assume Luther's influence in his view that purgatory was not founded in Scripture, the doctrine accused of him that unbaptized children are not condemned may well have arisen from his own considerations. WITTENBERG 1520: «AGAINST THE CURSED COP…» 107 As complex as the mixture of this work is, you would be doing an injustice to a clever and independent theologian like Zwingli if you just wanted to explain it as a reaction to Luther. The roots of his Reformation approach lie completely elsewhere: Zwingli meant little or nothing at all. But late medieval Scotism had long preoccupied him and, above all, anchored in it the idea that there was an infinite difference between creator and creature.45 When the personal encounter with Erasmus of Rotterdam strengthened the literary influence of humanism, he shaped it This late scholastic distinction was decisively changed: For him, the main contradiction between the word of God and the word of man became. The irritation he caused in Zurich as a result pervades the complaint in every nook and cranny when he is repeatedly accused of having claimed that the gospel had hitherto been suppressed.46 This is precisely where the convergence with Luther lay: in the claim, to preach the pure gospel - and with the fundamental conviction to finally preach this gospel myself. The image of the enemy was also clear: the scholastic theology and the tendencies towards externalization, which Zwingli attached above all to the veneration of Mary and saints.47 The internal differences were still barely noticeable: the decisive factor was the unconditional common will to reform. Wittenberg 1520: «Against the cursed bull of the Antichrist» At the beginning of 1520 there was another attempt by the Roman side to get the Reformation movement under control Year after the election of Charles V, in Rome 108 KEtzEr HER, ANTI-CHRISTIst the trial of Luther picked up speed again there. The pace could also increase because the decision was made to actually condemn Luther for notorious heresy. That made it unnecessary to weigh up whether Luther's statements were orthodox or not. It was only a matter of assigning them to known heresies. Eck was able to contribute to this. So it is not surprising that one of the sentences that Luther was accused of, which was part of the Leipzig disputation: “Some of the articles by Johannes Hus condemned at the Council of Constance are extremely Christian, true and evangelical, while those of the whole Church are not either could condemn. ”48 A few other sentences related to the Pope's question. But the condemnation was even broader: with the statements about the papacy, Luther's doctrine of penance was also condemned and everything that could be understood as a restriction of the necessity of good works. Once again, one of those curious escalations in the Luther affair emerges: the ecclesiastical political question should be dealt with at the same time as the spiritual one. Here not only should the papal church triumph over its adversaries, but also one particular theological option over the other. This, too, took place in accordance with the law, in all the elaborate forms of canon law: Luther was granted sixty days to withdraw before the ban - excommunication - was to be imposed on him. The calculations were carried out cleanly: The date on which the bull was issued, June 15, 1520, was not applicable, but the objection period should begin on the day on which the bull Exsurge Domine was made known in distant Germany. In Luther research, which is mostly unfamiliar with medieval procedural law, the term “bull threatening excommunication” has developed from this, as if this process were something very special. In fact, it corresponded to the well-developed sense of justice, which could accuse a notorious heretic without further interrogation, but could not carry out his conviction without at least having given him the opportunity to self-correct. After all, what distinguished heresy from mere error was the tenacity with which the delinquent clung to his misconception. In the case of Luther, however, a revocation was out of the question. He had advisors who certainly meant well with him: It was Miltitz once again who thought he could think of the smartest move. On October 12, 1520, he met with Luther and advised him to seek a peaceful settlement with a reconciling treatise and, above all, a conciliatory covering letter to the Pope. Luther agreed to this and a little later wrote one of the most intensive theological texts, On the Freedom of a Christian Man (see below, Chapter V). He preceded it with a letter to Leo X, which he wrote «Zu Wittenbergk Sexta Septembris. 1520 »49 dated. At that time, Exsurge Domine would have been unknown in the diocese to which Wittenberg belonged. In terms of content, too, one can hardly believe one's eyes when one sees what a peaceful tone Luther adopted towards the Pope; after all, he had been used to calling the holder of this office an "antichrist" for some time now. And it was certainly not an incumbent who could easily be credited with as much good individually as Luther now pretended. He played with the name of the Pope: Leo, lion: "Inn deß siczstu, heyly father Leo, how eyn create under the wolff, and like Daniel under the lawen", 50 and from the whole letter it emerged who for him this bad lions were: the cardinals for the pope, the curia. These were "more and more severe than the yhe keyn Zodoma, Gomorr or Babylonia" .51 One can guess how Luther's diplomatic advisors may have felt that he tried in this way to separate the pope and the papal and discharged all anger on the latter than could he, the monk from Wittenberg, succeed in getting Leo X to his side against his own confidants. 110 KETCHER HERE, ANTI-CHRISTIANS THERE But there was even more trouble: Luther was not the man for genteel restraint. At the same time with the letter in which he seemed to at least try to get this out, he brought out another text: Adversus execrabilem Antichristi bullam, "Against the cursed bull of the Antichrist" .52 The German version soon followed, so that everyone could understand: «Against the bull of the final Christian» .53 These scriptures put an end to all diplomacy. When asked by the Pope to revoke it, he countered: The Pope should revoke his bull and also punish Johannes Eck.54 Great and grotesque: there the Pope ruling over the entire Church, here the monk and professor. The already evoked image of David confronting Goliath began to take shape. This was only possible because Luther was already thinking in completely different categories than the Pope: wherever he had means of power and could be certain that his ban would also be followed by the eight who made Luther in the empire without rights, Luther's confidence remained in the conviction of believers - and of God's truth, which prevailed against all odds. His behavior increasingly resembled that of a prophet. Like this in the Old Testament, Luther also resorted to a signing act: On December 10, a call from Philipp Melanchthon, who is otherwise known for deliberation, was adhered to the Wittenberg city church: Whoever you are, if you are only filled with zeal for the evangelical truth, find yourself at the ninth hour at the Church of the Holy Cross beyond the walls of our city. There the godless books of papal ordinances and scholastic theology will be burned according to old, also apostolic custom, since this was preceded by the insolence of the enemies of the gospel that they rejected the pious and evangelical books of Luther. Up, pious and ardent youth! Find your way to this pious and believing spectacle: Perhaps the time has now come for the Antichrist to be revealed.55 WITTENBERG 1520: «AGAINST THE CURSED COP…» 111 What was not condensing there! The student youth56, who had been inconsistent for decades, were once again incited to turn against the one common enemy: scholasticism and false papal law. It was a little more than three years ago that Luther disputed scholastic theology out of a mystical impetus. On his side he had become humanistic friends like Melanchthon, with the opponents the panorama had widened: the papal antichrist had joined the scholastics, and his main instrument had proved to be his decretals, as they were gathered in canon law. In Luther's view, they served to rise above God's word; it was they whose power had to be restricted, including by burning. The reference to the apostolic custom also shows that the act of book burning, which is barbarous in today's eyes, was a demonstrative rejection of one's own past: According to Acts 19:19, it was converted magicians who burned their own textbooks. This is exactly what was supposed to happen in Wittenberg - and it happened at least in part with success: Luther threw the bull Exsurge Domine and the papal decretals into the flames with the words: “Because you have dissolved the holy of the Lord, the eternal should you Dissolve fire. »57 Scholastic works were apparently not given over to the fire, but the act of drawing was clear enough. A point had now been reached on both sides at which communication was hardly possible. The following applies to those who were born later: The split in the church was now complete. For the contemporaries, the act was a lot more dramatic. According to our own understanding, it was not one church that separated from the other, but - from the Roman point of view - the true church from the heretic or - from the Wittenberg point of view - the prophet of God from the antichrist. With all relentlessness, truth stood against untruth for both sides. It was only logical that the excommunication against Luther was actually pronounced with the bull Decet Romanum pontifi cem on January 3, 1521. 112 KEtzEr HERE, ANTI-CHRISTIANS THERE Worms 1521: Luther as a Christ-like martyr The emperor should have pronounced eight just as logically. Here, however, diplomacy came to Luther's aid once more: When things came to a head, Charles V Friedrich the Wise had promised not to put Luther on hold without a hearing. It wasn't much, but it was something. It did not mean that the emperor had intended to reconsider the question of whether Luther might be right. He would have been neither authorized nor qualified to do so. That decision had to be made in Rome. But the emperor made it clear that he was more than a simple vicarious agent of the Pope. Charles V did not foresee, however, that he would prepare a big stage for Luther by summoning him to the next Reichstag in Worms. His journey to the Rhine was followed closely all over Germany. Wherever Luther appeared, he was cheered. The legally banned man was allowed into the churches and preached there. This was an undeclared revolt against the valid canon law, and no one was found who would have prevented this. The memory of Jan Hus resonated with it, who a little more than a century ago, like Luther now, traveled with the assurance of safe conduct to negotiate his doctrine and was condemned against all promises and handed over to the fire. Who would now assume that the same could not happen to Luther? What Luther had hinted at early on was now also well received by the public: the piety theologian and rebel was a possible martyr.The personalization and heroization, which had already been initiated for a long time, now reached its peak - a process that was far removed from those delicate mystical beginnings, but the humanistic circles who had been interested in Luther for years and were used to having their own heroes of the spirit as poetae laureatae or the like to choose, this was familiar. Even worms 1521: Luther as a Christian martyr 113 when Hans Holbein in the following year, still on the wave of great excitement, portrayed Luther as Hercules Germanicus, this was not as unprecedented as it occasionally appears in representations of the history of the Reformation: it was just a few years earlier this title had been used on a leaflet for Emperor Maxmilian I. 59 Worshiping heroes was trendy. Luther, however, was not born to be a hero, and as a monk had evidently not decided to be a hero either. He became a hero through his impact. One of the first stops on his journey showed what effect Luther's connection with humanism could have: Erfurt. He had been known here since he was a student, and the city, which enjoyed great independence from its master, the Archbishop of Mainz, was ready to warmly welcome the traveler. Crotus Rubianus (d. Approx. 1545), one of the most important actors in the humanist community in the city during Luther's student days, met him, accompanied by enthusiastic students such as Johannes Draconites (d. 1566) and above all the poet Eobanus Hessus (1488 –1540), who praised the reformer in a humanistic manner. The coalition promised in Heidelberg apparently held - and that meant: The intellectual elite of the German cities, which was determined by humanism, stood behind the monk from Wittenberg. In a sermon on April 7, 1521, Luther underlined his commonality with the city where he had spent important years of his life. In a bold grip he combined the danger in which he was hovering with his message of justification: as long as a permanent person ponders and thinks that we cannot help each other, sunder got. Even if our work is insignificant, we have The frid gotes, and a permanent person should send his work that is not only useful to him, but also to someone else, to be negative.60 Carried by the wave of enthusiasm and yet full of fear for his fate, Luther arrived in Worms. Heinz Schilling gave 114 kEtzEr HER, antIchrIst there impressively described what that meant: The monk from the provinces was now facing the ruler of an empire in which the sun never sets.61 From Luther's point of view, however, things were exactly the opposite. The one in whom he trusted and with whom he identified himself was the ruler of the world: in contrast to the emperor, he compared himself to Christ before the high priest, to whom no fault could be proven.62 The earthly authorities, so great and mighty they are could not scare him. Conversely, the young Emperor Charles V had no interest in dragging the matter out long and was right. What could one hope for from the interrogation of a convicted heretic, except at most that he would revoke his proven false position - or that it was found that he had never represented it. In deciding the truth of the faith, Rome could hardly be blamed for a mistake. At most, there could be an error in the fact that statements were ascribed to Luther that did not come from him. On April 17th, only his writings were presented to Luther. He was asked if they were his and if he was willing to withdraw. Clear questions that actually only allowed a yes or no - Luther only answered the first one in the affirmative. According to his publications, he could have just as clearly denied the second. But, amazingly enough after all thought, he asked for time to think it over. And, more amazingly, it was granted to him. He got one day - and made good use of the next attempt. There he was again, the man who knew what his audience wanted to hear and who gave it to him without saying anything. He divided his writings into three groups: The first contained writings that dealt with beliefs and morals - he could not revoke them, since even his opponents agreed with him. So he purposefully picked out one side of his journalistic existence, the contributions to theology of piety - and stood by them frankly. In addition, there had been a long, and highly impressed 1521: Luther as a CHRISTIAN MARTYR 115, the polemicist Luther. That concerned the third group of scriptures. In them he was occasionally sharper than a Christian and monk should be. So he revokes the tone, not the matter. However, the second group was explosive: in the related writings he wrote against the papacy. He was careful not to refer to the Pope as an Antichrist again. On the other hand, he spoke hardly less sharply of the tyranny of the Pope and thus reached the field which he now wanted to enter, in keeping with the forum of the Reichstag. It was about politics. To the politics of the Germans: Because no one can deny or hide that, since the experience and the complaint of all testify that the laws of the Pope and the human teachings have shackled the consciences of the believers miserably, mistreated and tortured to death and that before Especially in this glorious German nation, possessions have been and are still being swallowed up by unbelievable tyranny without end and in an undignified manner.63 Luther: a national event. A revolutionary even who later knew: When I should go to hell with a lot, I wanted Teütsch to be poured into a large pluot, yes, I wanted to have a worm dish that the keyser wasn’t sure about. 64 All strands converged here: the freedom of conscience vis-à-vis the Pope's laws and the politics to which Luther had also been turning for a year in journalism (see below 159 f.). What should have been the lowest point in litigation, the final act of the Luther case, became the rhetorical climax and increased even further. The imperial did not care about a differentiated answer. Luther did not speak on the matter.65 That meant he should say clearly how things were now. He did: 116 KETCHER HERE, ANTI-CHRIST IS THERE Because your holy majesty and your masters demand it, I want to give a simple answer that has neither horns nor teeth: If I am not overcome by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or reasonable reasons - because I cannot believe either the Pope or the councils alone, since it is certain that they have repeatedly erred and contradicted themselves - so I keep myself overcome by the scriptures that I have cited, and my conscience is captured by God's words. And that is why I cannot and will not revoke anything, because acting against conscience is neither safe nor fair. God help me. Amen. 66 That made it clear to the emperor. He was "certain that an individual (religious) brother is wrong with his opinion, which is against all Christianity, both during the past thousand and more years and in the present." obtained their consent in order to finally publish the Edict of Worms at the end of May, which he had already signed on May 8th. Luther was now without rights, whoever met him should hand him over. In all trust in God, however, Luther had already left the place of the event that was imprinted on cultural memory as the climax of his life. His sovereign hid him in the Wartburg for months. The hero had now become a martyr compared to Christ himself.68 That made his voice all the stronger. Whoever wanted to hear them did not need face-to-face meetings. The personal network that had supported the beginning of the movement back in Staupitz's time had now finally become obsolete: the printing press was decisive, and Luther had fed it well the year before.