Posted on 08/02/2011 8:54:35 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
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.
There are different sources of infallibility. For instance:
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.
[Heres where Im really grinning and winking: its more concise, anyhow, than the 12 volumes of The Fundamentals published by Protestant Fundamentalists approx. 100 years ago. :o)]
Youd 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.
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.
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.
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:
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 (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".
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?
Up to your usual good form, I see :-)
Thanks ! :-)
Huh?
"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 |
...with some pretty extreme butch homosexuality thrown in for effect.
Yes.
That too.
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.