Luther shouldn’t have been condemned as a heretic as a result of his teachings because his intent was a harmless discussion, he wanted to listen to the word of God, and he was willing to listen to his errors, all of which show that he wasn’t trying to go against the Catholic Church. First, Luther shouldn’t have been condemned as a heretic because he wanted to start a discussion about the Church and Bible, not a debate. In his second hearing at Worms, Luther states that “There are some in which I have dealt with piety in faith and morals with such simplicity and so agreeably with the Gospels that my adversaries themselves are compelled to admit them useful, harmless, and clearly worth reading by a Christian.” This means that even other people believed that his works were harmless and worth reading because his works were in agreement with the Bible. In addition, it shows that Luther wasn’t trying to go against the Church, he just wanted to share his views on faith in a harmless way. …show more content…
In his second hearing, Luther says “through the Pope’s laws and man-made teachings the consciences of the faithful have been most pitifully ensnared, troubled, and racked in torment.” This proves that he was attacking the corrupted Church’s teachings and practices that damaged faith, rather than the clergy itself. Furthermore, Luther says “they themselves by their own laws take care to provide that the Pope’s laws and doctrines are contrary to the Gospel or the teachings of the Fathers are to be considered as erroneous and reprobate.” His statement shows that the Church at that time cared more about the Pope’s laws rather than the teachings of the Bible. This justifies his teachings because he wanted to start a discussion and be proven wrong by the Bible, not the corrupt Church that damaged faith and put their laws above