But I do praise the most holy Papists for their ability to rage so steadfastly and constantly against the Spirit of God. When such testimonies of the genuine councils and fathers are cited, they do not care about them at all, but let out their mighty fart against it: "The pope is above all councils and is unable to err—moreover, he is above the entirety of holy Christendom throughout the world " And so that he need endure no equal, but he may instead exalt himself even above God, he bellows in his Decretum, the chapter Cuncta: (15) `All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see." Yes, indeed, Luther says, all Christendom throughout the world knows it: hellfire [be] upon your head, your throne, and your idol, the devil! [LW 60:137]I wondered if Luther perhaps exaggerated, was being sarcastic, or simply misquoted the source he refers to when he wrote "All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see." LW 60 gives this accompanying footnote. It first states,
(15) Decretum C. 9 q. 3 c. 17 reads: "The whole church throughout the world knows that the Roman church has the right to judge concerning all matters [de omnibus], and that no one is permitted to pass judgment on her verdict" (Friedberg 1:611)."Decretum" refers to Decretum Magistri Gratiani:
The Decretum of Gratian, a Benedictine canonist at the law school of the University of Bologna. It originated in ca. 1140 and represents the first part of Roman Catholic canon law (CIC 1), accepted as such by Pope Gregory IX (1228–1241) in 1234, whose Decretalium became the second part of canon law (CIC 2). Luther studied it during his stay in Erfurt and in preparation for the Leipzig Debate in 1519 [LW 41:20, fn 19]."C. 9 q. 3 c. 17" can be found here:
C. XVII. De eodem.One will note C. 9 q. 3 c. 17 does not say "All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see." If taken as a literal citation, Luther misquoted the Decretum. On the other hand, it does say "all matters", and that would indeed cover Luther's interpretation. Why would Luther present such an interpretation of this text? The LW 60 footnote goes on to say:
Idem omnibus Episcopis.
Cuncta per mundum nouit ecclesia, quod sacrosancta Romana ecclesia fas de omnibus habet iudicandi, neque cuiquam de eius liceat iudicare iudicio. Siquidem ad illam de qualibet mundi parte appellandum est: ab illa autem nemo est appellare permissus. §. 1. Sed nec illa preterimus, quod apostolica sedes sine ulla precedente sinodo et soluendi quos sinodus iniqua
dampnauerat, et dampnandi, nulla existente sinodo, quos oportuit habuerit facultatem, et hoc nimirum pro suo principatu, quem B. Petrus apostolus Domini uoce et tenuit semper et tenebit.
The specific application to Scripture, claiming that "the doctrine of the Roman church and of the Roman pontiff [is] a rule of faith.. . from which even holy Scripture draws or has drawn its power;' was made by the papal theologian Sylvester Prierias; see Peter Fabisch and Erwin Iserloh; eds., Dokumente zur Causa Lutheri (1517-1521), 2 vols. (Munster: Aschendorff, 1988-91), 1:55; see Luther, preface, notes, and afterword to Prierias, Response (1520), WA 6:341 (LW 71); cf. Why the Books of the Pope and His Disciples Were Burned (1520), LW 31:392.As I understand it, what the footnote here says is that the application of this statement was made by one of Luther's papal opponents, Sylvester Prierias. Prierias was not simply the equivalent of today's Roman Catholic bloggers. "Sylvester Prierias (1456–1523), a Dominican priest and professor, was the pope s counselor in matters of faith. He had been influential in securing the condemnation of Reuchlin and had been commissioned to examine Luther’s writings" (LW 44:118 fn.8).
Prierias was one of Luther's earliest opponents. Since he was Master of the Sacred Palace, he was asked to assess the Ninety-five Theses. He composed his response in three days (ironically, this quick response is not unlike the careless speed of some of Rome's blogging apologists). Some speculate his fast response was due to his considering Luther a nuisance, a distraction from his work on his commentary of selections of Thomistic texts. His twenty-seven page response was entitled In presumptuosas Martini Luther conclusiones de potesate pape dialogus (1518), popularly referred to as the Dialogus. In this work, Prierias made four points and a conclusion:
1. Essentially the universal church is the assembly in divine worship of all who believe in Christ. The true universal church virtually is the Roman Church, the head of all churches, and the sovereign pontiff. The Roman Church is represented by the College of Cardinals; however, virtually it is the pope who is the head of the Church, though in another manner than Christ.There has been considerable scholarly debate as to the competence of these points against Luther, particularly statement three (For an overview of this scholarly debate see the work cited above, Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias (Durham: Duke University Press, 1997, pp.104-115). What I can't discern from my cursory investigation is whether or not Prierias based statement three on Decretum C. 9 q. 3 c. 17. If he did, then Luther may have had this in mind in his comment above (or perhaps one of Rome's other apologists made this connection for him?). Regardless of whether or not Luther's interpretation of "de omnibus" is warranted, the selection from Prierias certainly shows what sort of argumentation Luther was up against from Rome's apologists (for a detailed account see David V.N. Bagchi, Luther's Earliest Opponents (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).
2. As the universal church cannot err when it decides on faith and morals, so also a true council cannot err if it does its best to know the truth, at least not in the end result—and that I understand under the inclusion of the head. For even a council can initially be mistaken so long as the investigation of the truth is still in process; indeed a council has sometimes erred: nevertheless it finally knows the truth through the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the Roman Church and the pope cannot err when he in his capacity as pope comes to a decision, i.e., when he comes to a decision in consequence of his office and thereby does his best to know the truth.
3. He who does not hold the teaching of the Roman Church and the Pope as an infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its power and authority, he is a heretic.
4. The Roman Church can establish something with regard to faith and ethics not only through word but also through act. And there is no difference therein, except that the word is more suitable for this than the act. In this same sense custom acquires the power of law, for the will of a prince expresses itself in acts which he allows or puts into effect. And it follows that as he is a heretic who wrongly interprets Scripture, so also is he a heretic who wrongly interprets the teaching and acts of the Church in so far as they relate to faith and ethics.
Corollary: He who says in regard to indulgences that the Roman Church cannot do what she has actually done is a heretic (Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias (Durham: Duke University Press, 1997, p.111).
Posts
14 comments:
Prieras wasn't making up that trajectory of thought. About 250 years before the Reformation, the papalist canon lawyer Augustinus Triumphus wrote that the pope is essentially God on earth and cannot be questioned by anyone. I haven't been able to find this this morning, but a few years ago I read (I think in Ockham) a story about a papalist who claimed that because the pope is the vicar of Christ, he can render judgments that are against natural law and even alter truths found in Scripture. Not all papalists were this fanatical, but many were and it got worse as time went on.
At any rate, regarding Gratian, he's a mixed bag. He says a lot of high sounding things about papal power, and quotes a lot of supposedly ancient sources to prove it. But some of the sources are only 100 years old, dating from Gregory VII's revolution in the 11th century. Others are spurious, as with the canon that says the pope cannot be judged by anyone. Additionally, Gratian quotes many sources from the patristic era saying that Scripture is superior to all other authorities, and that no bishop is to be obeyed if he contradicts Scripture. He was the first to try to harmonize all these things, and many came along after him and built some very radical ideas about the pope atop his writings.
Tim,
Yes, I would assume such sentiment was around and previous to Luther, I've read as much, and certainly Luther wasn't making it up.
In the biography of Prierias cited above, the author says Prierias's opinion on papal power was considered to be excessive and extremist outside of Dominican theological circles, but probably accepted by Roman curial officials.
The author refers to Prierias as representing "an early sixteenth-century reformulation of a strongly papalist and anticonciliarist ecclesiology tradition that had gradually elaborated during the two preceding centuries".
Yes, the extremist variety of papalist thought really took flight in the latter half of the 15th century, in reaction to the conciliarists. The Conciliar Movement proper died with the (ironically) radical later phases of the Council of Basel, but between 1378 and the middle of the 15th century, an unstoppable wave of protest against papal corruption and abuses got going. And since the popes time and time again stood in the way of really very reasonable requests for reform, by the time Luther came on the scene, the powderkeg could not be stopped from blowing up.
The 15th century is an incredibly fascinating time to study. It puts the Reformation, and the papalist reactions to it, in a context that shows the former NOT to have been a novel eruption into history fomented by rebellious souls intent on breaking the Church.
It's essential to set Luther's "Here I stand" protest at Worms in this larger late 14th-mid 15th century context. Being "deep in history" for real, as opposed to just in rhetorical posture, paints a very different and much more positive picture of the Reformation than one hears from Catholic apologists.
It's essential to set Luther's "Here I stand" protest at Worms in this larger late 14th-mid 15th century context. Being "deep in history" for real, as opposed to just in rhetorical posture, paints a very different and much more positive picture of the Reformation than one hears from Catholic apologists.
It's been very interesting this past week reading the prefaces Luther wrote for the publication of some of the writings of John Hus.
I don't have the book near me at the moment, but he describes coming across the writings of Hus sometime previous to 1517 in the monastery. He mentions something like that as read them, he couldn't figure out why they were considered so bad. If I recall, he reasoned they must have been written before he became a heretic.
Hus is an interesting topic, to be sure. His major 20th century biographer, Matthew Spinka, argues convincingly that in terms of 15th century Catholic theology, Huss was almost entirely orthodox. He was not killed for being a heretic in doctrine, nor for being a proponent of the true Gospel against a false one. He was killed mainly for two reasons: (1) because the Council of Constance, otherwise very concerned with matters of truth, lost its nerve when faced with his radical critiques of spiritual government and allowed liars to testify against him, and (2) he ardently advocated Wycliffe's "dominion of grace" notion, which held that no ruler had legitimate power if he was in a state of mortal sin. This last is what caused Emperor Sigismund to abandon Huss, for he realized that if Huss carried the day on "dominion of grace," not just the papacy and the corrupt priesthood, but all of secular government as well would be rendered illegitimate.
In what book are the Luther prefaces to Huss? I'd like to read them, because I am not sure that Luther accurately understood either Huss or the Council of Constance on some of the more important points.
In what book are the Luther prefaces to Huss? I'd like to read them, because I am not sure that Luther accurately understood either Huss or the Council of Constance on some of the more important points.
The latest volume of Luther's Works, released a few weeks ago. I'm about half way through it.
Hus is an interesting topic, to be sure. His major 20th century biographer, Matthew Spinka, argues convincingly that in terms of 15th century Catholic theology, Huss was almost entirely orthodox. He was not killed for being a heretic in doctrine, nor for being a proponent of the true Gospel against a false one. He was killed mainly for two reasons: (1) because the Council of Constance, otherwise very concerned with matters of truth, lost its nerve when faced with his radical critiques of spiritual government and allowed liars to testify against him, and (2) he ardently advocated Wycliffe's "dominion of grace" notion, which held that no ruler had legitimate power if he was in a state of mortal sin. This last is what caused Emperor Sigismund to abandon Huss, for he realized that if Huss carried the day on "dominion of grace," not just the papacy and the corrupt priesthood, but all of secular government as well would be rendered illegitimate.
From what I recall of what I recently read, Luther says more or less the same thing in the 2 prefaces I just read concerning Hus.
When I finish the book, I'll be reviewing it on the blog.
I just love this blog. Between this blog, Issues Etc., and AoMin I don't hardly even have to think anymore. That saves me a LOT of time.
"argues convincingly"
Some are more apt to be convinced than others. That said, the standards of orthodox prior to Trent were rather different from those immediately after Trent. Likewise undoubtedly both emperors and popes were more concerned about power than about doctrine in that era.
What's the deal Andrew? Lutheran now?
Ah, that's OK. I'm far too mean and Dutch to be anything other than Reformed :)
Turretin said:
Some are more apt to be convinced than others.
Of course. "Convincing" is about "persuasion," and persuasion is not an exact science because people are not identical widgets. I was convinced by Spinka's account of Huss' orthodoxy on 15th century terms. There's nothing of Luther's view of "the Gospel" in Huss; it's polemical mythology to suggest that there is, and to claim that the Council of Constance killed him because they hated "the Gospel." That said, if someone else isn't convinced by Spinka, that's fine, so long as they can provide a plausible, source-based analysis of why they aren't convinced. No doubt you agree with that.
That said, the standards of orthodox prior to Trent were rather different from those immediately after Trent.
Quite so. Several centuries of increasingly withering criticism of the papacy made it increasingly unwilling to tolerate any resistance to its exaggerated authority claims. Trent really was a watermark in Roman Catholic theological development. I've seen it argued by some scholars (whose names and books escape me at the moment) that post-Tridentine Catholicism is far less open-minded a thing than pre-Tridentine. I well believe it. "Development" hasn't exactly been kind to the Roman ability to handle dissent.
Likewise undoubtedly both emperors and popes were more concerned about power than about doctrine in that era.
I wouldn't posit so stark an antithesis. The conciliarist-papalist controversy was certainly about doctrine, but the doctrinal arguments were inseparable from the authority (power) claims of both parties. In a situation in which the Faith directs the culture (rather than as today, in which it sits on the sidelines of the culture pondering abstractions in textbooks and acting as if the Faith is the purely subjective mental appropriation of True Propositions by individuals), doctrinal concerns are inherently authority (power) claims.
So I would say rather that in this period the popes refused to soften their doctrinal claims precisely because doing so would have limited their cultural authority (power) in ways they found unacceptable. As for the secular rulers, they didn't make doctrine, anyway, but only enforced it. They weren't "more concerned" with power than doctrine; they were concerned with holding right doctrine so that the Church would not lay interdicts on them or excommunicate them, thus fomenting civil rebellion in their domains. During the Conciliar Movement, most of the secular powers supported the conciliarists because they weren't sure who the real pope was and because for a while the conciliarist doctrines seemed more likely to maintain civil stability. After the Council of Basel became radical, however, many secular powers swung back over to the papacy because radical conciliarism threatened to undermine civil order while the papacy promised to uphold it. So again, the doctrinal claims and authority (power) claims were not in antithesis to each other, but intertwined.
I suspect you mean watershed, rather than watermark.
Yep, I meant watershed. LOL, "watermark." Can I say my coffee had not kicked in yet?
That it is the Church that Holy Scripture ultimately derives its authority from is also stated by the Eastern Orthodox. And esp for Rome it is invokedto support the claim to be the assuredly infallible interpreters of it.
According to this logic, it may be said that Christ Himself derives His authority from the church, since it is the entity that defined who He is.
However, both writings inspired by God thru men and men of God themselves are such regardless of the confirmation of men.
Although the latter is to be given and helpful in establishing them, yet it is not conciliar decrees that Scripture owes its enduring popularity to, or animosity by others, but that is due to its Divine supernatural qualities, effects, attestation and conflation.
And although Truth is sppsd to be confirmed by men of God, yet the spiritual authority of men themselves does not rest upon titles or formal decent, but upon conflation with Scripture, in doctrine, holiness and power. (2Cor. 6:1-10)
Had the apostles been preaching praying to the departed then the noble Bereans would have found fault with them no matter what miracles they did, while if they or Moses had not been instruments in manifesting the latter it would have been hard to establish the covenants revealed to them.
As for the premise that the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ are perpetually (by way of formal decent) its assuredly infallible interpreters, this disallows the church, as this premise would have required submission to those who sat in the seat of Moses. (Mt. 23:2)
But the Lord Himself was outside that formal office, and reproved them by Scripture, (Mk. 7:3-13) and invoked the same and scriptural works in establishing His truth claims.
And thus the church began in dissent from those who presumed supreme perpetual authority, and it is only by Scriptural "manifestation of the Truth" 92Cor. 4:2) that "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth" (1Tim. 1:15) can claim to be so.
Not to act more like it.
Post a Comment