Luther’s Excommunication: 500 Years Later

On January 3, 1521, the Bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, declared Martin Luther a heretic and excommunicate for he had not made the retractions required by a previous Bull, Exsurge Domine, of 1520.[1] Since then, in the Catholic world, he has been identified as the heretic par excellence, the one who tore apart Christian unity and demolished the priesthood and religious life.

Why return after half a millennium to this excommunication? Unfortunately, its consequences continue to be felt and to generate suffering.[2] As a matter of fact, in Canon Law excommunication ceases with the death of the person condemned,[3] but in this case the effects have been much more lasting, for almost five centuries. It seems that the Bull “excommunicated” not only Luther, but also condemned the Reformation.

The steps that led to these historical consequences are based on several events that were instigated by both the Church and by Luther: first of all the 95 Theses of Wittenberg and the conversation with Cardinal Gaetano, then the excommunication, and finally the trial at Worms in April 1521.

The Wittenberg Theses: Seeking confrontation

For a long time Luther’s 95 Theses of October 31, 1517, were considered a challenge to the Church. This would be demonstrated by their posting on the door of the Wittenberg church of All Saints. The episode, despite the fact that many consider it historical, is a legend. This is not an insignificant detail, because it undermines the interpretation, handed down for centuries, of the posting as a sign of Luther’s rebellion against the Church. We discussed this at length five years ago.[4]

The theses are an appendix to a letter Luther wrote to the Archbishop of Mainz, Albert of Brandenburg, who was responsible for the preaching of indulgences in Germany, which would raise funds for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica. Luther, a priest and university lecturer, was concerned about what was happening: people were rushing outside the borders of the Electorate to buy indulgences for themselves and for the dead.[5] In Wittenberg, the elector Frederick the Wise had forbidden them, to prevent the money from going abroad or ending up in the coffers of the archbishop, his opponent.

Luther was disturbed by the irresponsible way in which the Dominicans presented the indulgences and the false security they were instilling in the faithful about salvation since no one can be sure of their own salvation. He points out that one must rather preach the Gospel, “the first and only mission of every bishop,” which had been neglected to make room for the “hullabaloo of indulgences.”[6] The date was October 31, 1517, the eve of the Feast of All Saints.

Attached to the letter were the 95 Theses, which formulate some possible objections so that the archbishop could reflect on the doubts that emerge in a learned theologian from his preaching, and a treatise, De indulgentiis, to further explore the problem. The documents were written in Latin, because it was reserved for religious authority. There was therefore no public posting of the theses on October 31, 1517, a posting that is also not mentioned in the acts that document the foundation and history of the university.[7]

A lack of response and the complaint to Rome

Luther received no response to his letter, to his request for a confrontation or at least an explanation. Archbishop Albert, on the other hand, rather irritated, sent the theses to Rome  complaining they spread “new doctrines.”

Almost immediately, the theses resonated throughout Germany, but it was not Luther who spread them. After waiting in vain for an answer, he talked about them with some friends. Thus began very quietly a remarkable dissemination. By January 1518 the theses were printed and read everywhere. Given the uproar they had caused against Rome, Luther felt the need to give a popular explanation. He did so in March 1518 with the Sermon on Indulgence and Grace, in German. A theological commentary on the theses in Latin also followed. The treatise, with a dedicatory letter to Leo X, was preceded by a singular protest. After having affirmed that he recognized in the voice of the pope the voice of Christ who guides and governs the Church, he concluded: “I hope with this declaration of mine to have clearly said that I can, yes, be wrong, but that it will not be possible to make a heretic of me.”[8]

In Rome, Luther’s cause was proceeding slowly. However, the pope commissioned the court theologian, Silvestro Mazzolini, known as “Il Prierias,” to give an evaluation of the theses. He wrote it in just three days, focusing on the authority and infallibility of the pontiff, a document entitled Dialogue against Martin Luther’s Presumptuous Theses on the Power of the Pope. The theses were rejected not because of their interpretation of Scripture, but because they questioned the papacy, which was indispensable for the truth of doctrine and the unity of the Church.[9] Although the judgment of the humanists was unanimous regarding the superficiality of the response – Erasmus himself described it as “most insulting”[10] – Il Prierias must be credited with having recognized the key point of the theses: the authority of the pope, considered “infallible” in Rome.[11] However, the text was not a dialogue – as the title claimed – but a condemnation: “Whoever, with regard to indulgences, affirms that the Roman Church cannot do what it actually does, is a heretic.”[12] According to the theologian, an arbitrary interpretation of the Bible and an arrogant presumption were, in history, the characteristic marks of the heretic. The evaluation obtained the desired effect: Luther was summoned to Rome to answer the charge of heresy and rebellion against the pope.

In the meantime, Emperor Maximilian I also drew Leo X’s attention to the movement sparked by the Augustinian friar, which constituted a danger to the unity of the faith and disturbed public order in the Empire. Cardinal Gaetano, a well-known Dominican theologian and a great commentator on St. Thomas, who was in Germany for the Diet of Augsburg, was given the task of questioning him and, if he did not recant, of sending him to Rome.

The interrogation at the Diet of Augsburg

Cardinal Gaetano had prepared two points. The first concerned Thesis 58, which was at odds with the Bull Unigenitus, of Clement VI, of 1343. For Luther, the treasure of the Church was not to be identified with the merits of Christ and the saints. The second concerned the problem of fides sacramenti, that is, whether the efficacy of a sacrament was linked to the faith of those who received it. For the cardinal, novelty was not part of Tradition, and among his notes he wrote: “This means founding a new Church.”[13]

In his interrogation, Gaetano limited himself to the first point. Luther showed that he was well acquainted with the Bull Unigenitus, and gave proof of this by correcting an inaccurate quotation by the cardinal, but he did not consider it binding, because it was not based on the Bible and where it quoted it, it did so distorting its meaning. As for the pope’s authority over Scripture, he acknowledged it, but objected to Paul’s teaching (1 Cor 14:30-33): any believer, if the Spirit is revealed to him, can authoritatively interpret the Word. Therefore, he could not retract, because he believed he was basing his convictions on the Bible. When the cardinal insisted that obedience was due to the pontiff, Luther pointed out that even the pope could make mistakes, as had happened to Peter in the Antioch controversy.[14]

In spite of the cardinal’s good intentions, the Augsburg colloquy came to nothing: it was a dialogue between the deaf. Luther did not retract because he had not been shown in Scripture what he had done wrong. Gaetano was exasperated by the Augustinian’s stubbornness, but he had failed to grasp the authenticity that animated his religious experience.

For his part, Luther apologized in writing to the cardinal, but wrote an appeal to the “misguided pope” to inform him better, asking for a council to be held in a safe place.[15]

Cardinal Gaetano and Frederick the Wise

On October 25, Cardinal Gaetano gave  the Elector Frederick an account of the meeting. He described the benevolent way in which he had treated the professor of Wittenberg, but he was forced to point out the seriousness of his statements against the Bull Unigenitus. Luther therefore had to be delivered to Rome, and his extradition was requested.

The letter was answered much later, on December 8. With diplomacy, but also with firmness, Frederick the Wise disputed the accusations against Luther and concluded: “If we should recognize with some sure foundation that the doctrine of Dr. Martin Luther is impious or even dangerous, we ourselves would intervene, advised by the help and grace of Almighty God, without need of exhortation or admonition from others.”[16] The prince had Luther’s writings examined: nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Church had been found in them, and no proof of guilt had been brought to his attention. Certainly, Luther was on trial, but he had not been condemned as a heretic. Therefore Frederick, in accordance with the duty of a Christian prince, declared himself ready to obey for the honor of God and his own conscience. A case of heresy in the very University of Wittenberg, which he had founded and supported, would have produced considerable dishonor to the institution and to Saxony. Therefore the prince came forward with determination.

International Politics and the ‘Luther Case’

On January 12, 1519, Maximilian I died. The succession to the position of Holy Roman Emperor opened, where the emerging candidate, and already partly designated, was Charles, the emperor’s nephew, who carried on his shoulders the inheritance of the house of Habsburg and Spain, so that the Papal States would be surrounded by his territories. Leo X immediately tried to arrange for Frederick the Wise, Luther’s prince, who was also against the choice of the Habsburgs, to accept the imperial crown. The maneuvers failed and Charles was elected emperor. The proceedings against the friar were halted for a prolonged period, allowing the movement time to spread even further.

In July 1519, the Leipzig dispute with Johannes Eck, a doctor of theology and lecturer at the university, highlighted that Luther not only wanted a reform of the Church, but also attacked its fundamental structures. For him, the Church did not need an earthly head, since the true head was Christ; moreover, the primacy of the pope could not be considered a matter of faith, since it was not found in the Gospel. Finally, Eck had succeeded in getting him to confess that even Councils could make mistakes: the Council of Constance – the only General Council held in Germany – had erred in condemning Jan Hus. Although the winner of the dispute was Eck, the people hailed Luther as the hero of the German nation who had been able to stand up to the papacy.

The protest of the “Doctor of Wittenberg” also included the problem of the Gravamina nationis germanicae, which contained the complaints of the Germans against the Roman Curia collected over a half-century. It was a matter of taxes, stipends and accesses to grace that were not considered in any way worthy of being reformed, nor of being discussed. These had brought the papacy into disrepute and generated fierce nationalism; only a radical reform could have changed the climate of tension that had been created.

The Bull ‘Exsurge Domine’

In the meantime the problems posed by Luther had not yet been answered. The chorus of consensus that he aroused seemed to be holding back the judgments of the universities on the theses. The theologians of Mainz had limited themselves to advising the archbishop to have the theses examined in Rome. The University of Erfurt, where Luther had studied, was unable to take a position. The first judgment, in August 1519, was that of the University of Cologne, a Dominican stronghold, and was followed by that of the University of Louvain. The slowness can be explained by the universities’ resistance to formulating an opinion on topics that had not been defined.

In any case, the judgments given flowed into the drafting of the Bull Exsurge Domine, of June 15, 1520, which began with the words of Psalm 74 (73):22: “Rise up, o God, plead your cause,” and continued with Psalm 80 (79):14: “the boar from the forest ravages this vine.”[17] Luther is described as a wild boar who, with a pack of foxes, is destroying the Lord’s vineyard. This is the beginning of the Church’s first “official” response to Luther’s request; however, there was no response to his initial requests, to his desire to put an end to a scandal, to his desire for clarification, to his upset at the profane way with which matters of conscience were being dealt.

The Bull condemned 41 propositions taken from his works as “heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears, seducers of simple souls, contrary to Catholic doctrine,”[18] but it did not specify which censure was to be attributed to the individual propositions, so it was not clear which was heretical, which only a scandalous statement, dangerous to the simple, or questionable in theology. It also prohibited the printing, publishing and reading of Luther’s books, and the authorities were ordered to requisition his writings and burn them publicly.

The Bull condemned Luther’s errors, not his person, but it required his retraction within 60 days and imposed excommunication. Unfortunately, the pompous tone of Exsurge Domine and the haste with which it was written did no small damage to the authority of the Church, depriving it of its effectiveness.

If it is true that until the Council of Trent the Bull was the only official pronouncement of the Church in a drama in which the person of Luther tended to recede into the background, the repercussions of the crisis born with him multiplied and expanded in every way. The Bull was difficult to publish and had the opposite effect to the one desired: it also affected the Germanic world, and was mainly concerned with the troubled  relationship between the German nation and the Roman Curia. Paradoxically, it gave publicity to the Doctor of Wittenberg.

Excommunication

The publication of Luther’s reformist works in 1520[19] and the burning of his writings in Cologne – Luther did the same with the pope’s decretals, including, albeit surreptitiously, a copy of Exsurge Domine – precipitated events. As mentioned above, on January 3, 1521, the 60 days having passed without any retraction, the Bull of excommunication Decet Romanum Pontificem was published. The Empire, the secular arm of the Church, according to medieval juridical tradition, had to take note of the sentence and execute it.

But Charles V did not carry it out, not so much because at the time of his imperial election he had sworn that no subject would be condemned without first being heard, but because Frederick the Wise had organized for Luther to be summoned to the Diet of Worms and given the opportunity to defend himself. It was remarkable that, instead of proceeding directly against the excommunicated Luther, the imperial Diet wanted to settle a religious and theological case on its own initiative. While this might seem to be a step forward from past practice, it had the consequence that the exegesis of biblical texts and the doctrine on which Luther was to be questioned were debated at an imperial Diet, a political body. It was inevitable that simplified alternatives would be used that did not even touch a crisis of conscience.

The interrogation at Worms

Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms with a safe-conduct and arrived on April 16, 1521. It was a triumphant entry. He was greeted as the emblem of the Germanic nation, the one who had been able to resist the power of Rome. The following day he was interrogated; he was presented with 20 works, asked if he had written them and if he was willing to retract their contents. Luther acknowledged them as his own and asked for time to reflect. He was not willing to deny anything, since it was “a matter of faith and the salvation of the soul. Moreover, it concerns the Word of God, which is the greatest thing that exists in heaven and on earth.”[20] The questioning of the heretic thus became a provocation to examine one’s own conscience: not only Luther, but everyone had to question himself about his own faith and the Word of God. Even the judges, in their verdict, could put their own salvation at risk.

On April 18, at the Diet, he was asked again if he was willing to recant. Luther then pointed out that not all books were of the same tenor and divided them into three groups. The first group included the books of piety, where there was nothing to condemn; the second group concerned the writings against the papacy and the papists, which he could not retract, because with their doctrine and life the latter “had devastated the Christian world, mortifying the consciences and devouring the wealth of the people, especially the Germanic nation”[21]; the third group included some polemical writings “against those who work to support the Roman tyranny and destroy the piety that I teach.”[22] Therefore he could not retract anything, but asked the emperor and those present to show him by means of Scripture what the errors were, declaring himself ready to “retract everything.”[23]

The notary replied: “You, like all heretics, take refuge in Holy Scripture. But, like them, you demand that it be interpreted at your will. Moreover, your heresies are not new: you are only repeating the already condemned errors of the Picards, the Waldensians, the Poor of Lyons, Wyclif and Hus. Do not arrogate to yourself, Martin, the privilege of being the only one to understand the Holy Scriptures. Do not put your judgment before that of so many very learned doctors who spent nights and days toiling in the study of it. Do not doubt the most holy orthodox faith that Christ […] instituted, which the apostles preached throughout the world, which has been confirmed by so many miracles and by the red blood of the martyrs, and illustrated by the teachings of the holy doctors: that faith in which our fathers died. […] And the sacred councils confirmed. [The notary also cited the Council of Constance…]. So answer without ambiguity or evasion : do you want to retract the errors contained in your books, yes or no?”[24]

Aware that he was risking his life and could end up at the stake, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by clear arguments of reason (for I believe neither the pope nor the Councils alone, for it is clear that they have repeatedly erred and contradicted themselves), I remain bound (convictus) by the texts of Scripture I have quoted, my conscience is captive (capta) to the Word of God. Therefore I cannot, nor do I want to retract, for to act against conscience is neither safe nor healthy.” And he added in German, “God help me. Amen.”[25]

Three times Luther named the Bible, in an extraordinary invocation of Sola Scriptura: because the Word of God founded doctrine, it won his conscience and convinced him not to recant. The stubborn and tenacious answer, in accord with his profound conviction, was rooted in his conception of Scripture: for him, the final arbiter of truth was the infallible Word of God, the Bible, and not the Church, which, though an authoritative interpreter of Scripture, had been wrong on several occasions throughout history. The conclusion in German was the simple way in which he closed his sermons. Having spoken in his own language, he also spoke to the German people.

Luther’s condemnation

Charles V, after listening to Luther, ordered him to leave. The next day he solemnly declared that he wanted to follow the example of his ancestors. He would respond to the ideas of an isolated friar by opposing him with the Catholic faith and the honor shown  to God by his predecessors. Martin Luther “erred against God, against all Christianity, both in the past, for a thousand years and more, and in the present. […] According to his opinion the whole of Christendom was and is in error.”[26] There had already been enough discussion with the heretic and the emperor had decided.[27]

Hence the Edict of Worms. The text was written by Nuncio Girolamo Aleandro in a solemn Latin, but in a harsh and offensive style that incited indignation. Before promulgating it, the emperor had it translated into German and submitted it to the approval of the states, perhaps to prevent criticism of having acted in a despotic manner. Luther was banned from the entire empire as an enemy of the German nation and the whole of Christianity, and his books were condemned to be burned: “According to the Bull of the Holy Father the Pope, [Luther was] considered an estranged member of the Church of God, a stubborn schismatic and a manifest heretic.”[28] He was defined as “not a man, but the devil himself in human form, clothed in a monk’s hood for the ruin of humanity, who has gathered the condemned heresies, or rather has devised new ones in the simulated preaching of the faith, destroying the true faith, […] evangelical peace and charity.”[29] It was therefore the duty of the pope and the emperor to put an end to heresy with the help of Christians. Thus it was forbidden to “harbor Luther, to hide him, to give him food and drink, to give him aid, […] and he must be captured wherever he is and handed over to us.”[30]

Contrary to what the nuncio thought, the proclamation would immediately become dramatically unpopular, and is still considered by intransigent historians to be a “shameful Roman edict.”[31] It seems that Aleandro, at the promulgation of it, said: “Here is the end of the tragedy.” But there was no end, on the contrary, as a Spanish courtier replied: “I believe instead that it is a beginning.”[32] It was the beginning of a centuries-old contrast between the Protestant Reformation and the Church of Rome.

With excommunication, Luther was ousted from all imperial territory (something that weighed on him for the rest of his life). He and his followers were subject to the censures and penalties of excommunication and interdict (prohibiting him from receiving the sacraments). However, the theological problem widened and turned into a national and political case. The whole of Germany was furious with the papacy, and did not take much notice of the edict. Frederick the Wise himself did not promulgate it in the Electorate of Saxony, the only German territory where Luther could live and move freely. His books were printed, sold and multiplied throughout Germany without anyone being punished.

The Church of Rome was lulled into the illusion that a decision from above would suffice to definitively resolve problems that required quite different attention and commitment in order to remove the stumbling blocks that gradually arose from the lack of “reform in head and limbs.” Certainly, it must be taken into account that the decisive issue was the claim, on the part of both the Church and Luther, to embody the truth in toto and to able to dispense it. The Middle Ages were over and a new world was rising above the horizon.

The condemnation text quoted the apostle Paul: “Shun the man who introduces divisions, after a first and second admonition” (Titus 3:10). In the Middle Ages, excommunication was carried out with formulas and methods of impressive rigor. Luther himself admitted that excommunication was in keeping with Christian tradition and that he wanted to preserve it even in Protestantism.[33]

However, in 1518, he had written about the “power” of excommunication.[34] And now he experienced it himself, but only the disciplinary and external one, that is, the estrangement from the Church and from the sacraments; not the spiritual excommunication, which is from faith, love and hope in God: from this only sin removes us. And he quoted Rom 8:34, “Who will separate us from the love of Christ?”

Luther also spoke of an “unjust” excommunication: in such a case, one should not disavow by word or deed the cause for which one was excommunicated, as long as this can be done without committing sin. Justice and truth, which make us participants in the spiritual communion of the Church, cannot be abandoned for the sake of a disciplinary measure.

After half a millennium

After 500 years, today we cannot deny the role that Luther played. He was able to initiate a process of reform based on the Gospel of grace and divine mercy and on the call to conversion, from which, despite the dramatic outcomes, the Catholic Church was also able to benefit.[35] A historian, concluding his biography of Luther, has stated that the Church today can thank “the challenge of Wittenberg” for at least two reasons: it has helped her to rediscover and bring back the faith as it was in the first centuries, and it has contributed to freeing the Renaissance papacy from the worldliness in which it had become entangled.[36]

In 2011, Benedict XVI in Erfurt, in the former Augustinian monastery where Luther studied theology, meeting with representatives of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany, forcefully recalled the fundamental question that constituted “the driving force of the path” of the reformer: “How can I have a merciful God?”[37] He wished thus to recall the ecumenical commitment to the foundation of faith.[38]

On November 15, 2015, Pope Francis, in his visit to the Christuskirche in Rome, hoped that the “Catholic Church would courageously carry forward […] a careful and honest re-evaluation of the intentions of the Reformation and the figure of Martin Luther, in the sense of an Ecclesia semper reformanda, in the broad direction traced by the Councils, as well as by men and women, enlivened by the light and power of the Holy Spirit.”[39] He also stated that Luther “was a reformer. […] Perhaps some of his methods were not right, but […] the Church was not exactly a model to imitate: there was corruption, there was worldliness, there was attachment to money and power. And against this he protested.”[40]

Finally in Lund, on October 31, 2016, Francis gratefully acknowledged that “the Reformation helped give greater centrality to Sacred Scripture in the life of the Church” and noted that “Luther’s spiritual experience challenges us and reminds us that we can do nothing without God.”[41]

After five centuries of contrasts, controversies and even bloody wars, history now marks a new climate between Lutherans and Catholics.[42] Above all, there is a common awareness that the division among Christians is a very serious scandal and an obstacle that prevents the proclamation of the Gospel.[43] Ecumenical meetings are opening the way to a rapprochement between the different confessions, as well as to a mutual enrichment in the search for truth, that truth which is Christ: in the priestly prayer, he asks for his disciples and for future disciples “that they may all be one” (John 17:11, 21, 22, 23). Being “one” is the glorification of the Father, which reveals God’s holiness and makes us brothers.

DOI: La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 5, no. 3 art. 4, 1020: 10.32009/22072446.0321.4

[1].      Cf. P. Fabisch – E. Iserloh (edd. ), Dokumente zur Causa Lutheri (1517-1521). II. Vom Augsburger Reichstag 1518 bis zum Wormser Edikt 1521, Münster, Aschendorff, 1991, 456-467.

[2].      On the anniversary of Luther’s excommunication, the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church published a new, updated Italian version of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. In addition to the signatures of Pastor Martin Junge (General Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation) and Cardinal Kurt Koch (President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity), it is signed by Bishop Ivan M. Abrahams (General Secretary of the World Methodist Council), Archbishop Josiah Idowu-Fearon (General Secretary of the Anglican Communion) and Pastor Chris Ferguson (General Secretary of the World Communion of Reformed Churches). This is a step forward together on the ecumenical journey “from conflict to communion.”

[3].      Cf. J. J. Arrieta (ed), Codice di Diritto canonico e leggi complementari, Rome, Coletti, 2018, 903, note to Title VI, “The Termination of Penalties”: “The death of the reus extinguishes the effects of all penalties.”

[4].      Cf. G. Pani, “The posting of Luther’s 95 Theses: history or legend?”, in Civ. Catt. En. Edition, 2017.

[5].      Cf. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar, H. Böhlaus, from 1883 onward (= WA), Briefe, 1, 110-112.

[6].      “Strepitus Indulgentiarum”, ibid., 111, 44.

[7].      Cf. W. Friedensburg, Geschichte der Universität Wittenberg, Halle a. S., Niemeyer, 1917. From the volume it appears that the janitor, and not the professor, had the task of posting at the church door the theses to be debated in the university (cf. ibid., 30).

[8].      Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute: WA 1, 530, 10-12.

[9].      Cf. V. Reinhardt, Lutero l’eretico. La Riforma protestante vista da Roma, Venice, Marsilio, 2017, 83f.

[10].    P. S. – H. M. Allen, Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, III, Oxford, Clarendon, 1913, 409, 16.

[11].    V. Reinhardt, Lutero l’eretico…, op. cit., 84.

[12].    C. Mirbt – K. Aland, Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums und des Römischen Katholizismus. I. Von den Anfängen bis zum Tridentinum, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1967, 503.

[13].    Hoc enim est novam ecclesiam construere: cf. K. V. Selge, “ La Chiesa in Lutero”, in K. V. Selge – G. Chantraine – A. Bellini, Martin Luther, Milan, Vita e Pensiero, 1984, 31, note 30.

[14].    Cf. Gal 2:11-14; Acts 15. We know the events both from the cardinal’s diaries and from the Acta augustana, which Luther published, followed by the Appellatio M. Lutheri a Caietano ad Papam, WA 2, 6-33.

[15].    Cf. Appellatio F. Martini Luther ad Concilium, WA 2, 36-40.

[16].    P. Fabisch – E. Iserloh (eds), Dokumente zur Causa Lutheri…, op. cit., 134.

[17].    Ibid., 364.

[18].    Ibid., 368; cf. G. Miegge, Lutero. L’uomo e il pensiero fino alla Dieta di Worms (1483-1521), Turin, Claudiana, 20085 (or. 1946), 391-397.

[19].    These are the three great works of 1520. Since the pope and the bishops were unable to reform the Church, Luther turned, in German, to the nobility of the nation, that is, the prominent laity, to come to the aid of renewal. The text, To the Nobility of the German Nation, on the amendment of Christian society, was published in August 1520. The second work, in Latin, De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae. Praeludium Martini Lutherii, deals with the sacraments, which hold the Church captive, while they should be the guarantee of its freedom. Luther rejects the sacraments that, according to him, have no basis in Scripture, leaving the Eucharist, baptism and penance. The third work is The Freedom of the Christian, in Latin and German, on the freedom that Christ has purchased and given to the believer.

[20].    V. Reinhardt, Lutero l’eretico…, op. cit., 164.

[21].    WA 7, 833.8-15.

[22].    WA 7, 834.3-5.

[23].    Ibid., 19-23.

[24].    WA 7, 837.7-838.24 (the text is taken from the report of Nuncio G. Aleandro). For the episode, see G. Miegge, Lutero…, op. cit., 451-455.

[25].    WA 7, 838.4-9. The sentence “Ich kan nichts anderts, hi stehe ich” (“Here I stand, I can do no other”) is found in the critical edition and is cited in one of the earliest printed accounts; however, it is a later, though early, addition. Cf. G. Dall’Olio, Martin Lutero, Rome, Carocci, 2013, 93f.

[26].    For the “Catholic Confession of Charles V,” see R. García-Villoslada, Martin Lutero. Il frate assetato di Dio, Milan, IPL, 1985, 773.

[27].    Although everything seemed to be over, the members of the Diet tried for a good week to come to an agreement, to leave no stone unturned: an agreement that turned out to be impossible.

[28].    P. Fabisch – E. Iserloh (eds), Dokumente zur Causa Lutheri…, op. cit., 534.

[29].    Ibid., 523.

[30].    Ibid., 537.

[31].    V. Reinhardt, Lutero l’eretico…, op. cit., 171.

[32].    S. Nitti, Lutero, Rome, Salerno ed., 2017, 207. Cf. A. Prosperi, Lutero. Gli anni della fede e della libertà, Milan, Mondadori, 2017, 460.

[33].    Cf. WA Briefe 6, 564: this was the practice against blasphemers in use in Wittenberg in 1533.

[34].    Cf. Sermo de virtute excommunicationis, WA 1, 638-643. Cf. G. Miegge, Lutero…, op. cit., 234f.

[35].    Cf. W. Kasper, Martin Lutero. Una prospettiva ecumenica, Brescia, Queriniana, 2016, 71.

[36].    Cf. H. Schilling, Martin Lutero. Ribelle in un’epoca di cambiamenti radicali, Turin, Claudiana, 2016, 8.

[37].    Benedict XVI, Address in the chapter house of the former Augustinian monastery, Erfurt, September 23, 2011.

[38].    Pope Benedict, already greatly affected by the crisis of faith in the West, was even more impressed by the disappearance of faith in lands that had been Lutheran.

[39]      . www.vatican.va/ November 15, 2015.

[40].    Ibid., June 26, 2016.

[41].    Ibid., October 31, 2016.

[42].    Cf. the 1999 Joint Statement on the Doctrine of Justification and the 2014 document From Conflict to Communion.

[43].    Cf. the Concordia di Leuenberg of 1973; W. Kasper, Martin Lutero…, op. cit., 63-73