Here's an interesting article from Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin: Identifying Infallible Statements. For those of you engaging Roman Catholic apologetics, this is a good read to see what sort of logical hoops one must jump through when tackling this subject.Akin goes through the papal bull Exsurge Domine, the bull condemning Luther's teachings. Akin seemingly works hard to interpret the document to not mean anything specific. Akin argues:
1) Luther was not condemned for violating infallibly defined dogmas.
2) Luther was condemned by a whole series of propositions in globo. These propositions were [1] heretical or [2] scandalous or [3] false or [4] offensive to pious ears or [5] seductive of simple minds and [6] in opposition to Catholic truth. The Pope doesn't say which proposition holds which characteristic. The Latin of Exsurge Domine makes it clear one cannot determine the kind of censure being applied to the individual propositions.
3)One cannot even infer that the pontiff’s mind was that all of the propositions were false. The censures "heretical" and "false" both imply falsity, but "scandalous," "offensive to pious ears," and "seductive of simple minds" do not.
4) One can only speculate which censure should be applied to each proposition.
If I recall correctly, Exsurge Domine said that the Pope could, "without any further citation or delay, proceed against [Luther] to his condemnation and damnation..." The bull condemns 41 errors in Luther's writings, calling him to recant withing 60 days or be excommunicated, and decrees his writings should be burned. If ever I had to pick a lawyer to represent Luther, I would've picked Jimmy Akin.
The Magisterium: Luther, we condemned you via the reasons put forth in Exsurge Domine.
Akin: Objection! Exsurge Domine was not an infallible bull, nor did Luther violate any infallible dogma.
The Magisterium: Luther, your writings are heretical or scandalous or false or offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds and in opposition to Catholic truth.
Akin: Objection! Exsurge Domine doesn't say which is which, so it can't be applied to my client, and the document doesn't even infer all Luther's writings condemned are false. In fact you haven't specified anything, but have only put forth non-infallible vague statements about my client's guilt. If this doesn't make sense to you, you can call a staff apologist at Catholic Answers for further information.
Addendum:
Roman Catholic writer John Todd states,
"The bull [Essurge Domine] was contradictory,lacking in clarity, and incidentally far less effective than it might have been. It relied solely on Luther's writings prior to the Leipzig disputation. Thus the bull had in it the notorious statement that it is heretical to say that 'to burn heretics is contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit' and the anomalous statement that it is heretical to say that 'secular and spiritual princes would do well if they would put an end to mendicancy'."
"Eck came into the committee [preparing Exurge Domine] half way through, much o Cajetan's disgust., and was largely responsible for bulldozing a decision and the miserably incompetent text through the committee. Subsequently Eck himself said the bull was hopelessly inadequate and pointed out that in fact the committee knew very little about Luther's 'errors'. No attempt was made to refute Luther by reference either to the Bible or to the Fathers, a remarkable and unusual omission. "
Source: John M. Todd, Luther (New York: Paulist Press), 1964 p.166
Posts
4 comments:
From the same article, Context
We must recognize where the burden of proof lies in this matter. The Code of Canon Law provides that "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such" (CIC 749 § 3). This means that the propositions in Exsurge Domine must be assumed to have received a non-infallible handling unless proven otherwise.
On July 16, 1870, Vincent Gasser, the relator for Pastor Aeternus 4, gave a relatio that explained "the word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff" (Gasser & O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility [Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986], 74 n.).
Because we can't know that, Exsurge Domine does not infallibly define the theological status of this proposition or the others that it treats, meaning that it cannot be used to attack the doctrine of papal infallibility. One trying to do so needs to better understand papal infallibility, learn to parse ecclesiastical documents more carefully, or become aware of the meaning of theological censures.
I'm not sure how exactly that context changes my blog entry. I did originally have those very quotes in my blog article, but deleted them because I figured a hyper link to the source would verify my conclusions.
Keep in mind, Akin's article is on a much different topic than that I posted on. Akin was responding to a JW who was trying to pin Rome down on infallibility using Exsurge Domine and the death penalty (I agree with Akin, this is silly).
My blog article simply pointed out that Akin defanged Exsurge Domine so much, that Luther could've walked away saying, "Dear Pope, Try to do a better job figuring out what my problem is".
I'm sorry, but when you said Here's an interesting article from Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin: Identifying Infallible Statements. For those of you engaging Roman Catholic apologetics, this is a good read to see what sort of logical hoops one must jump through when tackling this subject.
I thought you meant the subject of infallibility.
Though when you say Luther could've walked away saying, "Dear Pope, Try to do a better job figuring out what my problem is". Jimmy Akin did no such thing.
He only pointed out the difference in terminology to say that not everything that Luther wrote should be held with the same reproach. I'll reread the article in case I'm misreading it.
Post a Comment