Bull of Pope Leo X 'Exsurge Domine'


Here is a English translation of Exsurge Domine papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm. I was interested in reading it, and was wondering two things.

1.)is papalencyclicals fairly reliable?

2.)and are the 41 errors meant to be read as if Luther was saying them, or as the Pope responding too them. (i’m quite sure it is as if Luther is saying them, just making sure that is how it is meant to be read, as the third one confuses me a bit)

  1. I’m not sure what you mean by reliable. Do you mean infallible?

  2. The 41 errors are the false teachings of Martin Luther. You can read them as if Luther is saying them.

The third error has to do with concupiscence (“inflammable sources of sin”)- the disordered desires in us that came as a result of original sin. The Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence itself is not sin (but rather a temptation to sin); Luther taught that it was sin - hence his teaching that we are always corrupt, in the state of sin, even after Baptism and Confession. It was his erroneous belief regarding the nature of concupisence that resulted in the false teachings listed in numbers one, two and three.

For “concupiscence” see CCC #405, 978, 1264, 1426, 2515



Ahh ok thanks, I was wondering what those ‘inflamable sources of sin’ were.

As to my first question, I was wondering if the site reproduced the actual documents well. Though I am also curious, are the Papal Bulls infalliable?

After reading the ‘Exsurge Domine’, alot of what Luther was preaching is profoundly more corrupt than what I once thought. Not that I thought his heresy was good anyhow.


EWTN is a reliable Catholic source. The following is a link to Exsurge Domine in their library.

Just scanned it a little, but it seems to be the same as the one from the papalencyclicals site you gave.

Regarding the infallibility of papal bulls - I don’t know. My guess would be that some may be, but that many are not. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t binding. I’m not sure the extent of content that can be covered by papal bulls. For example, it may be possible that a legislative/regulation type pronouncement could be made via a papal bull. That pronouncement would be binding until something different would be decreed. Regulations can change - whereas infallible teachings on faith and morals never change.



papalencyclicals.net is very reliable.

As for Exsurge Domine, here is the original on the Vatican site:


Here’s a great article by Jimmy Akin discussing its infalliblity (especially the clause concerning heretics being burned):



Infalliblity does not depend on the type of document–papal infalliblity is a timeless truth and document distinction didn’t come about for many centuries.

Statements by the Pope are infallible if they concern faith or morals and are intended definitively to be held by the whole Church. That’s the only requirements. Notice too, that the standard is “to be held” not “to be believed with supernatural faith”–so extands to more than dogmatic definitions, the Pope has the same infallibility possessed by the Church as a whole.

The article above by Jimmy Akin is a pretty decent explanation. Here’s another explanation in the context of examining the status of Humanae Vitae:


Do you think that ALL of Martin Luther's points are corrupt?

Do you not think that requiring money for "forgiveness" is corrupt?


The 30 Errors of Martin Luther.

  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.

  1. 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.

  2. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

  3. 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.

  4. 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."

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

  15. 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.

  16. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

  17. 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.

  18. The word of Christ to Peter: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth," etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. A way has been 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.

  22. 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.

Focus on number three that's why I high lighted it. :thumbsup:

God Bless


[quote="Ceptor, post:7, topic:78898"]
Do you think that ALL of Martin Luther's points are corrupt?

Do you not think that requiring money for "forgiveness" is corrupt?


Luther was referring to the Indulgences the Church was giving if the people donated to help the Vatican.

The Vatican needed help so they can strengthen the basilica. So in return, if the people donated money they would receive an Indulgence it was simple. The Church wanted to give back to people.


Since Vatican II the Catholic Church has toned down the rhetoric on Catholic-Protestant issues. For example, on 19 Nov 2008, Pope Benedict XVI said "Luther’s expression sola fide is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love." Which approach is the better one?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.