Talk:Johann Tetzel

Bias
This article had monstrous amounts of bias within it. Not only was it bordering on non-factual, it seems to have been written with no regard towards Catholic doctrine, or, for that matter, Tetzel's own teachings.

I was forced to delete numerous amount of material from this article. I do not feel that Wikipedia can afford to have that heavy of an offensive bias within it.

Please, I beg of you, write some quality, no nbiased material for this article if you come across it. I can not fix it all and maintain a high level of quality by myself. Chuximus 4/5/05


 * This is not the Catholic encyclopedia, so articles do not have to follow Catholic doctrine at all. It is important in the history of protestantism. No book discusses the origin of Martin Luther's motivation to write his 95 theses and launce the Protestant Reformation without discussing the sale of indulgences by Tetzel. An article can always benefit from the intriduction of good scholarly reference, of which there are loads. Edison 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While articles don't have to follow Catholic doctrine or Tetzel's teaching, they should not misrepresent it. The Catholic Encyclopedia, which appears twice as a source for this article, disputes several details of this article as common myth and presents supporting evidence (including books which discuss the Reformation without claiming that Tetzel sold indulgences). Perhaps the historical controversy should be acknowledged. Evenprimes2 (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision?
c.1465–1519, German preacher, b. Pirna, Germany. He joined the Dominicans. He became a well-known preacher and was made inquisitor general of Poland at the instance of Cajetan. Preacher and salesman of papal indulgences, the son of Hans Tetzel, a goldsmith of Leipzig, was born there in 1465. He matriculated at the university in 1482, graduated B.A. in 1487, and in 1489 entered the Dominican convent at Leipzig. He early discovered his vocation as a preacher of indulgences; he combined the elocutionary gifts of a revivalist orator with the shrewdness of an auctioneer. He painted in lurid colors the terrors of purgatory, while he dwelt on the cheapness of the indulgence which would purchase remission and his prices were lowered as each sale approached its end. He began in 1502 in the service of the Cardinal-legate Raymond Peraudi; and in the next few years he visited Freiberg (where he extracted 2000 gulden in two days), Dresden, Pirna, Leipzig, Zwickau and Görlitz. Later on he was at Nuremherg, Ulm and Innsbruck, where he is said to have been condemned to imprisonment for adultery, but released at the intercession of the elector of Saxony. This charge is denied by his apologists; and though his methods were attacked by good Catholics like Johann Hass, he was elected prior of the Dominicans in Glogau in 1505.

In 1503 he preached an indulgence mission for the Teutonic Knights and in 1506 another along the Rhine. In 1517 his promotion of the indulgence for the erection of St. Peter’s Church aroused the indignation of Martin Luther, whose theses were in part promoted by Tetzel’s preaching. Fresh scope was given to his activity by archbishop Albrecht of Mainz. Albrecht had been elected at the age of twenty-four to a see already impoverished by frequent successions and payments of annates to Rome. He had agreed with Pope Leo X to pay his first-fruits in cash, on condition that he were allowed to recoup himself by the sale of indulgences. Half the proceeds in his province were to go to him, half to Leo X for building the basilica of St. Peter's at Rome. Tetzel was selected as the most efficient salesman; he was appointed general sub-commissioner for indulgences, and was accompanied by a clerk of the Fuggers from whom Albrecht had borrowed the money to pay his first-fruits. Tetzel's efforts irretrievably damaged the complicated and abstruse Catholic doctrine on the subject of indulgences; as soon as the coin clinks in the chest, he cried, the soul is freed from purgatory. in June he was at Magdeburg, Halle and Naumburg; the elector of Saxony excluded him from his dominions, but Albrecht's brother, the elector Joachim of Brandenburg, encouraged him at Berlin in the hope of sharing the spoils, and by the connivance of Duke George of Saxony he was permitted to pursue his operations within a few miles of the electoral territory at Wittenberg. Martin Luther was thus roused to publish his momentous ninety-five theses on the subject of indulgences on October 31, 1517.

Even Albrecht was shamed by Luther's attack, but he could not afford to relinquish his profits already pledged for the repayment of his debts; and Tetzel was encouraged to defend himself and indulgences. Through the influence of Conrad Wimpina, rector of Frankfurt, Tetzel was granted a Dr. of Theology of that university, and with Wimpina's assistance he drew up, in January 1518, a hundred and six theses in answer to Luther's, and their dispute became famous throughout Germany. But the storm overwhelmed him: sober Catholics felt that his vulgar extravagances had prejudiced Catholic doctrine, and Miltitz, who was sent from Rome to deal with the situation, administered to him a severe castigation. Tetzel soon retired in bad health to his monastery at Leipzig, where he was overwhelmed by the attacks of his enemies and the censures of the papal legate. Tetzel has been greatly overrated in importance. He had no thought of personal gain from his preaching of the indulgence. His teaching on indulgences was not in accord with the doctrine of the church; the sine qua non in gaining an indulgence is to feel contrition for all sins, but Tetzel did not require that for indulgences gained on behalf of the dead, only for those gained for oneself. He died at monastery at Leipzig in 1519, just as Luther was beginning his famous disputation with Johann Eck

Johann Tetzel

"When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."

Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar, was the Pope's master salesman. Tetzel traveled from village to village with a brass-bound chest, a bag of printed receipts and an enormous cross draped with the papal banner. His entrance into the town square, with the papal bull announcing the indulgence on a velvet cushion, was heralded with bells, candles, flags and relics. Staging his show in the nave of the local church, Tetzel would announce, "I have here the passports...to lead the human soul to the celestial joys of paradise. The Holy Father [the Pope] has the power in heaven and earth to forgive sin, and if he forgives it, God must do so also." The cost of the indulgence, Tetzel was quick to point out, was cheap when the alternatives were taken into account. Among the demons and tempests in the medieval world, the indulgence, no matter the price, offered a glimpse of light in a world of darkness. In Germany, Tetzel exceeded his quota, as he always did. Indulgences were most popular among the peasants, yet it also hit them the hardest; they had the least money to spare. Tetzel's indulgence-selling campaign led Martin Luther to act on the frustrations that were consuming his thoughts. When Luther posted his "Ninety-Five Theses," the sales of indulgences dropped considerably. Tetzel, like Pope Leo, underestimated the power the monk from Wittenberg.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

"As soon a coin in the bowl rings, a soul from purgatory springs."
I find the fact that he used the above statement, because it rhymes to well in the English to be a translation of the German - unless possibly if it is a selective translation. Also why is its use described as "using the catchy line". It makes it sound like a jingle. And it takes away from the merit of the article. Chooserr 21:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) It is a translation from Deutsch my friend. The English translation rhymes and is catchier. Get over yourself.


 * Tetzel was a marketing genius. His little rhyme was intended to pry coins from pockets. There is also a surving sermon where he goes on asking how a man could let his dear mother remain one day longer in purgatory that she had to. As for he similarity, the English language is derived in large part from German, so it is no surprise that the same words are in both languages with slightly different spelling. Per Online Etymology dictionary, "spring (v.) O.E. springan "to leap, burst forth, fly up" (class III strong verb; past tense sprang, pp. sprungen), from P.Gmc. *sprenganan (cf. O.N., O.Fris. springa, M.Du. springhen, O.H.G. springan, Ger. springen). Edison 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

According to de.wikipedia, the original was "Sobald der Gülden im Becken klingt im huy die Seel im Himmel springt", normally known today in a modern version "Sobald das Geld im Kasten klingt, die Seele (aus dem Fegefeuer) in den Himmel springt!" which introduces the purgatory (in parentheses) and is, using that phrasing, practically a direct translation of the English phrasing used here. --84.60.121.105 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An indulgence, 1517
I restored the fact tag on the translation. I don't think 'all saints' is correct - it's probably 'In the name of the All Holy' - i.e. of God, which is much better theology whether you're Catholic or not. -- BPMullins | Talk 00:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aller is plural. The concept of "All" in the singular sense is expressed by the word ganz. Aller Heiligen means "all the holy ones," i.e. "all the saints." Fishal 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I had just enough German to know that aller is plural, but an indulgence in the name of all the saints seemed remarkable. I had the thought that the plural waa an intensifier similar to the use of elohim in Genesis for God. That said, if you're confident of the translation, please pull the tag for me. Cheers, -- BPMullins | Talk 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. Fishal 20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

authenticity of image bearing the name Tietzel?
The image purported to be that of an indulgence signed by Tetzel, is signed "Tietzel", not Tetzel. Knowing nothing in particular about whether Tetzel was known to have used both spellings, I searched the Internet and found no direct support for that possibility, other than a single reference to (apparently; my screen displayed no corresponding image) an image acknowledging the same (variant? mis-? fake?) spelling. To me, absent a discussion with references about the Tietzel spelling, the image's authenticity is doubtful and should perhaps be omitted from Wikipedia. However, I am not well versed in Wikipedia's approach to authentication as a prerequisite for inclusion of images. Anybody have any thoughts or information about this? Publius3 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've learned a bit more about the spelling of Tetzel's name. The tail end of the German Wikipedia article about him includes amongst its external references, an old (Fraktur) collection --now digitized-- of short biographies of Germans, that includes an entry for Tetzel. It mentions 3 variant spellings of his name directly. None happens to be Tietzel. Also says "u a m" which I suppose may be an abbreviation for "und auch mehrere" (and also more...); just guessing, don't know German abbreviations beyond 'usw'.

Also, it cites two spellings for his father's name, both beginning with D rather than T. Again, neither is Tietzel, but the latter of the two is Dietze (with no "l"). All of which suggests that the name we render today as Tetzel was rendered in the past in quite a few different ways. Does not really address how Tetzel himself was known to have signed his own name...or whether he would have even written all the indulgences himself, versus having some/all of them written by other monks. Publius3 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The name form is really not the main problem. There are other reasons to suspect this is a modern fake (or joke). The whole language, orthography and (if I'm not mistaken) penmanship is essentially modern. See for discussion. I'm removing it for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cite Error
The page currently displays the following error message: "Cite error: There are tags on this page, but the references will not show without a tag." However, since I am not sure what this refers to, I do not know how to fix it. So I leave it to other, more experienced editors. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonstopdrivel (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tetzel's "real teaching"
I just removed the following text from the article.


 * This saying, however, is a misrepresentation of Tetzel's teaching. Tetzel's true teaching and intention can be seen in his One Hundred and Six Theses, a set of "Anti-theses" drawn up by his friend and former Professor, Konrad Wimpina in reply to the Ninety-Five Theses of Luther. Numbers 55 & 56 of Tetzel's Theses read:
 * "For a soul to fly out, is for it to obtain the vision of God, which can be hindered by no interruption, therefore he errs who says that the soul cannot fly out before the coin can jingle in the bottom of the chest."


 * Tetzel clearly offers no assurance that once the money is given the effect will follow, but only that, "when the effect does follow, it will be sudden and complete in its accomplishment.”

I feel it is incorrect to state what Tetzel's teaching before the 95 Theses was on the basis of a source published after the theses.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source, other than Luther's misunderstood version of Tetzel's teaching? Delta x (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bainton, "Here I Stand", page 59-61. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bainton does not give what Tetzel actually said, whereas I did. And I give both the English and the Latin - and from Protestant sources at that! Therefore, I believe my edit is quite valid and ought to be reinstated. Delta x (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You give what you say is evidence of what he said after the abuses were brought to the fore. That is not evidence of what he taught beforehand. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have found no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Tetzel ever changed any of his teachings after Luther complained (see his Thesis no. 54 for example)! The sad fact of the matter however, is that there is  considerable evidence that Luther, unfortunately, often misunderstood and even misrepresented Catholic teaching. Delta x (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by SarekOfVulcan: I believe that claiming he didn't teach "when the coin into the coffer rings..." before Luther's 95 Theses on the basis of a source published in response to the 95 Theses is inappropriate.--16:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint by (Delta x): I believe there is no evidence that Tetzel ever changed his teaching (to any significant degree) after Luther’s protest, but instead, (and I had preferred not to go into all this), Luther in all probability misrepresented what Tetzel taught. See this and also Fr. Hartmann Grisar's  6 volume work on Luther, wherein he documents many examples of Luther's dishonesty. In volume 4 see: Luther and Lying, pages 80-178, and note particularly the section: Slanders on Catholicism: Some Leading Slanders on the Medieval Church Historically Considered, pages 116-131.  And see also (just about anywhere) Luther and Lutherdom by Heinrich Denifle

Can you provide evidence of what was taught beforehand?  D u s t i *poke* 23:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Questions from Dusti:


 * This seems a good summary: http://books.google.com/books?id=hH6nI6Q6qBIC&pg=PA183&dq=tetzel+indulgence&hl=en&ei=B-4wTezkDoa8lQfdtbneCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=tetzel%20indulgence&f=false. Page 182 and following treat on the subject. It doesn't show Tetzel using the phrase in question, but it quotes him as saying things like "Have mercy upon your dead parents" and "Whoever has an indulgence has salvation". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me cite a passage from The Messenger, Volume 38, 1902, p. 660:
 * “It is sometimes maintained that, after Luther's attack, Tetzel was more cautious in his statements, and that therefore his writings do not represent his previous teaching. If this had been the case, Luther could have answered at once: ‘That's not what you taught before.’ On the contrary, he answers by reviling these compositions.” Delta x (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would not say that Tetzel wasn't given to exaggeration; he seems to have been. But again, let me quote from "The Messenger," pp. 662-663:

What did Tetzel teach on indulgences for the dead? From his own writings it seems certain that he held these two opinions: First, in order to gain a plenary indulgence for a soul in purgatory, it is not necessary to be in the state of grace; it is enough to give the alms; and secondly, such indulgences are applied infallibly to the particular soul for whom they have been obtained. Both opinions were defended in his day, and later by eminent theologians; both of them are still held by many as more probable than the opposite opinions, but they are not certain; and Tetzel made the mistake of preaching them to the people as if they were certain. In his theses he goes so far as to call the first opinion a "Christian dogma." (35)

The second proposition is found in the theses and in his "Vorlegung." It is thus expressed in one of the model sermons generally ascribed to Tetzel himself: "Hear ye not the voices of your parents and the other souls calling out: Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, for the hand of the Lord hath touched me. We are suffering the most dreadful pains and tortures, from which you can release us by a little alms . . . you can deliver us so easily, and you will not." (36) Many of Tetzel's contemporaries objected to these opinions, none more earnestly than Cajetan, the General of the Dominicans, who protests that if preachers exaggerate in this way they ''do not represent the doctrine of Christ and the Church.

Whether or not Tetzel used the well-known rhyme about the soul leaving Purgatory as soon as the money jingled in the box, it is simply the vulgar expression of his teaching in regard to the indulgence for the dead, and on this point he can hardly be excused. (see Luther's Theses no. 27)


 * So yes, Tetzel was given to some unwarranted exaggerations as well as to holding as defined doctrine that which was only the opinion of certain theologians. But Luther, who should have known better, nevertheless misrepresented Tetzel's exaggerations by portraying certain of them in his 95 Theses as though they were somehow the Church's official doctrine, which of course they were not. Another example of how Luther mislead is when he said the following (Thesis 75): "To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God — this is madness."


 * Such an allegation had nothing to do with what Tetzel or the Church ever taught: "Luther reported what he had heard about Tetzel. He quoted this ominous sentence in Thesis 75; in the Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses, however, he considered it to be a rumor that circulated among the people (WA 1, 622, 1; AE 31, 240-241). It is not to be found in the official sermons of Tetzel." Martin Luther: The Man and His Work, Walther von Loewenich, Augsburg Pub. House, 1986, p. 406.


 * Here is what Luther said in his Explanation of Thesis No. 75:

75: To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.

I am forced to call them foolish who hold such opinions, and we should beg pardon from the holy virgin because we are compelled to say and think such things, yet there is no way open to escape the necessity of saying them.

I do not know what diabolical work has caused the people to spread this rumor about papal indulgences everywhere or whether it has really been said by the people or only understood as such by them. Indeed, even if it were maintained by many men and by men of distinction that it has been preached in many places, nevertheless I myself should be surprised at it rather than believe it and consider that they must have heard falsely. Therefore in this thesis I do not wish to censure anyone who harangues the people, but only to warn the people who have begun to hold as opinions what, perhaps, no one has actually said. Whether they themselves have said it or not does not concern me until I am more convinced. Nevertheless, wherever that most wretched opinion may have originated, it must be damned and condemned. Still it would not be surprising that such an opinion is held by the people, since they hear how great and terrible sins are considered to be of the slightest consequence in the interest of magnifying the favors bestowed by indulgences. True and evangelical preaching is to magnify the sins as much as possible in order that man may develop fear of God and proper repentance. Finally, what is the benefit of sounding off with so many exaggerations, in the interests of that most worthless remission of punishments, in order to extol indulgences, while hardly mumbling in the interests of that most salutary wisdom of the cross? Indeed, why would this be harmful to the simple people who are used to evaluating the Word of God only in proportion to the gestures and pomp which are used in preaching it? While the gospel is expounded with no enthusiasm at all, indulgences are expounded with the greatest of pomp. This is done that the people may expect nothing from the gospel and everything from indulgences.

When they dare to shout that murder, robbery, lust of every sort, blasphemies against the virgin Mary and God are insignificant things which may be remitted by these indulgences, is it still surprising that they do not also shout that those lesser things reserved in the bull, In Coena Domini,123 are remitted? “The pope does not remit them.” Therefore watch carefully whether or not he remits, or at least remits with great difficulty, those things which are far more serious than these. Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses Luther's Works, Volume 31: Career of the Reformer I, Harold J. Grimm (Editor), Helmut T. Lehmann (Editor), Fortress Press; American Edition edition (1957), ISBN 0800603311 ISBN 9780800603311 Delta x (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a very difficult situation, as it involves teachings, etc. Wikipedia strives to maintain a balance of points of view, and therefore, each editor must maintain a neutral stance while editing. This article is great, and I actually enjoyed reading some of it and feel I've learned something myself, and assisting in this situation. While we strive to maintain accuracy and verifiability here, neither of you are able to provide a clear, concise, AND concrete evidence that proves the true intention of the text that was removed, showing me that the text that was removed was a matter of opinion. While opinions are allowed on Wikipedia, in this instance, they're controversial. The claim that Tetzel ever changed his teaching hasn't been proven with facts, and my opinion is that the information should be removed from the article. We can site books, we can site sections, etc. however, the bottom line is that I haven't been presented with concrete evidence that the teachings were ever ratified, changed, or re-formatted in any way. I have seen opinions, etc. but until there is a statement or factual evidence provided that Tetzel has in fact retracted his teachings and stated that he was changing them, or factual evidence of him doing so- we cannot report that he has changed them. I'll be around if further information is needed or provided. Thank you,  D u s t i *poke* 21:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Third opinion by Dusti:
 * That's not really the issue, though. I'm asserting that reliable sources say that he taught one thing (said assertion possibly being inaccurate, given reading I've done in response to your questions). DeltaX is asserting that reliable sources say he never taught that -- but his reliable sources were published in response to the 95 Theses, so I'm disputing that they prove that he never taught what Luther said he taught. If that makes sense. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dusti and Sarek, below is my proposed revision. Please let me know if you find it acceptable according to Wikipedia's standards. Thanks. Delta x (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Proposed revision by Delta x:
 * Very neutral.  D u s t i *poke* 06:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I can go with that. Thanks, Dusti. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Johann Tetzel (1465 in Pirna – 11 August 1519) was a Dominican preacher accused of selling indulgences and known for a couplet attributed to him:
 * "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs."

This oft-quoted saying was by no means representative of the official Catholic teaching on indulgences, but rather, more a reflection of Tetzel’s capacity to exaggerate. Yet if Tezel overstated the matter in regard to indulgences for the dead, his teaching on indulgences for the living was pure. German Catholic historian of the Papacy, Ludwig von Pastor explains:

Above all, a most clear distinction must be made between indulgences for the living and those for the dead.

As regards indulgences for the living, Tetzel always taught pure doctrine. The assertion that he put forward indulgences as being not only a remission of the temporal punishment of sin, but as a remission of its guilt, is as unfounded as is that other accusation against him, that he sold the forgiveness of sin for money, without even any mention of contrition and confession, or that, for payment, he absolved from sins which might be committed in the future. His teaching was, in fact, very definite, and quite in harmony with the theology of the Church, as it was then and as it is now, i.e., that indulgences "apply only to the temporal punishment due to sins which have been already repented of and confessed"....

The case was very different with indulgences for the dead. As regards these there is no doubt that Tetzel did, according to what he considered his authoritative instructions, proclaim as Christian doctrine that nothing but an offering of money was required to gain the indulgence for the dead, without there being any question of contrition or confession. He also taught, in accordance with the opinion then held, that an indulgence could be applied to any given soul with unfailing effect. Starting from this assumption, there is no doubt that his doctrine was virtually that of the drastic proverb:
 * “As soon as money in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory's fire springs."

The Papal Bull of indulgence gave no sanction whatever to this proposition. It was a vague scholastic opinion, rejected by the Sorbonne in 1482, and again in 1518, and certainly not a doctrine of the Church, which was thus improperly put forward as dogmatic truth. The first among the theologians of the Roman court, Cardinal Cajetan, was the enemy of all such extravagances, and declared emphatically that, even if theologians and preachers taught such opinions, no faith need be given them. "Preachers," said he, "speak in the name of the Church only so long as they proclaim the doctrine of Christ and His Church; but if, for purposes of their own, they teach that about which they know nothing, and which is only their own imagination, they must not be accepted as mouthpieces of the Church. No one must be surprised if such as these fall into error."

Couplet Language
Tetzel was working in Germany, so his "famous couplet" is almost certainly a later invention - true? I mean, it wouldn't rhyme so neatly in the original German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The German of the couplet:

Sobald das Geld im Kasten klingt, die Seele in den Himmel springt!

Let it be understood that I neither allege nor deny that Tetzel ever said or wrote such a thing. Putting up an unbiased yet thorough biography of Tetzel is going to be tough. There've been a lot of...well, let's call them misstatements, on both sides, so many that the truth is hard to discern. What is needed (as it seems to me) is for some serious scholar of the whole matter to fashion an article containing both facts and historic representations, clearly identifying which is which. Otherwise we're going to refight the Thirty Years' War here.

I would recommend one small change in the article as it stands-- "Dominican Friary" for "Dominican Monastery".

Veritas!

Mjhrynick (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johann Tetzel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080107160457/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Johann_Tetzel to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Johann_Tetzel

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

German
The article states that Tetzel was a "German Dominican friar" and was involved with "indulgences in Germany" - but Germany as a country did not exist at the time, not until the 19th century - perhaps German should be changed to Saxon - the identification of German is buried in an easter egg pipe, [Holy Roman Empire|German] - see WP:EASTEREGG and MOS:EGG - how should Tetzel's nationality be identified? - Epinoia (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)