# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S362
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

362 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

monishing the neighbor who sins, namely, that he “may improve”
(276, 278, 280, 281, 285).

B. Summary of the Paragraph

Several points emerge from a close reading of Luther’s “public
rebuke” paragraph: 1) the occasion of public rebuke is sin; 2) all,
including authorities, are aware of the sin; itis very public (ganz 6f-
fentlich); 3) given the demonstrably public nature of the sin, there
is no question of slander, injustice, or false witness; 4) the result
should be public punishment; and 5) the goal of such punishment
is the instruction of the community.

The example that Luther cites, which presumably conforms to
his criteria, is how the reformers “now censure the pope and his
teaching.” A consideration of the conflict between Luther and the
papacy, which by the time of the Large Catechism was more than
a decade old, will demonstrate the magnitude of the fault that might
lead to public rebuke. A review of the historical context will also
show that in this situation Luther followed the general principles
that he set forth in his explanation of the Eighth Commandment,
particularly the role of vocation in dealing with public sin.

C. Historical Issues
1. Luther’s Conflict with the Popes

In posting for debate the Ninety-five Theses, Martin Luther be-
gan what would become a lifelong conflict with the papacy in a way
perfectly consonant with his office and within the bounds of ac-
cepted procedure.> As a Doctor of Theology he had every right to
debate matters such as the sale of indulgences and also, as he con-
sidered it, the duty to warn the faithful. At the same time he posted
the theses, Luther sent letters about the matter to Archbishop Al-
brecht of Mainz, in whose name the indulgences were being pro-
claimed, and to his diocesan bishop Jerome Schulze of
Brandenburg. (These letters did not ask permission to hold the de-
bate but simply informed the recipients that it would be held.) The
discussion of indulgences almost immediately widened beyond
what Luther intended when printers distributed translated copies of
the theses without his authorization. In this atmosphere Luther con-
tinued to defend his ideas about indulgences, assuming that the pope
would agree with his criticisms.

Pope Leo X did not, of course, agree with Luther about indul-
gences. As Luther later reflected in 1545, he had been naive about
this issue that touched the pope’s purse. When Luther was de-
nounced to Rome, the papal court began its investigative process.
As part of this process, Luther dutifully met with the papal repre-
sentative Cardinal Cajetan in Augsburg in 1518. In the years fol-
lowing, Luther received the papal emissary Karl von Miltitz in
Wittenberg as he attempted to stave off a break between the reformer
and the pope. During this time, Luther also filed formal appeals: first
to the pope himself to look at the matter more closely and then two
separate appeals beyond the pope for a general council.

During the discussion with Cardinal Cajetan, Luther had ques-
tioned the authority of the pope, but he did not publicly declare that
only Scripture was authoritative until the Leipzig Debate in July
1519. There Johann Eck forced Luther to admit that popes and coun-
cils could and had erred and that Scripture alone was authoritative
for the Christian. The public announcement was new, but the idea
had been there for some time. Luther’s frustration in discussions
with papal representatives had been that they could not refute his
position from Scripture but only from papal authority. The treatises
Luther penned in the year following Leipzig show that his first al-
legiance was to the authority of Scripture and not to papal author-
ity. Nevertheless, he was still concerned for proper authority, which
is demonstrated in the fact that Staupitz released him from his
monastic vows so that there could be no compulsion from Augus-
tinian superiors to recant.

2007 Convention Workbook

Pope Leo’s excommunication of Luther, which became official
in January 1521, came after three years of debate between Luther
and his colleagues and representatives of Rome. The debate was
carried on in person and in writing. Thus Luther was constantly in-
formed about the papal position on the issues he had raised, and had
this position confirmed over and over again. Luther also partici-
pated in debate with the conviction that his office compelled him to
do so. He often emphasized that it was his duty as a doctor of the
church to promote and defend the Gospel, for example in this pas-
sage from “Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers” (1532).

[have often said and still say, I would not exchange my doctor’s degree
for all the world’s gold. For I would surely in the long run lose courage
and fall into despair if, as these infiltrators, I had undertaken these great
and serious matters without call or commission. But God and the whole
world bears [sic] me testimony that I entered into this work publicly and
by virtue of my office as teacher and preacher, and have carried it on
hitherto by the grace and help of God.®

Moreover, Luther’s ultimate concern was not proper authority
or abuses in the church, as important as those issues might have
been, but the’ pastoral care and proper teaching of God’s people.

2. Luther’s Pastoral Concern

Luther’s criticism of the papacy was not only, or even primar-
ily, a question of authority. At the heart of his criticism from his
earliest years at Wittenberg to his final denunciations against Rome
was the conviction that the pope was not fulfilling his pastoral du-
ties. Simply put, the popes not only failed to proclaim the Gospel
themselves but also actively prevented others from doing so. As
Scott Hendrix has demonstrated, Luther’s understanding of his own
pastoral duty in light of the pope’s failure to do his duty pastorally
lends a unity to the reformer’s works.

The motivation which inspired Luther’s rejection of the papacy from

beginning to end was summed up by Philipp Melanchthon in 1521, when

he attributed the Ninety-five Theses to Luther’s intention to “exercise the
duty of a good pastor.” That duty was to protect the people from the de-
ception fostered by the indulgence practice and, later, by the accumu-
lated traditions of the papacy. The devotion to that duty caused Luther
to persist in his rejection of the papacy to the end of his life and ac-
counted for his amazing single-mindedness in other matters -as well.

What appears as inconsistency or stubbornness often falls into a sensi-

ble pattern if one views it from the angle of what Luther regarded as nec-

essary for the people’s instruction.’

Luther’s desire to protect the people was clear in the beginning
of the indulgence controversy. It was only after Wittenbergers had
heard Johann Tetzel’s preaching and purchased indulgences in
neighboring territories that Luther spoke out on the matter. As the
conflict with the papacy intensified, Luther’s concern broadened to
embrace the proper teaching of the flock in the basics of the Chris-
tian faith.

Luther was convinced that all Christians should be theodidacti
(“taught of God”). Theology was not a matter only for the learned
but a matter of life and death for all God’s people.

Besides, if we are all priests, as was said above, and all have one faith,

one gospel, one sacrament, why should we not also have the power to

test and judge what is right or wrong in matters of faith? What becomes
of Paul’s words in I Corinthians 2 [:15], “A spiritual man judges all things,
yet he is judged by no one’? And If Corinthians 4 [:13], “We all have
one spirit of faith’? Why, then, should not we perceive what is consis-
tent with faith and what is not, just as well as an unbelieving pope does?®

Papal false teaching had to be publicly opposed precisely be-
cause it had been “shouted throughout the world” and was widely
believed. Many of Luther’s opponents criticized him for making
theological matters public and thus opening them to the laity. Eras-
mus, for example, in a letter addressed to Luther’s colleague Justus
Jonas but intended for wider circulation, blamed Luther for “‘mak-
ing everything public and giving even cobblers a share in what is
normally handled by scholars as mysteries reserved for the initi-