A friend of mine has been recently challenged by many claims from the Roman Church. It’s been a real struggle for him. I’ve tried to give him the best answers I could, with a little help from some dear friends, but its a long trying task.
Anyway, a Romanist posted these questions (on his blog I assume) and my friend ended up posting them on his blog. I thought I’d take the time to post them on here and get some feedback from some of you scholarly Protestants! I may be opening a can of worms (since I know some Papists are lurking around here already)…but it is what it is. So here we go! The questions, as originally authored by Brian Cross:
Questions for Protestants
1. Whose determination of the canon of Scripture is authoritative? (If your answer is “the Scriptures testify to their own canonicity”, then, since persons disagree about the content of this testimony, whose determination of the content of this testimony is authoritative?)
2. Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative? (Again, if your answer is “Scripture interprets Scripture”, then, since persons disagree about the content of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture, whose determination of the Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?)
3. Whose determination of the identity and extension of the Body of Christ is authoritative? (If you deny that Christ founded a visible Church, then skip this question.)
4. Whose determination of which councils are authoritative is authoritative? (If you deny that any Church councils are authoritative, then skip this question.)
5. Whose determination of the nature and existence of schism is authoritative?
6. Whose determination of the nature and extension of Holy Orders (i.e. valid ordination) is authoritative?
7. Whose determination of orthodoxy and heresy is authoritative? (If your answer is “Scripture”, then go to question #2.)
8. If your answer to any of questions 1-7 is “the Holy Spirit”, or “Jesus” or “the Apostles”, then whose determination of what the Apostles, the Holy Spirit, or Jesus have determined is authoritative?
9. Given your answers to the above questions, how does your position avoid individualism and the perpetual fragmentation that necessarily accompanies it? (If your answer appeals to the “fundamentals of the faith” or the “essentials of the faith”, then whose determination of what are “the essentials of the faith” is authoritative?)
10. Does not even nature teach you that a visible body needs a visible head? If so, then does grace therefore destroy nature, or does grace build upon nature?
11. Why do you think that your present [Protestant] pastor has more authority than the successor of St. Peter? In other words, why do you “obey” and “submit” (Hebrew 13:17) to your Protestant pastor rather than the successor of St. Peter?
12. Whose determination of the nature of “sola scriptura” is authoritative?
24 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
The School of Hard Knox 
I had a friend respond to some of these questions via our facebook group.
Tim Mindeman writes:
1. concerning the Biblical Canon:
OT – No one included the Apocryphal books as part of Scripture until the council of Trent (1546). Evidence derived from first century AD writers Philo and Josephus indicated that the Hebrew canon did not include the Apocrypha. For more good reasons on why the Apocrypha should not be considered scripture, look here:http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
Please note that I do not endorse everything on that site, I have only looked at their info regarding the Apo. books and it is helpful.
NT – This is common knowledge among evangelicals and Protestants as summed up by wikipedia:
“Many modern Protestants point to the following four “Criteria for Canonicity” to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament:
1.Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2.Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
3.Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
4.Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.
The basic factor for recognizing a book’s canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration, and the chief test for this was apostolicity.”
The NT canon is made up of the books universally accepted by early Christians as divinely inspired and authored by the Apostles. By AD 400 the standard of 27 NT books is accepted in the East and West as confirmed by Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine and three church councils.
If someone is looking for a singular person or authority to say who or what scripture is, than it had better be the Holy Spirit. My faith is strengthened by the fact that God sovereignly directed the early believers to agreement over and over again on the books of the Old and New Testament.
If there were only one authority, I would be prone to not trust him, just as I trust a Democracy more than a dictatorship, because sin has infected all men, and God uses men to hold each other accountable to the truth. I cannot accept that the authority of any man other than Jesus Christ is truly authoritative over what is scripture. To place any man as an authority over the written word is to place that man as an equal to Christ, or even above Christ.
John 1:1 – In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God.
In response to question 8 – It can only be the Holy Spirit that testifies to man that the scripture is true and that it is his authority. (Romans 9:1- I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit, see also 1 Corinthians 2:9-11)
I do agree that many evangelicals have abused the Holy Spirit and (especially in America) become overly individualistic in their faith. This does not negate the fact that the Holy Spirit speaks individually as well as corporately. There is unity and diversity in the church, just as in the trinity. (For more on unity and diversity, see Francis Schaffer – “He is there and He is not silent”) We do submit ourselves to one another, but ultimately we submit to scripture.
So in other words, It is The Holy Spirit is leading everyone in opposite directions. How was the gospel spread before the printing press? If it were spread by oral teachings of men, who then claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, are we not trusting these men to be whom they claim to be? Scripture when referenced in the Bible, is the Old Testament, as the NT was not created yet. So in theory, the authors of the books in the Bible, claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them. The only proof we have of this is their words. Which means that we are trusting the words of men, that they are who they say they are and that they speak the truth. There is absolutely no way we could prove or disprove that the Holy Spirit was,is or is not inspiring them. Therefore, we ourselves, make the discision to trust in the words of Men, whether it be written down or orally. Which then if we go even deeper, we can say that we are trusting in Faith, the words of Paul. A man, who claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. And we are trusting the words of all the Authors of Books (men) in the Bible, who claim to be inspiried by the Holy Spirit also. This simply shows that we are indeed trusting the words of Men. We can say that it is the Holy spirit leading us and not these men, which brings me back around to my first statement. Why is the Holy Spirit leading everyone in different directions especially, when Jesus specifically stated that “they all be as One.”?
Is there any proof that if the Roman Church claims to be inspired by God, led by the Holy Spirit, claiming the authority given to the Apostolic head, that this is not true. Because if we go by what Scripture says then this is the way God has done things in the past. He has given authority to Men which is proven throughout the Bible. He never commanded anything be written down and a priniting press be created so that His word would spread. He gave authority to Men to spread this gosepel. Where in the Bible does it say He stopped doing so. Or that only twelve would be given this authority and then a book would take over.
BTW…. The Authority of the Roman Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. Just as He was the authority of Paul, Peter, and all others. The pope is a disciple of the Lord as were the others, whom we recieve the word of God from. The same as the people who listened to Paul and Peter and all the others. Catholics still practice recieving the word from men (priests) along with holy scripture, as was instituted by Jesus, before the invention of the printing press .
“Many modern Protestants point to the following four “Criteria for Canonicity” to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament:
1.Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2.Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
3.Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
4.Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.
The basic factor for recognizing a book’s canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration, and the chief test for this was apostolicity.”
Who were the men who came up with this? What authority gave them this knowledge?
You seem to think that just because Scripture had no way of being massively printed that somehow that means the Church was operating without the written Word. You know better than that. Whether the masses had access to the canon or not, the Church ALWAYS did. It’s irrelevant to assume that just because books couldn’t be copied in bulk that that cancels out the idea of Sola Scriptura, (which means that Scripture is the final authority on all matters of the Church).
You sound like a modern day Penecostal, still claiming that there are modern day Apostles. You overlook many examples in the Scripture where men went to the written law as well. To say God never commanded anything to be written down is to essentially say that those who wrote the Scriptures did so of their own ambition. Is this the claim you make? That somehow the canon, both OT and NT are man made inventions?
All of this hinges on Apostolic Succession. If Apostolic Succession is true, then the RCC is correct in its assumptions. Then the Pope does have infalability in all doctrinal matters. Then the true Church is only found in Rome.
However, you don’t even have to argue against apostolic succession from a theological point of view. History speaks against it alone. Many popes murdered and bought their way into power. Is that the appointing of the Holy Spirit? When popes were rushed into office because those around knew they would die quickly and their successor could then take power, is that the appointment of the Holy Spirit? The RCC has a bloody violent history to contend against if its to make such outlandish claims. Maybe Augustine could see what was coming and that’s why he recanted on his views of Apostolic Succession…
You did not answer any of my arguments. You answered with Anti-Catholic propoganda which has be used forever, by many who hate the Catholic Church, and does not bother me in the least. I think Chick tracts are funny little comic books.
Answer my comments with Historical facts about the statements you made inregards to Scripture? Prove it to me.
The Bible itself actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture.(Jn 21:25), and Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition that is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim 2:2). He instructs us to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by or epistle” (2 Th 2:15). We are told that the first Christians “were perserviering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching that was given long before the NT was written-centuries before the canon of the N T was settled.
God speaking through Isaiah, promised a living voice in the Church that Christ would establish:”This is my covenant with them, says the Lord: My spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, nor out the mouth of your children, nor out of the mouth of your children’s children, says the Lord, form now until forever: (Is 59:21). This prophecy must refer to a living Church, the culmination of Israel, and not to a book, because no book, not even the Bible is a living teacher.
Both reason and experience tell us the Bible could not have been intended as each man’s private quide to the truth. If it were true that individual guidance by the Holy Spirit were a reality, each Christian would understand the same thing from any particular verse since God can not teach error. Because so many Christians argue on various matters while professing the Holy Spirit is enlightening them, proves the Bible’s sacred text cannot explain itself.
No where did you show that the Bible denies it’s sufficiency.
2 Tim 2:2 states: ” 2The things (which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
This is the NASB translation, which is considered to be the most literal word for word translation from the Greek. I fail to see the point you’re making.
2 Thes. is not giving credit to the idea of sufficient infallable tradition. You fail to recognize just WHAT traditions these men were talking about. Marion doctrine? Papal infallability? No. They were speaking of the truth of Jesus Christ and his resurrection, which is Paul’s day was passed on by both the written word and word of mouth.
The Bible says that all SCRIPTURE is sufficient but it never makes such a claim about tradition. Scripture can be tested. The written word can be compared. We have many many texts (more texts than of Shakespear or any other author) of the books of Scripture that we can test it against itself. We have absolutely no such test for oral tradition. You must only trust your pope on that. The problem is that while Rome claims to believe that Scripture and Oral Tradition work hand in hand, the reality is, again I state this, is that Rome truly teaches Sola Ecclessia. Church Alone. The pope is above the Word and able to interpret it alone, the Church is above tradition and able to alone interpret it. However, to put yourself above the Word is to put yourself above Christ. For does not John write that in the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God and the Word became flesh (meaning Christ is the Word, the Scriptures his testimony).
Holy Father is not the pope. Holy Father is God above. Christ never used that term for a man. It’s a Biblical term, only EVER being used by Christ in reference to God above.
Both reason and experience do not tell us that Sola Scriptura is false (in fact, looking back through modern history, one would have a problem showing where a church denomination abandoned Sola Scriptura and remained orthodox for more than a generation). Reason and experience tell us that Papal infallibility, Apostolic Succession and Oral Tradition as a duel authority of Scripture, with authority given to the Pope alone to interpret, is both ridiculous and too convenient for those in power. Say what you will about Anti-Catholic propaganda, it is historical fact and one that puts the claims of the Roman Catholic Church in a strangle hold. Were the claims of Rome true, then no pope would abuse his power. No pope would hold the office because of financial situations, and no one would have ever been burned at the stake for questioning Papal doctrine (how concerned Rome must have been for the eternal condition of these “heretics” souls that instead of witnessing to them through grace and love, they resorted to murder! Is this the Pope’s interpretation of the Great Commission of Jesus Christ?) I bring these issues up not to pain Rome as evil (for all have blood on their hands) but to show that if Rome’s claims are true, of being the one true Church, of Papal infallibility, ect., then Rome has some serious historical problems because too many cases show Rome acting as unchristian as the Babylonians.
Oh, and forgive me if I seem to be vering off topic of “Sola Scriptura”. Again, I believe that all of this goes back to the claims of Apostolic Succession.
All your claims against the Catholic Church are false. They are claims made by Protestants against the Catholic Church. Not truths proclaimed by Catholics or the Church. If you would take the time to truly educate yourself on the real doctrines of the Catholic Church you would see this? I do not have the time or want to discuss or educate you on them. I could list all the atrocities committed by Christians of all denominations, but I will not. Instead I will leave you with Jesus’s words”Let the weeds and the wheat grow together”.
BTW: Christian Charity radiates from you. I think you must be in the One True Church. I feel the kindness and charity of Jesus from your words. Yes…… I think I will leave the Catholic Church today and join yours. I want to have the Grace, wisdom and kindness and Truths, the Lord bestowed upon you. Plus I own 6 Bibles, and the Vulgate.,
Thanks for the convo.
Peace.
Thanks for addressing the issues brought up. Rome can try to rewrite history all they want, both Christian AND secular historians are able and willing to prove otherwise.
The Church has not rewrote history. As a matter of fact the Church takes full responsibility for the divisions among Christians today. She also takes full responsibility for any and all atrocities committed by her and in her name.
That is why as a Catholic, I am required by the Authority of my church, to turn the other cheek when confronted in anger , ignorance and uncharitable words by someone who is not Catholic.
This one I struggle with…..sometimes I would like to disobey the Church and strike back in anger and uncharitable words. But I am told to put away my sword.
Peace.
All I’m saying is Renee, is that the atrocities put up a big wall when dealing with Apostolic Succession. When you know certain popes pretty much bought their possition, its hard to claim Apostolic Succession in those cases.
Also, I believe I can use strong language (when dealing with these strong issues) and not abandon Christian charity and grace.
Bishop of Rome
The Roman Catholic Church from Apostolic times has literally followed the Bible in the establishment of good order in the Church. According to Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus there are three orders to the organization and leadership of the Church (sometimes known as ecclesiastical order or hierarchy): episcopos or bishops, presbyteros or elders, commonly translated priests, and diaconos or deacons.
The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop.
1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach …
Tit 1:7,9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.
Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.
Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
The shepherding role of the apostle Peter as episcopos was related by John.
Jn 21:15-17
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the twelve apostles were the first episcopes, receiving at the Last Supper their leadership order to serve when Jesus told them “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
Peter, as demonstrated in the biblical portrait of him, exercised a leadership role first among the other apostles and early Christians, and then later in Rome before his martyrdom there in 67/68 AD.
Peter’s presence in Rome in indicated in his first letter. The name “Babylon” is used here as a cryptic name for the city of Rome, a characteristic of writings done during times of persecution. During Peter’s time (witnessed by his own martyrdom) and most New Testament times (witness the Book of Revelation–classic persecution literature), Rome took on the characteristics of the most outstanding example of a world power hostile to God–ancient Babylon.
1 Peter 5:12-13
I write you this briefly through Silvanus … The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.
Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter’s presence and death in Rome.
Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter’s first successor as bishop of Rome.
2 Timothy 4:21
Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.
Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.
Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.
Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.
On the following pages is a list the bishops of Rome from Peter to Benedict XVI. Historians both secular and ecclesiastical concur with a final list published by the Vatican Library.
The only biblical “claim to fame” of these men is that they are episcopoi, bishops. There is no greater “order” according to the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches this. Other titles are only honorary and organizational.
The Catholic Church has also taken Paul at his word.
1 Cor 4:14-16
I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.
1 Thess 2:11-12
As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.
The faithful of the Church has always called their ordered leadership “father.” In Greek, the language of the early Church, the word for father was pappas; in Latin, the language of the later Church, the word for father was papa.
By the 300’s, bishops were sometimes called “pope” a corruption of the word for father. By the 700’s the title for affection and respect for the Bishop of Rome exclusively was Pope.
It is not uncommon for enemies and non-believers of Roman Catholicism to create an argument against the succession and therefore validity of the Bishops of Rome as true successors to Peter by proffering the history of the “bad Popes.” That argument arises from a basic misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture.
The first response to be made to the so-called argument from the “bad Popes” is admission that many men who held the position of Bishop of Rome were not holy men. Perhaps Peter was the best model for human failure in such a leadership role. He denied Jesus three times after being told he would do so. Some (e.g., Peter, Judas) who are called stumble and fall.
Some (Peter) repent and are saved. Others (Judas) reject that grace. It behooves us to remember that Jesus does not call saints, but sinners.
Lk 5:31-32
Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”
Mt 9:12
He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.”
The moral miracle of the “bad Popes” is that they were worldly men, public sinners, and never functioned as spiritual leaders nor touched or changed the deposit of faith of Christianity.
We are reminded by the Lord even to the present day that the lifestyle of the messenger does not alter the validity of the message. Recall the American TeleEvangelists’ scandals in 1987 and 1988.
By Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics,
Thank you. Now we have something to discuss! I do have a question though. The times when there were “bad popes”, does this mean the Church was without it’s physical head?
No. What particuliar years and bishops are you speaking of?
Bishops of Rome: Popes
First and Second Centuries
St. Peter (42 – 67)
St. Linus (67 – 79)
St. Anacletus (79 – 92)
St. Clement I (92 – 101)
St. Evaristus (101 – 105)
St. Alexander I (105 – 115)
St. Sixtus I (115 – 125)
St. Telesphorus (125 – 136)
St. Hyginis (136 – 140)
St. Pius I (140 – 155)
St. Anicetus (155 – 166)
St. Soter (166 – 175)
St. Eleutherius (175 – 189)
St. Victor I (189 – 199)
St. Zephyrinus (199 – 217)
Third and Fourth Centuries
St. Callistus I (217 – 222)
St. Urban I (222 – 230)
St. Pontian (230 – 235)
St. Anterius (235 – 236)
St. Fabian (236 – 250)
St. Cornelius (251 – 253)
St. Lucius I (253 – 254)
St. Stephen I (254 – 257)
St. Sixtus II (257 – 25
St. Dionysius (259 – 26
St. Felix I (269 – 274)
St. Eutychian (275 – 283)
St. Gaius/Caius (283 – 296)
St. Marcellinus (296 – 304)
St. Marcellus I (308 – 309)
St. Eusebius (309)
St. Miltiades (311 – 314)
St. Sylvester I (314 – 335)
St. Mark (336)
St. Julius I (337 – 352)
Liberius (352 – 366)
St. Damasus I (366 – 384)
St. Siricius (384 – 399)
St. Anastasius I (399 – 401)
Fifth and Sixth Centuries
St. Innocent I (401 – 417)
St. Zosimus (417 – 41
St. Bonaface I (418 – 422)
St. Celestine I (422 – 432)
St. Sixtus III (432 – 440)
St. Leo I (440 – 461)
St. Hilary (461 – 46
St. Simplicius (468 – 483)
St. Felix III/II (483 – 492)
St. Gelasius I (492 – 496)
Anastasius II (496 – 49
St. Symmachus (498 – 514)
St. Hormisdas (514 – 523)
St. John I (523 – 526)
St. Felix IV/III (526 – 530)
Bonaface II (530 – 532)
John II (533 – 535)
St. Agapitus I (535 – 536)
St. Silverius (536 – 537)
Vigilius (537 – 555)
Pelagius I (556 – 561)
John III (561 – 574)
Benedict I (575 – 579)
Pelagius II (579 – 590)
St. Gregory I (590 – 604)
Seventh and Eighth Centuries
Sabinian (604 – 606)
Bonaface III (607)
St. Bonaface IV (608 – 615)
St. Deusdedit I (615 – 61
Bonaface V (619 – 625)
Honorius I (625 – 63
Severinus (640)
John IV (640 – 642)
Theodore I (642 – 649)
St. Martin I (649 – 655)
St. Eugene I (654 – 657)
St. Vitalian (657 – 672)
Deusdedit II (672 – 676)
Donus (676 – 67
St. Agatho (678 – 681)
St. Leo II (682 – 683)
St. Benedict II (684 – 685)
John V (685 – 686)
Conon (686 – 687)
St. Serius I (687 – 701)
John VI (701 – 705)
John VII (705 – 707)
Sisinnius (70
Constantine (708 – 715)
St. Gregory II (715 – 731)
St. Gregory III (731 – 741)
St. Zachary (741 – 752)
Stephen (II) (752)
Stephen II/III (752 – 757)
St. Paul I (757 – 767)
Stephen III/IV (768 – 772)
Adrian I (772 – 795)
St. Leo III (795 – 816)
Ninth and Tenth Centuries
Stephen IV/V (816 – 817)
St. Paschal I (817 – 824)
Eugene II (824 – 827)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827 – 844)
Serius II (844 – 847)
St. Leo IV (847 – 855)
Benedict III (855 – 85
St. Nicholas I (858 – 867)
Adrian II (867 – 872)
John VIII (872 – 882)
Marinus I (882 – 884)
St. Adrian III (884 – 885)
St. Stephen V/VI (885 – 891)
Formosus (891 – 896)
Bonaface VI (896)
Stephen VI/VII (896 – 897)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898 – 900)
Benedict IV (900 – 903)
Leo V (903)
Sergius III (904 – 911)
Anastasius III (911 – 913)
Lando (913 – 914)
John X (914 – 92
Leo VI (92
Stephen VII/VIII (928 – 931)
John XI (931 – 935)
Leo VII (936 – 939)
Stephen VIII/IX (939 – 942)
Marinus II (942 – 946)
Agapitus II (946 – 955)
John XII (955 – 964)
Leo VIII (963 – 965)
Benedict V (964 – 966)
John XIII (965 – 972)
Benedict VI (973 – 974)
Benedict VII (974 – 983)
John XIV (983 – 984)
John XV (984 – 996)
Gregory V (996 – 999)
Silvester II (999 – 1003)
Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1004 – 1009)
Sergius IV (1009 – 1012)
Benedict VIII (1012 – 1024)
John XIX (1024 – 1032)
Benedict IX (1) (1032 – 1044)
Silvester III (1045)
Benedict IX (2) (1045)
Gregory VI (1045 – 1046)
Clement II (1046 – 1047)
Benedict IX (3) (1047 – 104
Damasus II (104
St. Leo IX (1049 – 1054)
Victor II (1055 – 1057)
Stephen IX/X (1057 – 105
Nicholas II (1059 – 1061)
Alexander II (1061 – 1073)
St. Gregory VII (1073 – 1085)
Bl. Victor III (1086 – 1087)
Bl. Urban II (1088 – 1099)
Paschal II (1099 – 111
Gelasius II (1118 – 1119)
Callistus II (1119 – 1124)
Honorius II (1124 – 1130)
Innocent II (1130 – 1143)
Celestine II (1143 – 1144)
Lucius II (1144 – 1145)
Bl. Eugene III (1145 – 1153)
Anastasius IV (1153 – 1154)
Adrian IV (1154 – 1159)
Alexander III (1159 – 1181)
Lucius III (1181 – 1185)
Urban III (1185 – 1187)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187 – 1191)
Celestine III (1191 – 119
Innocent III (1198 – 1216)
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries
Honorius III (1216 – 1227)
Gregory IX (1227 – 1241)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243 – 1254)
Alexander IV (1254 – 1261)
Urban IV (1261 – 1264)
Clement IV (1265 – 126
Bl. Gregory X (1271 – 1276)
Bl. Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276 – 1277)
Nicholas III (1277 – 1280)
Martin IV (1281 – 1285)
Honorius IV (1285 – 1287)
Nicholas IV (1288 – 1292)
St. Celestine V (1292)
Bonaface VIII (1292 – 1303)
Bl. Benedict XI (1303 – 1304)
Clement V (1305 – 1314)
John XXII (1316 – 1334)
Benedict XII (1334 – 1342)
Clement VI (1342 – 1352)
Innocent VI (1352 – 1362)
Bl. Urban V (1362 – 1370)
Gregory XI (1370 – 137
Urban VI (1378 – 1389)
Bonaface XI (1389 – 1404)
Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries
Innocent VII (1404 – 1406)
Gregory XII (1406 – 1415)
Martin V (1417 – 1431)
Eugene IV (1431 – 1447)
Nicholas V (1447 – 1455)
Callistus III (1455 – 145
Pius II (1458 – 1464)
Paul II (1464 – 1471)
Sixtus IV (1471 – 1484)
Innocent VIII (1484 – 1492)
Alexander VI (1492 – 1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503 – 1513)
Leo X (1513 – 1521)
Adrian VI (1522 – 1523)
Clement VII (1523 – 1534)
Paul III (1534 – 1549)
Julius III (1550 – 1555)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555 – 1559)
Pius IV (1559 – 1565)
St. Pius V (1566 – 1572)
Gregory XIII (1572 – 1585)
Sixtus V (1585 – 1590)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590 – 1591)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592 – 1605)
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605 – 1621)
Gregory XV (1621 – 1623)
Urban VIII (1623 – 1644)
Innocent X (1644 – 1655)
Alexander VII (1655 – 1667)
Clement IX (1667 – 1669)
Clement X (1670 – 1676)
Bl. Innocent XI (1676 – 1689)
Alexander VIII (1689 – 1691)
Innocent XII (1691 – 1700)
Clement XI (1700 – 1721)
Innocent XIII (1721 – 1724)
Benedict XIII (1724 – 1730)
Clement XII (1730 – 1740)
Benedict XIV (1740 – 175
Clement XIII (1758 – 1769)
Clement XIV (1769 – 1774)
Pius VI (1775 – 1799)
Nineteenth, Twentieth and Twenty First Centuries
Pius VII (1800 – 1823)
Leo XII (1823 – 1829)
Pius VIII (1829 – 1830)
Gregory XVI (1831 – 1846)
Pius IX (1846 – 187
Leo XIII (1878 – 1903)
St. Pius X (1903 – 1914)
Benedict XV (1914 – 1922)
Pius XI (1922 – 1939)
Pius XII (1939 – 195
John XXIII (1958 – 1963)
Paul VI (1963 – 197
John Paul I (197
John Paul II (1978 – 2005)
Benedict XVI (2005 – )
Taken from The Pontificia Annuaria, Vatican City, Europe
Well my brother in law, someone who pays no attention to theology and all attention to history, would consider any pope of the de Medici family incredibly corrupt (Pope Leo X for example)
I am assuming that you are speaking of selling indulgences. Pope Leo asked for alms to build St. Peters Basilica. There were abuses with indulgences, lay people and others in the Church were falsely signing and selling documents marked as indulgences to unsuspecting people for money.
The Council of Trent reformed this practice. This does not merit an evil act for a Pope and does not break the Apostolic Succession, nor was any doctrine that was formed from the words of Jesus changed. No Pope has the authority to change the doctrines established by Jesus in the Church.
Pope Leo also excommunicated Luther in his encyclical letter which I have attached in the next post.
From Catholic Answers:
The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.
One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “[I]t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.”
Andy,
I have decided not to post the letter. I do not think you really would care to much about it anyway. I am sure you have plenty reasons for not being a Catholic, and I am sure you are at peace with your faith and beliefs.
I do not wish to distrub that with you. It really would not change our views anyway.
I would rather part in words of kindness rather than debate.
Peace be with you Andy and your family always.
Wow,
I missed out here! 🙂
So ma, who was it that created the indulgence? Was it the middle men who were supposed to be collecting alms?
-g-
renee, it wasn’t indulgences alone. It was a whole slew of things. I’d have to talk to my brother in law, who like I said, is a student of history particularly of the renaissance and the time period leading up to it. I’ve encouraged him to write an essay because I think its needed, and as a Protestant Christian, the thought is interesting to him, but I don’t think he’ll actually do it. He’s one of those “I’d rather study endlessly than produce anything out of my studies” types haha!
My biggest wish during the Reformation was that Rome would have openly debated Luther. The Diet of Worms was a sham really. I know Rome’s stance is that the doctrines Luther were questioning weren’t open for debate, but to be honest that seems like a cop out to me. Perhaps Rome has their own perspective on this, but from studying Luther, he was willing and ready to debate openly, and longed for the opportunity.
Renee, concerning debate, I do get heated. As I said before, I believe I can discuss and debate heatedly and not abandon Christ’s charity. I at no point ever thought that you or any other RCCer that I engaged with online wished malice towards me. After all, it’s only the internet! I don’t take it THAT seriously hah!
So peace to you too.
Andy
George,
This is from Catholic Answers it explains indulgences better then I could.
“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints” (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1). To see the biblical foundations for indulgences, see the Catholic Answers tract A Primer on Indulgences.
The pious use of indulgences dates back into the early days of the Church, and the principles underlying indulgences extend back into the Bible itself. Catholics who are uncomfortable with indulgences do not realize how biblical they are. The principles behind indulgences are as clear in Scripture as those behind more familiar doctrines, such as the Trinity.
Before looking at those principles more closely, we should define indulgences. In his apostolic constitution on indulgences, Pope Paul VI said: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina 1).
This technical definition can be phrased more simply as, “An indulgence is what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal (lasting only for a short time) penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven.” To understand this definition, we need to look at the biblical principles behind indulgences.
Principle 1: Sin Results in Guilt and Punishment
When a person sins, he acquires certain liabilities: the liability of guilt and the liability of punishment. Scripture speaks of the former when it pictures guilt as clinging to our souls, making them discolored and unclean before God: “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool” (Is. 1:18). This idea of guilt clinging to our souls appears in texts that picture forgiveness as a cleansing or washing and the state of our forgiven souls as clean and white (cf. Ps. 51:4, 9).
We incur not just guilt, but liability for punishment when we sin: “I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless” (Is. 13:11). Judgment pertains even to the smallest sins: “For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Eccl. 12:14).
Principle 2: Punishments are Both Temporal and Eternal
The Bible indicates some punishments are eternal, lasting forever, but others are temporal. Eternal punishment is mentioned in Daniel 12:2: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”
We normally focus on the eternal penalties of sin, because they are the most important, but Scripture indicates temporal penalties are real and go back to the first sin humans committed: “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children (Gen. 3:16).
Principle 3: Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven
When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:
“Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’” (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)
Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.
Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).
Principle 4: God Blesses Some People As a Reward to Others
In Matthew 9:1-8, Jesus heals a paralytic and forgives his sins after seeing the faith of his friends. Paul also tells us that “as regards election [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers” (Rom. 11:28).
When God blesses one person as a reward to someone else, sometimes the specific blessing he gives is a reduction of the temporal penalties to which the first person is subject. For example, God promised Abraham that, if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom, he was willing to defer the city’s temporal destruction for the sake of the righteous (Gen. 18:16-33; cf. 1 Kgs. 11:11-13; Rom. 11:28-29).
Principle 5: God Remits Temporal Punishments through the Church
God uses the Church when he removes temporal penalties. This is the essence of the doctrine of indulgences. Earlier we defined indulgences as “what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven.” The members of the Church became aware of this principle through the sacrament of penance. From the beginning, acts of penance were assigned as part of the sacrament because the Church recognized that Christians must deal with temporal penalties, such as God’s discipline and the need to compensate those our sins have injured.
In the early Church, penances were sometimes severe. For serious sins, such as apostasy, murder, and abortion, the penances could stretch over years, but the Church recognized that repentant sinners could shorten their penances by pleasing God through pious or charitable acts that expressed sorrow and a desire to make up for one’s sin.
The Church also recognized the duration of temporal punishments could be lessened through the involvement of other persons who had pleased God. Scripture tells us God gave the authority to forgive sins “to men” (Matt. 9:8) and to Christ’s ministers in particular. Jesus told them, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21-23).
If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin! Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth, saying, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties.
Principle 6: God Blesses Dead Christians As a Reward to Living Christians
From the beginning the Church recognized the validity of praying for the dead so that their transition into heaven (via purgatory) might be swift and smooth. This meant praying for the lessening or removal of temporal penalties holding them back from the full glory of heaven. For this reason the Church teaches that “indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of prayer” (Indulgentarium Doctrina 3). The custom of praying for the dead is not restricted to the Catholic faith. When a Jewish person’s loved one dies, he prays a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death for the loved one’s purification.
In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord’s battles. Judah and his men “turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out” (2 Macc. 12:42).
The reference to the sin being “wholly blotted out” refers to its temporal penalties. The author of 2 Maccabees tells us that for these men Judah “was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness” (verse 45); he believed that these men fell asleep in godliness, which would not have been the case if they were in mortal sin. If they were not in mortal sin, then they would not have eternal penalties to suffer, and thus the complete blotting out of their sin must refer to temporal penalties for their superstitious actions. Judah “took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this . . . he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin” (verses 43, 46).
Judah not only prayed for the dead, but he provided for them the then-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties: a sin offering. Accordingly, we may take the now-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties— indulgences—and apply them to the dead by way of prayer.
These six principles, which we have seen to be thoroughly biblical, are the underpinnings of indulgences. But, the question of expiation often remains. Can we expiate our sins—and what does “expiate” mean anyway?
Some criticize indulgences, saying they involve our making “expiation” for our sins, something which only Christ can do. While this sounds like a noble defense of Christ’s sufficiency, this criticism is unfounded, and most who make it do not know what the word “expiation” means or how indulgences work.
Protestant Scripture scholar Leon Morris comments on the confusion around the word “expiate”: “[M]ost of us . . . don’t understand ‘expiation’ very well. . . . [E]xpiation is . . . making amends for a wrong. . . . Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime” (The Atonement [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983], 151). The Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia gives a similar definition: “The basic idea of expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong, the satisfaction of the demands of justice through paying a penalty.”
Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends (expiation) for what he has done.
An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: “By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil” (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness.
Andy,
Here is Pope Leo’s letter. I am sure both you and George will disagreee, but it being an historical document, you may find it interesting.
CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER
The Bull Exsurge Domine
Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520
Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it.
Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.
We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter’s. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.
Rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. He is like the heretics “whose last defense,” as Jerome says, “is to start spewing out a serpent’s venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished.” For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves. Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, “It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man’s, or what is worse, the devil’s.”
Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.
For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory, and contrary to the Apostle’s teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed.
These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church’s advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance. Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation no less learned than true and holy of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord’s field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history.
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.
2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.
3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.
4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.
5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.
6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.
7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: “Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life.”
8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.
9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God’s mercy for pardon.
10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.
11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.
12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.
13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.
14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.
15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.
16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.
17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.
18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.
19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.
20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.
21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.
22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.
23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.
24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.
25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.
26. The word of Christ to Peter: “Whatsoever you shall loose on earth,” etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.
27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.
28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.
29. A way has beeri made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.
30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.
35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.
36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.
37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.
38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.
39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.
40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.
41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.
No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.
Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord’s field as harmful thornbushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it. For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): “I will be with you to the consummation of the world”; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.
With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication….
Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.
As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.
But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.
Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.
Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the up building of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.
We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher …
Thanks Andy for your kind words above. If you enjoy debating theology there are various Catholics who have blogs George can direct you to. I do not wish to debate it with either George or his friends. I prefer to live and let live. It’s much more peaceful that way. Plus no Catholic could ever convince another non-catholic of the Truths found in the Catholic Church. It comes from the person themselves. She is either who she claims to be, which in that case we must belong to her, or she is not, in which case we should flee. Each person has to be at peace and confident with his own answer to that.
It was good to talk with you Andy, maybe we will meet in person some day.
Peace.
Renee
Thank you Renee. I will read the letter! I do enjoy historical documents. I will also look through my piles of works and letters of Luther to see if any response was given. If it was, I may post both letters as a full post here on the site. I think that my readers (all 3 of them) will find them most interesting. The papists and Reformers of that time were master debators.