What a Pardon Cannot Buy
If a paid indulgence removes only what the church itself demanded, what is left over that no money can reach? Lay readers needed to know before they spent anything.
Taking the scholastic scheme of penance as his opponents taught it, Luther shows that an indulgence lifts only the third part, satisfaction: the prayers, fasts and alms the church sets. Scripture, he says, knows no price God demands beyond true sorrow and a changed life, and the suffering God sends is meant to drive a sinner to repentance, not to be bought off. So the sermon ranks the choices plainly: a gift to a needy neighbour first, St Peter's afterwards, and indulgences left to lazy Christians.
- indulgences
- penance
- repentance
- good works
- charity
- religious giving
- poverty
- forgiveness
- divine grace
- divine punishment
- purgatory
- scholastic theology
Enter a dialogue
- Someone has a little money to give and two causes in view, the building of St Peter's and a needy neighbour. Why must the neighbour come first?
- You let lazy and sleepy Christians buy their indulgences rather than forbid them. Why tolerate something that, by your account, makes nobody better?
- God forgives sin freely, you insist, wanting nothing in return except a better life from then on. Where then did the idea of paying for sin come from?
- You admit you do not know whether indulgences free a single soul from purgatory. Why speak so firmly to lay readers while confessing that doubt?