WI the Papacy admitted errors in 16th century?

Pope Adrian VI did not completely understand the gravity of the situation during Reformation. At the Diet of Nyremberg which opened in December 1522 he was represented by Francesco Chiericati, whose private instructions contain the frank admission that the disorder of the Church was perhaps the fault of the Roman Curia itself, and that it should be reformed. However, the former professor and Inquisitor General was strongly opposed to any change in doctrinal, and demanded that Luther be punished for teaching Herecy.
The statement in one of his works that a pope may error, privately or in a minor decree, including matters of faith, attracted attention.
WI the views of Adrian VI were adopted and the Church admitted her errors in 16th century? If Chiericati followed his instructions and blamed the Curia for the turmoil in the Church what happens next? How is this affects Reformation and History? Any thoughts?
 
The main problem is not admitting mistakes into the managment of the Church resources. The pope could have easily condemned the german church for her behaviour and claimed that the whole indulgences selling affair went far beyond what was considered orthodox. The political fallout would have been ugly, but the pope could survive.

(Caveat: my knowledge of reformation is a bit rusty)

The real problem is doctrinal: when Luther started to claim that salvation could come only through "Dei Gratia" and not through "Operae", which was the foundation of the whole indulgence selling, he had actually moved in a territory where the Pope could not follow him without making huge changings to the catholic doctrine.

They could have reached an agreement (maybe if they had met each other), but in the 1522 Luther is still an upstart and, frankly, I don't see the roman curia coming to pacts for him. Besides you should consider the political manouvres of the german electors...
A possible POD could be a meeting between Luther and Chiericati, with the latter inviting Luther to Rome (but Luther would have hardly accepted: the risk of being handed to the inquisistion would have been too high).

If you want to butterfly away three hundred years of religious strife in Europe, you could have cardinal Pole elected as pope in 1555 instead of cardinal Carafa, Paolo IV. Pole was allengdly a supporter of a conciliation with the protestants. Under his lead the catholic church could heal the division with the protestants and find a civil modus vivendi.
 
Maybe if Adrian VI had admited that the Church errored and the bureaucracy of the Curia was responsible of the mess with Reformation Luther would have recanted some of his views since his original goal was to reform the Church... not start a new branch of Christianity...
If this happens though Adrian VI risks a rebellion from hardline Cardinals and a potential Schism 100 years after the Great Western Schism was healed...
 
There was too much institutionalised corruption for change to have occured, the Church was too busy trying to render unto Caesar to be reformed. An admission by a Pope would have been akin to Khrustchev's denunaciation of Stalin and it may well have brought about a collapse of papal power anyway
 
As others have alluded to, a major problem with this is the idea of Papal supremacy. Catholic dogma states that the Pope is God's appointed representative on earth. The implication is that God ensures the right man is elected, and therefore that man has a total mandate to do whatever he wants in God's name. If Popes ever admit to making mistakes, it shatters the belief in God's oversight of the Church. This was the key reasoning behind why Leo X refused Luther's calls for Church Councils - if Councils can be called, where is God's supremacy in the Church? That kind of thing. And so for centuries the Catholic Church refused to ever compromise previously made doctrines, and struggled to introduce new ones when society called for change.
 
As others have alluded to, a major problem with this is the idea of Papal supremacy. Catholic dogma states that the Pope is God's appointed representative on earth. The implication is that God ensures the right man is elected, and therefore that man has a total mandate to do whatever he wants in God's name.

Not completely true. The Pope supremacy is the principle by which the pope is the absolute ruler of the catholic church. It was first formulated by Gregory the VII in the eleventh century in a document, the Dictatus Papae, which was a kind of political programme sui generis for the budding war against the Holy Roman Empire.
What you were referring to is the dogma of papal infallibility. It's states that the pope is always right when he speaks ex cathedra, id est when he explain a point about faith. Most of the pope acts or words are not covered by this. It's was formulated by Pio IX in the XIX century. Anyway it existed in theory since the conciliarism movement of the 15th century.
The problem with Luther is not about the material wealth, but about doctrine. Considering only God's Grace as a way to salvation and excluding completely the possibility to get it through merits (operae) is a huge changing into doctrine.
 
Last edited:
It might have patched things up with Luther... to a point, but the beaurcrats would have claimed the pope spoke heresy and elected an anti-pope puppet.

The German nobles who embraced Luther', because they were gaining land from the churches... and later The English Protestant nobles wouldn't be happy with it.

And then there is the matter of Calvin, who wasn't all that fond of either Rome or Luther's ideas, though of course he prefered Luther. He would have stood up as a much louder voice without Luther and might have caused more bloodshed
 
WI the views of Adrian VI were adopted and the Church admitted her errors in 16th century? If Chiericati followed his instructions and blamed the Curia for the turmoil in the Church what happens next? How is this affects Reformation and History? Any thoughts?

It's important to draw the boundaries of "change" in this situation. How far could the Vatican reform and accommodate Luther without disregarding dogma?

Here are some things that the Vatican could have done without compromising core beliefs.

Curial reforms? Reforms of the papal household and checks on papal power? Absolutely needed as Don Giorgio demonstrates.

Ending the abuse of indulgences? Also quite needed, though perhaps the grand building projects of the 16th century Vatican might not have been so sumptuous and imposing.

Introducing the vernacular into the Mass? Possible. Actually, this was considered at the Council of Trent. The Tridentine Fathers rejected this option out of a strong need for liturgical regularization and a desire to differentiate Roman liturgy from Reformation liturgy.

Exclusion of the apocrypha in Catholic bibles? This was considered but ultimately denied at Trent. A de-emphasis on the apocrypha would have mended relations with both Luther and Calvin.

Here's something that the Vatican could never compromise on:

Accepting Luther's denial that the Mass is a sacrifice of propitiation equal to the sacrifice of Calvary? Never. This was (and still is) the common teaching of apostolic Christianity (what we know today as Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

So Luther might well as split anyway, even though the Tridentine Fathers might have compromised on certain non-dogmatic concepts. His strong and unequivocal denial of the Canon of the Mass stopped any chance of reconciliation, regardless of Roman offers of reconciliation in other areas. Luther would have to recant his understanding of the Eucharist in order to reintegrate himself with the Roman Church. I do not see the Popes of the time contradicting centuries of theological development to accommodate a small but burgeoning theological heresy in Northern Germany.

Luther's denial of the Mass closed the deal, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
The problem with Papacy admitting errors would be twofold if Adrian VI proceeded with this step... First i wonder which Pope would be strong enough to admit that Roman Curia was the main guilty party without causing further unrest inside Church...
And second by admiting that Church (and Papacy mainly) could error it would subvert Papal infallibility and changed Roman Church for ever... Though i guess that such a step would have brought Catholicism and Orthodoxy closer...
 
Accepting Luther's denial that the Mass is a sacrifice of propitiation equal to the sacrifice of Calvary? Never. This was (and still is) the common teaching of apostolic Christianity (what we know today as Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

The Catholic Church actually teaches that? I thought they believe the Mass WAS the sacrifice at Cavalry, "re-presented" and not another sacrifice.
 
The Catholic Church actually teaches that? I thought they believe the Mass WAS the sacrifice at Cavalry, "re-presented" and not another sacrifice.

Yes, the Mass is the un-bloody re-presentation of Calvary and not a new instance of the sacrifice. That does not mean that the Mass is less sacramentally effective than Calvary. The Mass re-presents the same graces as the crucifixion through the consecration. The Mass also re-presents the identical body and blood shed on the cross in a physical real presence. When a person attends Mass he/she physically participates in the mystery of human salvation established at the Crucifixion. The only difference between the Mass and Calvary is the manner of sacrifice (bloody vs un-bloody).
 
Top