That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope Benedict

Times Online ^ | 03/2008 | Richard Owen in Rome

[SeekAndFind]

Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.

Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Schülerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July's papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches”.

The move to re-evaluate Luther is part of a drive to soften Pope Benedict's image as an arch conservative hardliner as he approaches the third anniversary of his election next month. This week it emerged that the Vatican is planning to erect a statue of Galileo, who also faced a heresy trial, to mark the 400th anniversary next year of his discovery of the telescope.

[SeekAndFind]

I personally do not know how many Ex-Cathedra pronouncements there are. Many prominent Roman Catholics do not know either.

The Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn says there are only................... TWO.

Tim Staples, Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers, says there are..... FOUR and maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are......... EIGHTEEN (but he is not sure about four of them.)

The even more famous theologian and Medievalist, Ludwig Ott says there are...................................... SIXTY.

What Pope Benedict should do is clear up the debate once and for all. For the sake of Catholics and everybody else.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK, no prob. (Suppressing the temptation to grin and wink.)

There are different sources of infallibility. For instance:

• Natural reason can tell us two things infallibly about God, but not much more than this:
  • That God exists (as the uncaused Cause)and
  • That He is supremely powerful and supremely intelligent (since He designed and brought into being all that is.)

• Supernatural Revelation:
  • The Church: Scripture (the Canon), the Church was empowered by the Holy Spirit, over a period of time, to reach certain conclusions about which of the whole collection of ancient and highly-regarded writings could be affirmed as canonical. There was a certain amount of sorting --- Book of Malachi (yes), Book of Enoch (no), Gospel of Luke (yes), Gospel of Thomas (No) etc. As with most questions, it was pretty much settled in practice before it was proclaimed as an official "list".

  • The Church: Scripture (Intepretation), Sacred Scripture teaches us many infallible things (way too many to list here.) This evokes the question "Who interprets?" and that leads to three levels of teaching authority.
    • Ordinary and Universal Magisterium: what all the Apostles and their successors, though scattered around the world, have always taught. This would include, e.g. the Apostles' Creed.
    • The Extraordinary Magisterium (Conciliar) what was determined by particular Councils called to resolve particular disputed questions. The first example of that would be the Council of Jerusalem; they came up with a list (“that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood”); and other early Councils came up with doctrinal lists, e.g. the Nicene Creed;
    • The Extraordinary Magisterium (Papal)what the Pope definitively ruled on a question of faith and morals.
  That last one is by far the rarest, and was only, to my knowledge, invoked 4 times in the past 200 years, to define: (1)Papal infallibility itself; (2)the Immaculate Conception of Mary; (3)the Assumption of Mary; and (4) the ministerial priesthood, as a ministry open to men only.

You can see that the vast bulk of infallible doctrines come from the canonical Scriptures --- preeminently what was given by Christ Our Lord Himself --- and their authoritative interpretation by the Church (“Whoever hears you, hears Me.”)

Various people have tried to make great BIG lists, and one of the most interesting to you might be the list made by Ludwig Ott in his “Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine” (1952), a marvelously concise 520-page one-volume summary.

[Here’s where I’m really grinning and winking: it’s more concise, anyhow, than the 12 volumes of “The Fundamentals” published by Protestant Fundamentalists approx. 100 years ago. :o)]

You’d think it would all be written down,with bullet points and in searchable electronic form, preferably --- that would be most satisfactory to a person like me ---- but (sigh) I must admit it's not. Think of the incomparably precious things Jesus Christ Himself gave us directly: the vast majority of it was NOT reduced to a definitive list:

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

Amen.

[CTrent1564]

Mrs. Don-0:

Very good post. what it shows is that Theologians have latitude in theological opinion as long as it does not contradict any defined Doctrines/Dogmas. So what Papal statements are “infallible” is ultimately only infallible when Rome “says they are infallible”. Individual Theologians may have differences of opinion among themselves on those Papal Statements that the Bishop of Rome has issued a formal documents but He Himself has not invoked the charism of Papal Infalliblity with respect to said Papal documents.

If you read Pope Benedict’s “Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones For a Fundamental Theology”, published by Ignatius Press, you will see that in fact gave Luther a fair hearing in that work pointing out where Luther’s crticisms were valid where he went beyond Apostolic Tradition.

[mlizzy]

Tom O'Toole's latest on Luther (and Corapi) for anyone interested.

[SeekAndFind]

I personally do not know how many Infallible Ex-Cathedra pronouncements there are. Many prominent Roman Catholics do not know either.

The Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn says there are only................... TWO.

Tim Staples, Director of Apologetics and Evangelization at Catholic Answers, says there are..... FOUR and maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr. Leslie Rumble says there are......... EIGHTEEN (but he is not sure about four of them.)

The even more famous theologian and Medievalist, Ludwig Ott says there are...................................... SIXTY.

What Pope Benedict should do is clear up the debate once and for all. For the sake of Catholics and everybody else.

[Campion]

Perhaps to clear up the misconception, you could direct us to a definitive list of infallible papal statements and teachings?

Why would a definitive list of infallible papal teachings be required to clear up the misconception that infallibility, which protects only teachings (and only some of those) is the same thing as impeccability (sinlessness, which would include setting a perfect example in one's personal behavior, etc.)?

Understanding that one's teaching and one's personal behavior aren't the same thing is not rocket science. Our Lord mentions the concept in Scripture in relation to the Pharisees. I'm sure you're familiar with the passage.

Vatican I, in the decree Pastor Aeternus, set forth 4 conditions for a Papal statement to be infallible:

1. The Pope had to be speaking in his supreme Apostolic authority, not as, e.g., a private doctor or as the bishop of Rome.
2. The teaching had to be addressed to the whole church. A private letter, or a decree disciplining a specific individual, doesn't qualify.
3. The teaching had teach definitively, not speculatively, some proposition to be held firmly by all the faithful.
4. Finally, the subject of the teaching has to be a matter of faith or morals.

Beyond that, theologians can argue about which statements are and aren't infallible, but it's an academic argument unless and until the teaching changes. Infallible teachings don't, fallible ones might.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good morning there, SeeksandFind, and armydoc.

Armydoc, you could send the pope an e-mail to advise him on the needed clarification:

benedictxvi@vatican.va

(That's the Vatican Internet office.)

But I woudn't hold my breath waiting for an answer. Why? Because it's kind of a tickbite question. (Not insulting you or anybody else, just pointing out...) It's kind of like stipulating the length of the tassels on the phylacteries.

All that Christ teaches us through His Church --- the "Ordinary Magisterium" --- we should follow, and you can find it in admirably searchable form at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Link) --- yes,do click it and mouse around a while, it's hugely useful ---and in much more concise form at Luke 10:27 (Link) --- also well worth a mouseclick and a lifetime's pondering and obeying.

Bless the Lord, He always made short shrift of lawyers' questions.

The distinction between "infallible" and "noninfallible" is not at all analogous to "true" and "false." All that the Church teaches is true. The formally "infallible" stuff was, so to speak, underlined with a black felt-tip pen, not because it was "most important" or "most true," but because it was at the time a disputed question, and a Council or the Pope had to resolve the dispute.

That's why the Council of Jerusalem made that -- to us, perhaps, odd--- list of formal decisions:

Acts 15:28-30
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from fornication. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

(Scribal interjection: "Huh? That's it?")

So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter.

What's up with that? Were these the Most Important Commandments to be observed in Christianity? Was this the Most True Teaching ^TM of the Church?

Far from it. The matter was disputed, and it was causing controversy and dissention in the Church. So a ruling was made, by the Council, under the influence of the Holy SPirit. The Church still has this role: to settle disputes, not to needlessly drag in new burdens and requirements!!

So you want a list of "Really Important Stuff"? --- well, see above, "Links".

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oops, I just meant to send that the SeekandFind. Man, I need that coffee! But it's OK, you may both find something of interest.

[SeekAndFind]

Is it possible for a Pope to infallibly make a pronouncement to inform the faithful which statements of his predecessors meet all 4 conditions you outlined?

[Running On Empty]

Up to your usual good form, I see :-)

[Salvation]

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

[Running On Empty]

Thanks ! :-)

[Salvation]

Huh?

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's one thing I like about Martin Luther. Another thing that touches my heart, is his love for the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose perpetual virginity he defended, and whom he called, all his life, the Queen of Heaven.

"She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child! Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Theotokos [Mother of God].

"...It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God."

Martin Luther, Luther's Works, The American Edition, Pelikan & Lehmann, eds.,(Fortress Press, 1955-1986), Vol. 21, p.326

[onedoug]

Nazism was a construct of Teutonic Mythology, Communist Totalitarianism, Asian Mysticism, German Protestant Terminology, and Medieval Satanism all rolled into one.

...with some pretty extreme butch homosexuality thrown in for effect.

[left that other site]

Yes.

That too.

[katana]

I think you're right that Transub. was not of much concern to Luther (he may in fact have held true to that while other sects, like Calvinism, did not) and the corruption (read: indulgences) and divergence from scripture were his motivations to "protest". I haven't checked any sources to verify what his position on it was.

I mentioned it because I did read a long (turgid) history of the Reformation a few years ago and unbelief in Transubstantiation was definitely on the Church's list of heresies. It got a few people burned at the stake, IIRC. For that matter, so did making translations of the Bible from Latin. Disbelief in indulgences, etc., not so much. So it's interesting to see this new spin from the Bishop of Rome stating that "maybe Luther wasn't such a heretic after all". I suspect it is motivated by a desire to draw Lutherans to the RCC in much the same way that Anglicans have been coming back, but interesting nonetheless.

[CTrent1564]

SeekAndFind:

I think that is why Rome is very careful with Infallible statements, there are teachings that are held as proposed as true, but not defined a certain way. Once the Church teaches something infallibly, it is saying this is definitive and to be held by all the faithful and there is no leadway on that teaching period.

So rather than look for what Papal statements are infallible, it is probably more fruitful to look at what teachings are to held definitively as Dogma in the most recent Catechism, thus one can then work from that framework to better understand what is an infallible statement.

[Campion]

I suppose it's possible, but that would only reinforce the error that some people espouse that the only teachings that are "real" are the infallible ones. As Mrs. Don-o points out, Catholics are to believe all that the Church teaches, not only things that are known infallibly.

But since people seem to want lists, I could point you to a book called "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" written by a German priest named Fr. Ludwig Ott. He classes every doctrinal proposition according to its certainty. Those he calls de fide (short for de fide definita, "defined [to be] of faith") are known infallibly. Those he classes as sententia certa are close to it.

But Ott's book only covers dogmatic theology. There is no similar book that I know of for moral theology, mainly because such a book would be out of date in 40 years or so. Nobody knew what in vitro fertilization was in 1970, for example.

[Campion]

I should point out that plenty of things are known infallibly without being the subject of an ex cathedra Papal pronouncement (also called "the extraordinary magisterium")