Father, I am very confused by your last post. To me, and tell me if I am mistaken, you are glossing over how serious Martin Luther’s errors were and still are today, as well as how acerbic and incendiary his polemics against the Catholic Church were in the 16th century. Are you honestly saying that Luther was never a heretic at any time in his life? An accurate definition of a heretic was given above, and Luther meets the bill as he rejected several teachings of the Church after his baptism.
I do realize I can not know with certainty the state of his soul at his death, and if he rejected his errors, but can you not at least admit that at some point in his life, Luther espoused heretical teachings making him in fact, a heretic as according to the definition given by the Catholic Church?
If you would, Father, could you provide a link to this 1983 report? I believe that these titles of being a “witness” were indeed given to Luther… But is this an opinion or a binding judgement on the faithful akin to that of canonization? Because if it’s the latter, and it is binding, then why not just canonize Luther as a saint since he was a “witness of the Gospel”, just as men, for example, like St. Edmund Campion and St. John Fisher were?
I believe Luther was a “witness of Jesus Christ”… But was he a good one. I believe Luther was a “witness of the Gospel”… But was it the correct and true Gospel he was witnessing after 1517?
You mention, Father, that we should “submit yourself to the superior knowledge and judgment of the Successor of Peter.” Does this apply only to 20th and 21st century Popes, or to all the successors of Peter? Does the “perspective and judgement” of the 20th and 21st centuries nullify the judgements given by the Holy See in prior centuries? There is a binding document by a 16th century Pope (as opposed to this 1983 document you speak of, which you haven’t shown is binding on the faithful) that clearly calls Luther out as a heretic. This comes from the Papal Bull “Exsurge Domine”, promulgated by Pope Leo X in 1520. Emphases mine:
"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.’
"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 his errors…
"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.”
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM
The Successor of Peter, Servant of the Servants of God, Pope Leo X has directly called Martin Luther a “true heretic”. As you said, in “all things [do] you completely submit yourself to the superior knowledge and judgment of the Successor of Peter”? Because Pope Leo’s words are clear here. Luther surely did some good things in his life, but are we really going to withhold from calling him a heretic and that he did not greatly damage the Church?
If something goes against our faith, it is within our right to disagree. Church teaching says so. But nothing has been changed. Nothing Subtracted from or added to. We owe our Shepherd a chance, to prove he knows best for our Church in our times. If he crosses the line, then we reconsider. But no lines have been crossed. It’s just different than what we are used to.