#6

The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.

The first part of this thesis is pretty clear, but the middle (what almost seems as a partial redaction) is confusing. What does Luther mean here? What are these cases that allow the pope to remit guilt? I’m not quite sure, Luther is clearly not talking about sin, but guilt, literally (contemptis culpa) “the disdain for the crime.”

I partly think that this has to do with the Christian world-view dominant at the time. In the 1500’s there were deeds that were good and deeds that were bad; if people did bad things there was an understanding as to what type of actions they had done. To put it in other words, the codified morals of the Bible allowed the people to have a common moral reference with which to both be judged and to judge themselves. If they realized their transgression they were also taught the proper response was to react to it with contempt. The false placation of this disdain prevents true repentance, a dangerous tool of deception.

#5
The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.

Simply put, Luther is cutting to bone many practices of the catholic church. This is not simply the practice of selling indulgences but the whole usurpation of Christ’s role as mediator (1 Tim 2:5) and judge (2 Tim 4:1) and it’s replacement with the Pope.

Luther grants the pope his purview, but that purview does not include things explicitly granted in the Bible to Christ. While this is the beginning of his objections to many of the Pope’s practices, Luther is still loyal to the structure. Luther later on would drift further from this initial support of the Catholic church, but this is a gradual development from this initial thesis.

Peace.

More reading:
Johann Tetzel
Indulgences
Pope Leo X