Professor Marek Kornat and Tomasz D. Kolanek invitation to the eighth episode of the PCh24.pl papal cycle. Click HERE and see all published in this chat series
Dear Professor, present we were to discuss 1 paper by Pope Leon X, namely the Apostolic Constitution "Decet Romanum Pontificem" of 1521. However, I concluded that it was impossible to talk about this bull without discussing the earlier six months of the Apostolic Constitution “Exsurge Domain”. And these 2 papers will be dealt with in our conversation today. But at first I would like us to talk about Pope Leon X. Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici – later Pope – was born on December 11, 1475. On 1 June 1483 – at the age of 7 he obtained tonesura, as a sign of belonging to a spiritual state, and Pope Sixtus IV appointed him a protonary (an authoritative of the Roman Curia). Is it possible to get specified positions at the age of 7-8?
Unfortunately, specified things happened at the time, and in my opinion we should talk about pathology here. The church was active in the politics of powerful and influential families. It must be remembered that Leon X is the boy of Lorenzo de’ Medici, or alleged Lorenzo the large [Lorenzo il Magnifico], the ruler of Florence. At the age of 13, the later pope became a cardinal, which for present is indeed something extraordinary. However, specified incidents have occurred. This is how a large career in the Church of this man was started.
Especially since – as prof. Kazimierz Doposier in the “Book of Popes” – Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici was from the beginning “indicted by the family” to be a clergyman...
That's precisely what happened. The honors of the clergy from the beginning were in his household plan, and he was to bear the task. Let us add that the Medici household is simply a household that has given the Church respective popes, specified as a prominent shepherd and politician in the individual of Pius IV, without efforts which it would be hard to imagine bringing to the final the wonderful Council of Trent. It was an highly influential household in Italy, so it had large aspirations.
After the death of Julius II, which took place on 21 February 1513, the conclave meets on 4 March 1513 in the Vatican, in the Sistine Chapel, where a 31-target was built for the conclave of cardinals and 75 people from their service and secretaries. It was most likely 1 of the strangest conclaves in history, due to the fact that 17 votes were adequate to become Pope and no fresh pope was elected in the first vote, which was not to be Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici... Then various unusual situations occurred, specified as: before the last de’ Medici vote he met with his main competitor to the throne of Peter. That's erstwhile it was decided who would be Pope...
The fact that the conclave was composed of only 31 cardinals was not an isolated exception. That's just the way it was then. Remember, there may have been at most 70 cardinals in the Church. But besides this number were not fulfilled by the popes with their nomination policy. If, as a consequence of the death of 1 of them, this office “was released” alternatively than a fresh nomination, the number of purples was simply falling. The caution in the nominations was standard, of course unwritten. There were different motives. There was always a deficiency of assurance in possible denominations. There were 3 keys in the nominations. The cardinals were of course his co-workers in the Curia (directing the congregations). Metropolitans holding power in places that are posti cardinalizia. Like Paris or Vienna. Finally, there was an ad hoc appointment – for discrimination or honour of people who were persons regales in service to the Church, like our Frederick Jagiellończyk (brother Sigismund I), or Jan Kazimierz (from Wazów). In general this extraordinary state of affairs seems to us only today. due to the fact that we have a immense number of cardinals. This made the office devalued – in short.
As far as I know, the historical thesis is true, that in the case of the future Pope Leon X there was no acquisition of the Cardinal's office (because it happened anyway). There was no bribery or conclave. There was an election. It was different from Alexander VI, or Rodrigo Borgia a small earlier (1492). He bribed the cardinals in a certain number – a crucial number, due to the fact that otherwise he would not have reached 2 thirds of the vote.
Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici at the time of his election as Pope has no priestly ordination...
It's true. He was the last pope to have no priestly ordination at the time of his election to the throne. But he was a cardinal. Giving Cardinal’s purple to individual who had no ordination was a standard in those days. Here we can mention the cases of those who had, for example, lower ordination, but did not have the ordination of the Presbyterate, the power of consecration, the power of the Supremes. Victims. any were completely secular, not even clerical by accepting the tone. In this case, we are dealing with a secular cardinal, a man whose erstwhile pope utilized for diplomatic service, among another things as a legata in Bologna. Therefore, erstwhile he was elected pope, he had to be ordained as a Presbyterate and Episcopate.
Prof. Dosiera points out that then – 1513 – a politician had to sit on the Papal Throne, who would end the endless wars in Italy. Was that truly actual at the time?
Indeed, at the time of politics of modern times, we were dealing with alleged Italian wars. This is simply a crucial event in modern universal history. These wars were of large importance to the Holy See. In short, France was then under the leadership of the militant and energetic King Francis I – the only ruler of this name who ruled the French throne. He is the 1 who has begun the powerful policy of France in modern Europe. It can be said that, in a way, France followed the road marked by Francis I for the next 2 centuries, trying to win a leading position in Europe and dominate the Old Continent, of course, undermining the power of the empire, due to the fact that that was the only way it could accomplish it. This ended only with the death of Louis XIV in 1715. As far as the Italian wars are concerned, it should be assumed that they were fought with varying happiness, but above all under the dictatorship of France. Leon X undertook anti-French policy in accordance with the principles of the state of the Holy See. He joined the alleged Malines League together with Emperor Maximilian. However, the League suffered a severe defeat in clashing with the French who captured Milan. It must be said that Leon X behaved highly realistically, that is: he decided to make a peace agreement, giving way to the French besides territorially and concordat with them. The concordat is more crucial from the point of view of universal past than territorial losses consisting in truncating the ecclesiastical state, namely: the concordat of Leon X with Francis I in an unprecedented way brought concessions to the Holy See, giving the right to freely distribute ecclesiastical positions to the king of France. This was a very serious concession and France utilized it until the outbreak of the terrible revolution in 1789. The concordat agreement undoubtedly met the expectations of the French. We should mention the concept of “pragmatic sanction” from Bourg, where the synod was held in 1438, or Charles VII. The same synod in his resolutions demanded the free distribution of church positions to the king. Leon X's concordat with Francis I fulfilled this demand. This later gave emergence to the Gallican tendencies. Leon X so stepped down, incapable to argue France and making decisions highly hard to accept besides for the College of Cardinals, who had a opposition to the pope's decisions, but this was a historical necessity. It is hard to defy the reflection that this concordat, although it strengthened the Gallican tendencies – i.e. the aspirations of the French Crown to regulation the Church – at the same time caused that on the side of the state there were no attempts for ecclesiastical good as in another European countries of the Reformation day, due to the fact that the state ruled over the distribution of posts. It's very important.
However, the Cardinals' College was to call the decisions of Leon X "an unacceptable surrender of the Church." But isn't it that, in deciding to make specified concessions, Leon X wanted to hold the influence of the Medici household in Florence first?
We can't regulation that out. Let us remember that Francis I made his complaints to Milan and Naples, but he withdrew from Florence's request in the negotiations. It may be assumed that this was an additional condition from Leon X. Florence did not regulation France. In any case, after taking Milan, France's further military successes were not hard to imagine. The resumption of the war that notabene had taken place did not bring fruit.
I ask all this to make an introduction to the papers we will be discussing, so that our readers will know the tense situation of that time and the character of the Pope. Do you think a man like Leon X was capable of fighting Protestant heresy? present we hear voices that this man was much little curious in Papacy and pastoralism than politics. He was much more curious in property, estates, property, land belonging to himself and his family, and, above all, the protection of these riches...
The fact that Leon X was primarily a politician is an apparent matter, and I think that in erstwhile statements this thesis sounded strong enough. Even if the matters of the Church were little crucial to Leon X than politics, however, the harm was not caused to this Pope. Besides, these spheres cannot be separated due to the fact that the fight for the independency of the Church requires the application of politics. That's right. Looking from this perspective, it was possible for the pope to rise objections as a pastor – he demonstrated his political skills, which were essential and valuable at the time. There was no harm done to the Church with Pope Leon X.
On the consequence to Luther's speech, we request to leave the basic consensus. The Pope simply did what belonged to him, seeing heresy which would then bring about the improvement of the Heretic Revolution in Germany. Even if we presume that the Roman Curia apparatus was very crucial in studying 95, we cannot say that Leon X failed. From the standpoint of the Church, it would most likely be better if a typical of the Church sat on the throne of Peter, who would stand out in the observance of moral discipline, a teacher of religion and practicing in virtues, in order to gain the merit of holiness on earth. In a word, individual like Pius IV or St. Pius V. This would, of course, give the Church the benefit of the fact that it could not later be justified as easy – as it is done present – the charges of Luther and the charges of reformers, who, as we know, brought almost everything to the the thesis of self-destructive corruption of the Church, which required a consequence and so came Reformation. Of course, the symbol of this corruption was made by Leon X, or Pope-politics and besides Pope investing in his family.
Leon X promised the continuation of the 5th Lateran Council and kept his word...
The Council – let us remind – was convened by Pope Julius II. But he died in 1513. However, Leon did not close the council. It would only do damage. The deliberations were to take place, giving opposition to those who wanted to resume the ideas of concillarism.
The 5th Lateran Council declared the dogma of the immortal individual human soul; it condemned the concilism; it passed that the right to convocation, transfer and dissolution of the council was only due to the pope. It was forbidden to preach to those who were officially declared unprepared. In addition, the Pope bore “Pastor aeternus” with a solemn dedication to Boniface VIII’s “Unam Sanctam” bull. On the 1 hand, it is truly upbuilding – the Church works, the Pope works. Unfortunately, you gotta add a spoon to that honey keg. It was stated that the decrees of the 5th Lateran Council were to apply unless they encountered difficulties in introducing, which, according to prof. Kazimierz Dosier, completely destroyed the work of this large council. What's your opinion?
As you can see in this series of Council resolutions, we are dealing with 3 types of resolutions: dogmatic, systemic and disciplinary. The dogma about the soul is simply a very crucial dogma complementing the improvement of the Catholic teaching. The fight against concillarim and the desire to strengthen Papacy is simply a consequence to a crisis that has passed, but could be renewed and even renewed through the illegal “segregation” of Pisa convened in 1511. It is connected with the conviction that the strong position of Papacy, the strong position of the Roman Bishop is simply a warrant of reforming the Church and there is simply no another way. The bull was peculiarly crucial Pastor aeternus (It should not be confused with the decree of the Vatican Council I on the infallibility of the Roman Bishop), which contained a message aimed at concillarim, and proclaimed that the first universal Councils "saidly begged the pope to approve the decrees passed." And only after this sanction did they become the law of the Church.
The Council has successfully tried to implement the essential reforms of the Church. It was peculiarly crucial to prohibit the merger of offices – with approval to keep up to 2 – in 1 person. another matters – from a disciplinary genre – include the advice that only people prepared to preach, that is, teach people Catholic science. The improvement of the Curia was decreed. The law on examining candidates for bishopric was passed morally and intellectually. These were all highly serious matters and the 5th Lateran Council undoubtedly advised them.
Disciplinaryly, too, was the decree that books could not be printed without approval from the clergy. It is the printing of clerical books, which requires the imprimatur of diocesan curia. It must be remembered that Gutenberg's invention of 1450 seriously affected European civilization. He made it work. You didn't gotta rewrite the texts with your hand. But this besides facilitated the anticipation of introducing the circulation of undesirable, subversive content.
Indeed, the Lateran V Council was not effective in enforcing reforms. This was the last minute before the Reformation Revolution. The Reformation was based all the time on the already mentioned argument about the corruption of the Church but besides about the deficiency of views of its repair. any provisions of the 5th Lateran Council so know only later effective implementation by repeating them in resolutions of the Council of Trent, whose laws will be effectively enforced. The Council of Trent so has so much merit before the court of history. However, it is undoubtedly besides due to respective prominent popes who were servants of this council after its closure, specified as Pius IV, St. Pius V, Sixtus V, Gregory XIII and Clement VIII. So I agree with the opinion of Prof. Doprzy. Recommendations are easy to write. It's a lot harder to fill. This requires that I express myself so uglyly, shaking the structures and customs that are rooted in people who do not always realize that they must be abandoned for the sake of the Church.
One last point and we will be moving on to the papers that form the basis of our discussion today. During the conclave, erstwhile the voter's surrender was being developed, much space was devoted to the threat from Islam, the threat associated with the Ottoman Empire. Leon X, who declared a crusade against the Turks in 1517, besides placed a large deal of emphasis on it and assigned taxes to be collected in 3 years. Were the Turks truly that large a threat back then?
Turkey then entered a period of the top glory of its power, and before Europe a gigantic threat to Christianity is revealed. Turkey's offensive has moved to Europe since the end of the 14th century. This symbolizes the conflict of Nicopolis (1396). Then we have Varna (1444). For Leon X's time, there is advancement in Turkish expansion. The conflict of Mohacz, in which King Louis Jagiellończyk died, was 1526, 5 years after the Pope's death. There is no uncertainty that the first half of the 16th century, the reign of Sultan Sulejman the Great, is the highest of success of Turkish expansionism. The fight against Turkey is so the basis for papal policy. Turkey is fortunately stopped. I will mention here 2 facts: the failed siege of Malta in 1565, followed by the conflict of Lepanto in October 1572. A large triumph for Christian troops. The Holy See has always had its part in defending Europe against the muslim enemy. It moved to the thought of a large coalition of Christian states against the common enemy. It was called the Holy League. The last league was created by Blessed Pope Innocent XI. It gave as fruit a triumph under Vienna (1683). erstwhile it comes to all of this, it should be noted that Luther condemned the wars with the Turks as supposedly "contrary to God's will" and dissuade his followers from this idea.
The Turks wanted to invade Europe and conquer it to introduce Islam?
Before the conflict of Lepanto, Sultan threatened to turn the Basilica of Saint Peter into a stable, and where the main altar stands he would make a manger for horses. It wasn't a joke. The church was threatened not only by itself, but besides by the full civilization of the West. No 1 thought to preach dialog and akin subversive slogans, but anyone who had a sense of Christian spirit felt that 1 should appeal to the thought of a weaponry defence in a just cause. It was a fair war. It was not us – Christians – who wanted to conquer or subdue. We defended ourselves in the face of an enemy invasion.
October 31, 1517. A German Augustian monk, as the Protestant tradition says, then hung 95 on the door of the castle church in Wittenberg. Throughout my full primary, junior advanced and advanced school education, I was put into my head that Martin Luther, for he was speaking of, was all about indulgences, which were expected to be the largest rot of the 16th century Church. I am not saying that everything was fine; I am not saying that indulgences were not traded; I am not saying that there was no abuse and pathology erstwhile the priest spoke to the faithful – pay me 100 ducats, and you will spend 10 years in purgatory, not 1000 years. This was all and it is damnable. But was that the only reason for Luther?
What you said is simply a classic, highly simplistic transmission of past for school purposes, with which I unfortunately met myself. It all comes down to the question of negation of indulgences. Luther of 1517 took this case on banners. But Luther later is simply a man moving further and further in his heretic inflammation. He turns against the Church with all his strength, negating the top dogmas with the Altar Victim at the head.
Luther's revolt came not due to the fact that he wanted to remedy abuse. He primarily wanted to declare a fresh discipline under the name of Christianity, which the Catholic Church could absolutely not (and cannot) accept. And that is the phenomenon of this event. It is indeed actual that the Church suffered a certain "slip" towards the excessive stewardship of indulgences after the Council in Florence (1439), erstwhile the doctrine of purgatory was yet adopted. Hence, there was a climate to preach the request to pray for the dead and to enjoy indulgences. This active 1 another – as prof. Le Goff wrote about. Of course, this had consequences in the politics of the Holy See, which thus gained funds for the construction of the Basilica of Saint Peter and another Roman monuments of Renaissance culture, which we present pride ourselves on as a legacy of humanity. The Pope's predecessor, Julius II, we are talking about, ordered that the fresh most crucial temple of Christianity be erected in Rome on the site of the old Constantine Basilica, which stood on the Vatican hill, erected above the tomb of the Prince of Apostles. It can be said that, of course, there was abuse at indulgences, but bringing Luther's speech to this case alone is not justified. A historian must treat specified a procedure with far-reaching disregard. We miss the fact in this way.
Luther performed on October 31, 1517. The Pope received information about this in January 1518. Leon X not until November 9, 1518, announces a decree "Cum Postquam", in which he confirms the Church's doctrine of indulgences. Why did the Pope wait so long to react?
The substance needs to be looked at further. Luther’s speech of 1517 took place on the eve of All Saints’ celebrations. From Luther's appearance to his reproof in the "Exsurge Domine" bull, it is 3 years and 2 months and many historians criticize Leon X for having reacted besides late. I stress that it was a reproving document, not a condemning German augustian. But let's be honest – would it change anything if Leon X announced “Exurge Domine” earlier? In my opinion, no. For 3 years from 1517 to 1520, there was no change in Luther's life, no conversion. He simply followed the way of opposition to the Magisterium, opposition to the Church, opposition to the doctrine of the sacraments, about the Eucharist, about penance, and in peculiar about the function of good works on the way to salvation, etc. Therefore, even if we presume that the reproving papal reaction should come earlier, for example in 1518, I think the consequence would be the same. Luther could not be held liable due to the fact that he had the care of the mighty of this world, and specified was the Duke of Saxon Frederick, who gave him refuge. So there was no chance that Luther could be treated by the Church like, for example, Hus a 100 years earlier.
Since you called prof. Hus – Luther stated that the condemnation of the Czech reformer by the Council in Constance was wrong, that is, he questioned the infallibility of the council.
I'm not surprised. Hus was condemned for opposing, among others, the Church's doctrine of the Eucharist by demanding categorically Holy Communion in 2 forms, which undoubtedly harms the doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament. However, it was not so extremist compared to what Luther did, due to the fact that the German heretic brought an highly dense cannon against the Eucharist. I will just callback his celebrated message that the Roman Canon, or infallible prayer of the Church during all Holy Mass until the time erstwhile the Trident Mass of St. Pius V was universally in force, was a "bago of dirty water." Luther is simply a heretic who negates a full series of truths of religion and would be very unusual if he felt that the condemnation of Hus was right due to the fact that Hus was his patron and predecessor. 1 must say categorically, and I say this not from the position of a theologian, but a historian, namely: the scale of the hereticity of Hus's appearance compared to Luther was highly low. It was a miniature of what Luther did 100 years later.
Luther, on the 1 hand, sends a peculiar letter to Leon X, in which he assures of obedience, and immediately burns the papal bull “Exsurge Domine” ...
The “Exsurge Domine” Bull leaves the Roman Curia in late 1520. The most crucial thing in this paper is 2 things. The Pope gives Luther 60 days to convert and refrain from misconceptions, to callback them and to inform the competent authorities of the Church, which would then inform Rome. That's how the case would be closed. At the same time, this bull specified the essence of Luther's views as the Roman Curia had data about it. It was done as prescribed by law. First, heretical views must be collected and examined. Subsequently, more than 41 claims were made. The first and most crucial is undoubtedly that Luther announced that the sacraments of the fresh Covenant are not means of grace for man. This is the most cardinal heretical claim, and followed by another and they were besides condemned. However, man was not condemned. According to the practice of the Church, the author of heretic claims should be given time to convert. So we're dealing with action, canonical behaviour according to established rules.
The Pope gives Luther 60 days to convert. Was it 60 days or 60 days?
The church has never rushed to place its ultimatum with demands to be fulfilled or rejected within 24 hours. This is what states do erstwhile they declare war, but not the Holy See.
Luther's conversion is not happening. On 3 January 1521, the Pope announces the bull of the "Decet Romanum Pontificem". It is simply a beautiful document. Pope Leon X emphasizes that excommunication is no punishment. Excommunication is simply a "final call for conversion".
In fact, however, excommunication was punishment. Yes, man can always repent and quit "hardening in sin." But opinions are condemned. The Pope attacks those professed by Luther as “completely condemned, excluded and rejected”. The condemnation here is irreversible. Excommunication can always be removed. This is achieved either by asking the Holy See or repenting in the face of death.
Those who say that the Church has only waited for the unrighteous to capture them on the word and kill them, or unconsciously (due to ignorance) false a communicative they have no thought of, or do so with deliberate intention to gain a commendation, due to the fact that this 1 in these unpleasant times can guarantee that the Church is struck, repeating the top lies about it. The procedure for imposing excommunication by the Church was described in detail. It was logical, consistent and concrete. The heretic, recalling his views, or giving credible explanations, could have avoided criminal sanctions specified as the severest punishment of the Church, or punishment of excommunication.
I would add, due to the fact that it seems crucial to me that Luther's full discipline is highly pessimistic. Luther had absolutely no religion in man's free will. He felt that the first sin had destroyed it. In his opinion, man cannot repair himself. He was sentenced to slavery to sin. The chance that man could cooperate with grace, Luther was incapable to see or comprehend. The church can't accept it. If Luther was declared right, why would there be sacraments in the Church? Why should the Church teach about the sanctifying grace? Why should the Church call for repentance, conversion and reparation? All of this would be in vain anyway, due to the fact that God, as Luther preached, created people to choose at his own discretion a fistful that he would save and condemn the remainder forever. specified views lead to the complete demolition of doctrine. If the Church had not responded to this, only in the name of liberalism allowed specified teaching to flourish, the very foundations of Catholic faith, the triumph of heresy and the overthrow of the Church would have been called into question. Then, almost 1,500 years of unchanging teaching would do nothing, possibly fewer groups of people would be left with the rightful faith, and the Holy See would be practically unnecessary to anyone.
Luther preached that religion alone was adequate for salvation. There's no request to do that. He came to this conclusion on the basis of the passage of the Scriptures that Jesus says to Nicodemus: “For God loved the planet so much that he gave up his only Son, that whoever believes him might not perish but have everlasting life. God did not send the boy to condemn the world, but to save it. He who believes him is not condemned” (Jn 3:16-18).
Yes, sir. The second passage of Scripture, on which Luther built his narrative, was the Epistle of St Paul to the Romans, in which the Apostle of Nations speaks of "the salvation of faith." Spe salvi facti sumus! Of course, both passages of the Scriptures can be interpreted and preached to the world. Here we come to a case that should be touched too. We all know a description in the Gospel, erstwhile a judaic youth asks Christ the Lord on the street, what should he do to gain everlasting life? Jesus answered him simply, “Serve the ticket!” or “Keep the commandments.” "You know the commandments: Do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not attest falsely, do not cheat, worship your father and mother." The boy of man added: “Go, sale everything you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me!’ You can't keep the commandments on your mouth. It must be done in deeds. Thus, we are dealing with a maneuver of the opponents of the Church, which has been utilized since time immemorial to bet on his own. This is simply a maneuver to choose 1 passage of a given text and build upon it the full doctrine perfidiously and premeditatedly, but ignoring the rest. Let us besides mention that Luther was very impetuous. His celebrated words “I stand here and I will not go back a step” well express his attitude in discussion and combat. The biographers of this man are known, the event erstwhile the theological debate was taking place between him and theologians questioning his views. It continued until Luther ran out of arguments. erstwhile they were gone, he called his opponents “folks” and stated that there was no request to discuss with them...
On Catholics and Counter-Reformation, “black legends” are frequently preached about alleged hatred of Protestants and drowning in the blood of all the “children” of the Reformation... The fact is, however, that force was just introduced by Protestants preaching the “renewed Gospel”. They were the ones who persecuted and murdered people acting in defence of “the religion of fathers.” In Sweden, for example, in the second half of the 16th century we faced a full series of peasant uprisings against the top-down imposition of Protestantism. The same was actual in England, where a simple people defended the destroyed altars of the Lord. All these folk uprisings, prefigured by Wandea, were suppressed by a “iron hand”. Can we call these events Protestant spiritual persecution?
Absolutely. Thesis that only the Church utilized force in defence of its positions – it cannot withstand criticism. The peasant war in Germany is, after all, the most crucial event that allows the Reformation to attribute a revolutionary character and see revolution in it. The thought of breaking down the social order is all about her. But that's not all. Protesters taking over governments utilized force in the trial with Catholics.
Let's go back to "Decet Romanum Pontificem". The paper states: “Pope should multiply severe punishments and another appropriate actions, so that those haughty men, who are equally devoted to bad ideas, along with their followers, do not deceive a crowd of simplets by the power of their lies and deceitful fortitudes; they do not drag them into the way of mistake and fall, spreading a dangerous plague. Moreover, it is appropriate that the pope, condemning the splits, safe others from the increasing confusion by openly showing and clearly stating to all faithful Christians how terrible the punishments and censorships to which these crimes lead are. He should do so, namely, in order that by specified a public message they may return from the incorrect way with embarrassment and repentance unconditionally convert from forbidden discussion, companionship, and, above all, from submission to the cursed. In this way they will be able to avoid God's recompense for evil and participation in the condemnation of the wicked."
Can it so be said that excommunication, erstwhile imposed on a heretic, is not a punishment of anger, but of love? Not only out of love for him who makes heresy, but also, or perhaps, above all, out of love for God's people?
I think we're getting to the bottom of this. It would not be appropriate to sacrifice the talk of the "Decet Romanum Pontificem" if we just wanted to talk about the realities in which this paper was created. That would come down to the communicative that Luther was there, that the Reformation had come to pass, that there was a dispute over indulgences. These are things mostly known. I'll say more: the beginning of the 16th century is 1 of the tragic moments in past The Church is so recognized in the consciousness of people curious in the past. The "Decet Romanum Pontificem" clearly shows the responsibilities of the Pope. This is perfectly expressed by 1 papal statement, "disposing the evil ideas of the erring." I emphasize those words due to the fact that they sound great. The Pope, however, is to “establish the brothers in the faith.” But he is to remove enemies from the Church, or else there will be an interior division, and the interior division will origin that "the kingdom cannot stand," as his Founder points out in the pages of the Gospel. So the Pope is not just a preacher who preaches any of his teachings. Whoever wants to perceive to him and who doesn't, doesn't listen. The Pope besides holds power! The power to show the boundaries of the Church and the power to exclude those who cannot behave in the Church due to the fact that they have opposed the teachings of Christ. This is very important, due to the fact that in the modern liberal planet there is the slogan that the Pope is simply a man who fundamentally proclaims the Gospel – and that is why his duties are exhausted. Of course, this claim is correct and only a madman would question it. But the Pope is besides the man who rules the Church under Divine Founder's decree. Without a criminal hand, without the removal of enemies etc., all teaching, all preaching of the pope – even large – will not work. His message will be turned into nothing. That's why the bull we're talking about is so important! The model shows the responsibilities of the Pope, who personally pays attention to this.
Leon X in the bull we are talking about thanks God for the grace of conversion that the Creator has given to those who have been corrupted with Luther’s teaching and to all those who have received this grace and abandoned heresy. The Pope besides thanks for publically burning Luther's writings, which he asked for in the "Exsurge Domain"...
This is the appropriate conduct of Leon X – a pope who is simply a Renaissance prince (as the British historian of the Church John Kelly called him); a pope who had many vices as a man; a pope who can be accused of many things: a secular way of life, lavishness, a taste for the patronship of art at all costs, etc. Those were the weaknesses she utilized against Leon X for Protestant propaganda. However, Leon X, despite his flaws and afflictions, which he can't approve of, behaves well here, behaves as the Pope should, defending the Church, and not succumbing to the illusion that Papacy is simply about saying something good to everyone and "something that will be." Well, it won't! past teaches us that calculations of "something like this" kind lead people to the edge of the abyss, and then descendants had to pay a advanced price for it. This concerns both the destiny of states and the Church.
The Pope proclaiming Luther's excommunication and all who have not given up his teaching calls on Catholics with the words: “We want the names, surnames and functions of all of them, regardless of the tallness and rank of their positions to be incorporated into this provision with the same power as if they were mentioned here successively 1 by 1 and should be mentioned erstwhile announcing this provision, which must be carried out with the power equal to its content.” Does this mean that the Pope called for lists, lists, indexes of Protestants to be drawn up?
Leon X leaves the competent church authorities, primarily local, to identify supporters of condemned heretics and to remove them from their posts if they do. The heretic cannot take any position. He can't be a preacher, he can't be a presbyter, he can't be an abbot, he can't be a teacher of theology, etc. This is unimaginable for the Pope. We can besides conclude that, given Luther's actions in advance, it was assumed that the transportation of excommunication could be impossible due to hiding. In these circumstances, the pope stated that it is adequate to print the public text of the "Decet Romanum Pontificem" in public places.
The Pope points out that the falsely understood rule of "whose authority, this religion" is beginning to develop, and so points out that in the places where Lutheran religion is proclaimed "the law and work of Catholics" is the further life of the Church...
This is simply a very hard case. If the ruler turns to heretic religion and tries to bring order into the territory under his control, the Church has inherently limited means of combat, unless another Catholic prince, king, or emperor submits himself to the power of the prince-heretics by imposing his will upon him. The Church has only means specified as excommunication. In specified circumstances, the pope always acts in a akin way. He recognizes the effort to force obedience on believers subject to the territorial authority of the prince of heretics as something illegal. For trying to assassinate the Church and, of course, people who are Catholics should persist in faith. That's one. Second, those who are to endure in religion are obliged to refuse to accept obedience to specified a ruler. It's nothing new. The church has always had specified 2 indications for the faithful in specified exceptional situations.
"We declare the establishment of a canonical admonition for a period of 3 days. The first day serves the first, the second day serves the second, and on the 3rd day falls the unconditional and final execution of our command. This should take place on Sunday or another vacation erstwhile many people gather for the service. Set the banner with the cross, beat the bells and light the candles, and extinguish them, knock them to the ground and trample them after the prescribed time. The stones must be cast 3 times and another customary rites must be completed. All together and each individual faithful Christian should be urged to avoid those people,” says the Decet Romanum Pontificem. I realize that before excommunication the pope gives the heretics 1 last chance – 3 times to inform them?
Yeah. Twice a heretic or a fishy of heresy is asked to give him a chance. After the means are exhausted, heretics must be avoided, according to the rule of not being in the "tents of sinners," which originates from the Scriptures. But this ritual of dropping candles, etc., comes from the early mediate Ages. Thus was excommunication carried out solemnly in the medieval Church, and Leon X adheres to this customized without inventing anything new, due to the fact that it is simply a ritual designed to shake consciences, to express the Church's pain for falling sheep from the fold. Of course, the Church does not offer a chance indefinitely. It will not be that the heretic offends the Church, offends Christ, offends those who legitimately persist in the Gospel and Decalogue, and the Pope does nothing about it. This is not the way to realize it. Never has it been hastily done, never has it been done in specified a way that no chance has been given to callback its views, to reflect on the situation, to reconcile with the Church and to search ways of conversion. Unfortunately, with a man of a character like Luther, having individual qualities far from being moderate, whatever the Pope and the Church would do, it was doomed to failure.
"No 1 may violate our written provision, explanation, order, attachment, determination, will, decree, nor may he be recklessly opposed. But if anyone dares, let him know that he is at hazard for the wrath of Almighty God and the Apostles Peter and Paul."
This is simply a typical sanctioning expression of an excommunication bull, which refers to the highest authorities, namely the Lord God and the 2 top Apostles, who are columns of the Church.
Is the excommunication that Leon X imposed on Luther and everyone who followed him inactive valid?
It's due to the fact that no 1 called it off. It is the cornerstone of the groundbreaking past of the Church. Ecumenical negotiations cannot undermine the message of this document.
The confusion introduced during the Second Vatican Council perfectly illustrates the subsequent improvement of Catholic-Protesters relations. The increasingly vague and indeterminate formulas utilized by the hierarchy of the Church make the Catholic doctrine so blurred that it is very hard to measure the errors of Protestantism. The price of unity is to flee the Truth. The question here is: if everything is blurry; if it is so frequently repeated that differences are cosmetic; if bishops take part in various ecumenical services, why do Protestants not want to convert to Catholicism and return to the Church?
Good question. Anyone can answer them himself. The Protestants do not fall under the regulation of the pope in Rome (even very liberal). This shows well adequate the bankruptcy of the word about reconciliation of all Christians. And so the Church does not gain anything, but loses it, due to the fact that the propaganda of the settlement of “all Christians” causes interior instability, giving birth to indifference. If all religion is good, why stay with the Catholic 1 at all costs...
Can it be said that Marcin Luther is present a "German export commodity" and his "science" is the "inspiration of German hierarchs"?
Of course, we must remember that he was a man of large merit for Germany, even by promoting the German language, as he became a advocate for Bible translation. And the fact that it has become a "German export commodity" shows not only its presence in the alleged ecumenical dialogue, but besides the process of alleged synodity in today's Germany. The German Church present is Luther's disciple. He finds inspiration for himself in Protestant reforms. In order to find out that what I am saying here is not unspeakable, it is adequate to realise that all these demands, which the introduction of which advocates the German episcopate, copy the solutions already introduced in Protestant communities. The priesthood of women, the secular regulation in the structures of the Church, the preaching of secular sermons, the abolition of celibacy. You can number longer... So it seems to me that these progressive hierarchs in the post-sobor Church, who neglect to see that all of this has not pleased the Protestants at all. It did not supply them with thrilling pastoral conquests. Of course, this blindness can only be said erstwhile we presume that progressive hierarchs act in good faith. But I wouldn't always be sure. Examples of people like McCarrick or Beccaù are besides meaningful not to mention them in favour of the problem of good religion (of course some).
In the first half of the 20th century, G. K. Chesterton wrote that practically everything had evaporated from Protestantism but 1 – the protest itself, or anti-Catholicism. Do you agree with the thesis that anti-Catholicism is the common denominator between the various divisions of Protestantism today?
I agree with Chesterton, notabene the large author and advocate of our Polish affairs in the West. I think his constatuation illustrates 1 truth. Well Protestantism is just a good example of the fact that liberal reforms – which are presently being applied in the Catholic Church – carried out earlier in Protestants, have not produced fruit. Protestantism does not flourish. He struggles with even more problems than the post-consort Church. The state of Protestantism has shown very well the fresh celebrations of Marx's bicentennial birthday, in which German evangelicals played a promotional function (unfortunately besides with the participation of the progressive Catholic Episcopal).
In the case we're talking about, my thesis has always been the same and simple. The Church – practicing ecumenism – does not gain only loss. He's not getting fresh followers. But he loses his faithful who succumb to indifference. I would add that neo-Protestant sects (especially in Latin America) mention to the Church very hostilely, and here no dialog has any meaning or purpose.
Some sects of Protestantism are steeped in large contempt for almost everything Catholic. Yet, due to whether it is political correctness or belief in the slogan “ecumenism above all” , the hierarchs of the Catholic Church turn a blind eye. Why do the Catholic hierarchs pretend to spit on the Church of Christ as rain falls from the sky? Is the slogan "ecumenism above all" more crucial than the Gospel, right, tradition?
I get the impression that ecumenism is understood as a goal in itself, not a means to anything. In this view, everything that serves the thought of ecumenism is good, no substance what effects it has on the Church.
Does Francis behave differently in ecumenical relations with Protestants than his predecessors? I ask due to the fact that John Paul II and Benedict XVI besides utilized sometimes vague gestures; they spoke circular words; they avoided calling mistakes mistakes; they forgot that Catholic fact demands simultaneously condemnation of the other heresy.
John Paul II and Benedict XVI did not break up the dialog with Protestant communities, which began to ordained women's pastors. John Paul II and Benedict XVI publically denounced (privately neither have I heard anything about it) the well-known fact of ordination as pastors and pastors of lesbians and homosexuals in communities with which they maintained "very good, close, ecumenical relations". John Paul II and Benedict XVI did not break relations with communities whose pastors began to “dogmatically” prove that “abortion is simply a human right”... I could multiply and multiply examples. Is Francis doing something that his predecessors didn't do, or is he just trying to top them in ecumenism?
"The condemnation of a partner in the ecumenical movement for anything (even if it were highly gross or indecency) is not intentional, due to the fact that it threatens ecumenism" – that was Rome's motivation for the course of ecumenism by the Second Vatican Council. This course is to be irreversible according to the popes themselves. What more can I say?
Finally, I will ask “half-fifth, half-serve”: if nothing in this substance changes, will we not shortly be able to find Luther in the canon of the saints? If, as Francis' closest associates claim, “the Lord God wanted and wants many religions”, what will halt them from saying that “the Lord God wants Luther to be a saint of the Catholic Church”?
If there was a mad thought to beat Hus, I did not hear anyone reminisce about Luther among the saints, whom he did not admit and the cult condemned. The present Pope, on the another hand, said that the German reformer was a "hero of faith". Of course, no 1 can convincingly say what this "herohood" would consist of.
The thought of the multiplicity of religions claimed by the Creator is an unheard post-sobor idea. It is now sounding with expanding force. What would Luther say? I think he'd condemn her. He couldn't imagine her approval. This is how we abruptly announcement any conservatism in the German reformer...
Whatever 1 does not speak, the historical fact remains that the reformation was a war on views and those are views that cannot be agreed upon. It is not that the Roman Curia of Leon X misinterpreted Luther's teaching, and in fact everything he preached was orthodox. specified opinions—and in the post-convocational Church—are preached. Even any cardinals say that, which is outrageous. But that won't change history.
God bless the conversation.
Tomasz D. Kolanek
