target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_536849d1-6563-5005-acf9-24b9006b953d">[833] Concl. 25, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 364. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 402.
[834] Concl. 16, “Quid igitur faciemus? Vacabimus otio, quia nihil nisi peccatum facimus.”
[835] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 360. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 398.
[836] Concl. 24.
[837] Cp. above, p. 202 ff.
[838] In the Explicatio conclusionis VI., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 367, where the editor says in a note: “Martin Bucer testifies in his letter to Beatus Rhenanus on May 1, 1518, that this comparison was made by Luther in the Disputation.” See p. 74, n. 9.
[839] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 370.
[840] Ibid., pp. 371, 374.
[841] Ibid., p. 633.
[842] Disput., Heidelberg, an. 1518, thes. 24. Cp. thes. 20. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 362 f. Cp. above, p. 235.
[843] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 143, n.
[844] Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 187.
[845] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” pp. 100, 154 ff.
[846] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.
[847] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 170.
[848] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 69. See above, p. 34 f.
[849] Letter of September 1, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223.
[850] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 83.
[851] Ibid., 1, p. 65 ff.
[852] Ibid., p. 65 ff.
[853] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 65.
[854] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 188.
[855] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 401.
[856] Ibid., 49, p. 300.
[857] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 183. These words are there placed in the year 1523.
[858] Many of the erroneous Protestant notions as to the doctrine of Indulgences might be removed by a glance at any Catholic hand-book of theology. See, for instance, Hurter, “Theol. dogmat.,” ed. 11 (1903), t. 3, p. 499 seq., 509, where, for example, the expression “relaxatio pœnæ et culpæ,” which has shocked so many moderns, is explained in the correct historical and theological sense, reference, for instance, being made to the article by N. Paulus (partly against Th. Brieger) in the “Zeitschrift für kath. Theol.,” 23, 1899, p. 48 ff., “Johann von Paltz über Ablass und Reue.” The German Augustinian Paltz is an authentic witness to the Catholic view at that time. “The guilt is remitted,” he says, “by virtue of the Sacrament of Penance which is here introduced, and the punishment by virtue of the Indulgence which is here dispensed.” “Celifodina,” fol. x., 1, in Paulus, p. 51, n. 4.
[859] See below, ix. 2.
[860] A. Schulte, “Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523,” 2 vols., Leipzig, 1904. W. Schörs, “Die Mainzer Erzbischofswahl und der Ablass vom Jahre 1514,” in the Innsbruck “Zeitschrift für kath. Theol.,” 31, 1907, pp. 267-302. For details on this matter see the next section.
[861] Not the anniversary of its dedication. Cp. N. Müller in the “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” (6), 1909, p. 184, n. 4.
[862] “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 529. For the theses see also, Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 285 seq.
[863] Cp. Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of the 41 propositions of Luther condemned in 1520.
[864] Letter to Bishop Hieronymus Scultetus of February 13, 1518 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 150: “Inter quæ sunt de quibus dubito, nonnulla ignoro, aliqua et nego.” P. 151: “Disputo non assero,” etc.
[865] “Chronik,” ed. K. Euling, p. 48 f. Cp. above, p. 280.
[866] Cp. Pastor, “History of the Popes,” volume vii., English translation, p. 361. Kalkoff, “Forschungen zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” Rom., 1905, p. 44 f., and “Zu Luthers römischem Prozess: Das Verfahren des Erzbischofs v. Mainz gegen Luther,” in “Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch.,” 31, 1910, pp. 48-65. Cp. ibid., p. 368 ff., on the Dominicans. Both authors should be consulted for the subsequent history of Rome’s intervention. The Papal letter in Bembi, Epistolæ Leonis X, 1, 16, n. 18.
[867] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 313.
[868] “Origines illustr. stirpis Saxonicæ l. 7,” Ienæ, 1597, p. 859. Seckendorf, in his “Comment. de Lutheranismo,” relates the same from Fabricius. Both, however, make the mistake of placing the event a year too early. N. Paulus, in the “Histor.-polit. Blätter,” 137, 1906, p. 51 f., doubts the credibility of the story, because Fabricius is devoid of the critical spirit. It is not clear whether Luther refers to some other sermon.