Exsurge Domine
Catholic Counter-Reformation |
Catholic Reformation and Revival |
|
Exsurge Domine (
Luther refused to recant and responded instead by composing
History
The historical impetus for this bull arose from an effort to provide a decisive papal response to the growing popularity of Luther's teachings. Beginning in January 1520, a papal consistory was summoned to examine Luther's fidelity to Catholic teachings. After a short time, it produced a hasty list of several perceived errors found in his writings, but Curial officials believed that a more thorough consideration was warranted. The committee was reorganized and subsequently produced a report determining that only a few of Luther's teachings could potentially be deemed heretical or erroneous from the standpoint of Catholic theology. His other teachings perceived as problematic were deemed to warrant lesser degrees of theological censure, including the designations "scandalous" or "offensive to pious ears".[1][a]
The committee on which Eck sat consisted of some forty members, including
Prior to Eck's involvement, Cajetan had expressed his desire that the committee members examine the whole context of Luther's writings and specify careful distinctions among the various degrees of censure to be applied to Luther's teachings. Eck's approach was markedly different. He bulldozed a final decision through the committee to ensure a speedy publication.[4] As a result, the text it ultimately drafted simply contained a list of various statements by Luther perceived as problematic. No attempt was made to provide specific responses to Luther's propositions based upon Scripture or Catholic tradition or any clarification of what degree of theological censure should be associated with each proposition listed. All quoted statements were to be condemned as a whole (in globo) as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds. Eck may have employed this tactic in order to associate more strongly the taint of error with all of Luther's censured teachings.[7] However, this in globo formula for censure had already been employed by the earlier Council of Constance to condemn various propositions extracted from the writings of Jan Hus.[8]
When the committee members had obtained agreement among themselves regarding the selection of forty-one propositions which they deemed to be problematic, they subsequently submitted their draft text to Leo X. He appended a preface and conclusion and issued the document as an official papal bull on 15 June 1520.[8] Copies were printed, notarized, sealed and distributed to specially appointed papal nuncios who were tasked with disseminating the bull, especially in those regions where Luther's followers were most active, and ensuring that its instructions were carried out.[9]
Text
Printed copies of this
Following additional prayers of intercession directed towards the
Some of the condemnations confirmed prior judgments by the papacy. Luther's support for
Leo X then proceeded to issue an authoritative condemnation of these forty-one propositions in the following words:
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
Additionally, the bull contains a directive forbidding any use of Luther's works and decreeing that they should be burned:
[W]e 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. ... 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.[10]
Luther, along with his "supporters, adherents and accomplices", were given sixty days from the publication of this bull in which to desist "from preaching, both expounding their views and denouncing others, from publishing books and pamphlets concerning some or all of their errors". Luther himself was instructed to "inform us of such recantation through an open document, sealed by two
Reactions
Luther and his sympathizers
The Pope assigned to Eck and Cardinal Girolamo Aleandro the task of publishing this bull in Saxony, its neighboring regions, and the Low Countries.[17]
They found this task more difficult than had initially been anticipated on account of the widespread public support for
Eck found his task to be particularly onerous. He had received secret instructions permitting him to include more names under the bull's threat of excommunication at his discretion. This power he chose to exercise by supplementing the bull with the names of several prominent German
For these reasons, its dissemination took several months to complete. Luther himself received an official copy bearing the papal seal in early October of that year. However, rumors of its existence reached Luther well in advance of the official copy. At first he doubted their veracity and thought that the document to which they referred may be a forgery, possibly by Eck himself. Nonetheless he commented that it was the work of the Antichrist, whatever its true origin may be, and started to compose a response even before he had received an official copy.[20] His response was entitled Adversus Execrabile Antichristi Bullam (Against the Execrable Bull of the Antichrist).[21]
Luther defiantly proclaimed in his response that "whoever wrote this bull, he is Antichrist. I protest before God, our Lord Jesus, his sacred angels and the whole world that with my whole heart I dissent from the damnation of this bull, that I curse and execrate it as sacrilege and blasphemy of Christ, God's Son and our Lord. This be my recantation, O bull, thou daughter of bulls."[22] He subsequently took issue with the in globo censure of his statements: "My articles are called 'respectively some heretical, some erroneous, some scandalous', which is as much to say, 'We don't know which are which.' O meticulous ignorance! I want to be instructed, not respectively, but absolutely and certainly. [...] Let them show where I am a heretic, or dry up their spittle."[23] Much of the remainder of the tract is devoted to a discussion of the censured propositions.
With the publication of the bull, sporadic public burnings of Luther's works began to take place in Germany in accordance with Leo X's instructions. However, in some places this directive proved impossible or difficult to carry out because of Luther's popular support. On certain occasions, his followers managed to substitute his condemned books with wastepaper or anti-Luther tracts, or rescue some of his works from the flames before they were consumed.[24]
On 29 November 1520, Luther published a second response to the bull entitled Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull. Luther's commentary on proposition number 18 provides a representative example of its general tone: "I was wrong, I admit it, when I said that
On 10 December 1520, sixty days after Luther had received a copy of this bull, he and
Luther himself later explained his actions that day:
Since they have burned my books, I burn theirs. The canon law was included because it makes the pope a god on earth. So far I have merely fooled with this business of the pope. All my articles condemned by Antichrist are Christian. Seldom has the pope overcome anyone with Scripture and with reason.[29]
The breach between Luther and the papacy was finalized on 3 January 1521, when on account of Luther's failure to comply, the Pope issued the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem to declare that he had been formally excommunicated.
Modern
Exsurge Domine marks a watershed event in Christian history.
However, contemporary scholars of the Reformation widely agree that this bull itself is a "strange document and an evasive assessment of Luther's theological concerns".[16] Schaff notes that the condemned propositions are "torn from the connection [context], and presented in the most objectionable form as mere negations of Catholic doctrines. The positive views of the Reformer are not stated, or distorted."[31] Catholic author John M. Todd calls the bull "contradictory, lacking in charity, and incidentally far less effective than it might have been".[18] Not only does the text fail to identify precisely how each proposition is censured, but also it avoids direct engagement with numerous issues that are central to Luther's theology including sola fide and sola scriptura. In part, this evasion was simply an unavoidable consequence of the fact that Luther did not fully articulate his mature theological position until some time after this bull had been issued. Even so, Eck did not afford the committee sufficient time to better grasp the core issues at stake in Luther's teachings. As a result, some of the censured propositions are ambiguous, peripheral to Luther's main concerns, or were misunderstood or misrepresented by the committee. At least twelve of the forty-one propositions fail to accurately quote Luther or misrepresent his beliefs.[32] The bull itself contains an internal contradiction: at one point it orders all of Luther's works to be burned, but elsewhere restricts this censorship only to those works which contain one of the forty-one censored propositions.[13]
Proposition 33
The censure of certain theological propositions in this bull continues to be a source of controversy. For example, proposition number 33 censured by this bull states: "It is contrary to the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned."
Others disagree with those assessments and advance the alternative view that a censure that may be heretical but may also be merely "scandalous", "offensive to pious ears" or "seductive of simple minds" cannot be accepted as an infallible utterance of the Magisterium. Brian Harrison argues that a censure of an unspecified nature is potentially subject to future clarification or reform, unlike an ex cathedra definition, which is, by nature, irreformable.[37] A second argument advanced here asserts that censures that are merely "scandalous", "offensive to pious ears" or "seductive of simple minds" strongly depend upon a particular context of certain historical or cultural circumstances. A proposition that causes scandal or offense when it is advanced within a particular context "may not necessarily be so noxious under different circumstances".[37] Even if a proposition is essentially true but poorly worded or advanced in a particular context with the intent of provoking scandal or offense, it may be censured as "scandalous" or "offensive to pious ears".[38][e]
Manuscript copies
A copy of Exsurge Domine is extant in the Vatican Library.[40]
Notes
- de fide." An erroneous proposition "contradicts only a certain theological conclusion or truth clearly deduced from two premises, one an article of faith, the other naturally certain." The Magisterium may also apply censures of lesser gravity to other propositions that are inherently neither heretical nor erroneous. For example, a proposition may be deemed as "scandalous" or "offensive to pious ears" if it is worded in a manner that could lead to a scandalous interpretation or its "verbal expression is such as rightly to shock the Catholic sense and delicacy of faith."[2]
- ^ Here Leo X alludes to Pope Pius II's bull Execrabilis promulgated in 1460.
- ^ "Automatic major excommunication" translates the Latin expression majoris excommunicationis latae sententiae.
- Latin: Haereticos comburi, est contra voluntatem Spiritus.
- ^ It is itself a matter of controversy whether the 16th century Magisterium would have permitted the Catholic faithful to embrace some censured propositions as being generally true and worthy of censure only when they are advanced in certain contexts with the intention of generating scandal or causing offense. In a debate with Eck, Luther himself attempted to defend some of Jan Hus' propositions which the Council of Constance had condemned in globo as either heretical, erroneous, blasphemous, presumptuous, seditious or offensive to pious ears. Eck replied to Luther with the retort, "Whichever they were, none of them was called most Christian and evangelical, and if you defend them, then you are heretical, erroneous, blasphemous presumptuous, seditious, and offensive to pious ears respectively."[39]
References
- ^ a b c Hillerbrand 2007, p. 50.
- ^ Sollier 1908.
- ^ Bainton 1950, p. 143.
- ^ a b c Todd 1964, p. 166.
- ^ Bainton 1950, p. 144.
- ^ Bainton 1950, pp. 143–144.
- ^ Dolan 1965, p. 240.
- ^ a b Bainton 1950, p. 147.
- ^ Bainton 1950, p. 156.
- ^ a b c d e Pope Leo X 1520.
- ^ Luther, Martin (1518). Resolutiones disputationum de Indulgentiarum virtute F. Martini Luther Augustiniani Vittenbergensis (in Latin). Rhau-Grunenberg.
- ^ Hillerbrand 2007, p. 40.
- ^ a b Hillerbrand 2007, p. 51.
- ^ Bainton 1950, p. 145.
- ^ Bainton 1950, pp. 145–147.
- ^ a b Hillerbrand 1969, p. 108.
- ^ a b c Bainton 1950, p. 158.
- ^ a b Todd 1964, p. 167.
- ^ Bainton 1950, p. 157.
- ^ Todd 1964, p. 168.
- ^ Luther, Martin (1520). Adversus Execrabile Antichristi Bullam (in Latin). Wittenberg.
- ^ Bainton 1950, pp. 161–162.
- ^ Bainton 1950, p. 162.
- ^ Todd 1964, p. 169.
- ^ Bainton 1950, p. 165.
- ^ Bainton 1950, p. 164.
- ^ Brecht 1993, p. 424.
- ^ Psalms 21:9
- ^ Bainton 1950, p. 166.
- ^ Schaff 1916, p. 228.
- ^ Schaff 1916, p. 229.
- ^ Hillerbrand 1969, p. 111.
- ^ Pope Paul VI (7 December 1965). "Dignitatis Humanae". Proceedings of Vatican II. Archived from the original on 2012-02-11. Retrieved 2012-03-10.
- ^ Cleenewerck 2008, pp. 311–313.
- ^ Cleenewerck 2008, p. 313.
- ^ Cleenewerck 2008, p. 315.
- ^ a b Harrison 2005.
- ^ Akin 2001.
- ^ Bainton 1950, p. 116.
- ^ Vatican Secret Archives c. 2006.
Sources
- Akin, Jimmy (September 2001). "Identifying infallible statements". This Rock. 12 (7). San Diego, CA: from the original on 2016-01-27. Retrieved 2012-03-10.
- Bainton, Roland H. (1950). Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. Abingdon-Cokesbury Press.
- Brecht, Martin (1993) [©1985]. Martin Luther. Vol. 1. Translated by James Schaaf. Philadelphia: Fortress. ISBN 978-0-8006-0738-8.
- Cleenewerck, Laurent (2008). His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Euclid University Press. ]
- Dolan, John P. (1965). History of the Reformation (Mentor-Omega ed.). Toronto: The New American Library of Canada Limited.
- from the original on 2007-02-10. Retrieved 2012-03-10.
- Hillerbrand, Hans Joachim (1969). "Martin Luther and the Bull Exsurge Domine" (PDF). Theological Studies. 30 (1). Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University: 108–112. S2CID 170382766.
- Hillerbrand, Hans Joachim (2007). The Division of Christendom: Christianity in the Sixteenth Century. Presbyterian Publishing. ISBN 9780664224028.
- Pope Leo X (15 June 1520). "Exsurge Domine". Retrieved 2012-03-10.
- Schaff, Philip (1916) [©1888]. "The German reformation from the publication Luther's theses to the Diet of Worms A.D. 1517–1521". History of the Christian church. Vol. 6 (2nd rev. ed.). Charles Scribner's Sons.
- One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Sollier, Joseph (1908). "Theological Censures". In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
- Todd, John M. (1964). Martin Luther: A Biographical Study. Paulist Press.
- "The Bull Exsurge Domine by Leo X". Vatican City: Vatican Secret Archives. c. 2006. Archived from the original on 2011-05-22. Retrieved 2012-02-28.