From
Myths & Facts Re: Tetzel & Indulgences —
An indulgence is a remission of the temporal penalties of sin, and as such lies within the gift of the Church according to Scripture, the ability to 'bind and loose' (Matthew 18:18; John 20:23). Paul does just that (2 Corinthians 2:6-11; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5).
The Council of Trent, following the Fourth Lateran (1215), Lyons (1245 and 1274) and Vienne (1311-12), condemned "the wicked abuse of quaestors of alms" and prohibited the selling of indulgences, thus pre-dating Luther on this point, while retaining the orthodox doctrine itself as valid.
Whether Tetzel was a bad man, or just somewhat excessive, or a poor theologian, we don't know, but certainly his sales pitch went beyond orthodox teaching.
Luther's plaintive cry:
"Why doesn’t the pope build the basilica of St. Peter out of his own money? He is richer than Croesus. He would do better to sell St. Peter’s and give the money to the poor folk who are being fleeced by the hawkers of indulgences. If the pope knew the exactions of these vendors, he would rather that St. Peter’s should lie in ashes than that it should be built out of the blood and hide of his sheep."
Is somewhat disingenuous. Luther was not himself altogether correct in matters of money and property, later rationalising his position:
"If they are not the church but the devil’s whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property."
That he chose to live in a former convent, rather than sell it and distribute the money, speaks for itself.
Tetzel’s teaching regarding indulgences for the living was orthodox, but his teaching (and emotional arm-twisting) on the dead was not, and he was condemned by Cardinal Cajetan, the same cardinal who challenged Luther.
Luther might well have been annoyed at indulgences, but his theses went well beyond that — including scurrilous attacks on Tetzel's character. Nor, now that Luther's diaries are in the public domain, is he proof against the accusation of hypocrisy regarding immorality in the Church and the clergy ... suffice to say that he was up there with the worst of them!
Within a couple of years Luther’s focus had shifted to questions of church authority
per se, his view of indulgences was shaped by a rather pessimistic and fatalistic far-right-of-Augustine theology. (In my opinion. I do not take to the idea that man can do nothing towards his own salvation, nor do I much like his very unfavourable view of human nature and its absolutely fallen state, but taking his own failings into account, I suppose that's hardly surprising.) By then Tetzel was on his deathbed. Luther wrote a letter of consolation to his former adversary that the debate over indulgences was never directed at him personally.
The counter to Catholic dogma, particularly the stuff added on during the Holy Roman Empire period, began as an intellectual challenge...by all accounts. The Church, being in position of unquestionable authority, simply threw its weight around, often successfully...John Huss is but one of MANY executed with the full knowledge and complete endorsement of the Vatican (and it wasn't for witchcraft). Luther, perhaps because he was an insider, perhaps because of his early scholastic training as a lawyer, perhaps because he had ingratiated himself to at least one noble Prince (and no doubt countless others, many of whom were intellectuals from the University he taught at), or likely some fortuitous combination of these things, was able to successfully expose and counter the superfluous teachings rampant in the Church at that time.
