500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

[JonNC]

=steve b;11239445]The bible wan’t his in the first place.

It isn’t Rome’s, either.

Luther took the Catholic bible and retranslated it for his own purposes, and gutting it of 10 books, and he gets mad that he’s criticized? It shows how mentally unstable he was.

No, he gets mad because Catholics were copying his German “retranslation”.
BTW, his translation had/has one more book than a Catholic Bible, so I’m not sure which ten books you’re talking about.

Luther was the blockhead. Where was He When Jesus established the Catholic Church? Where was he in 382, when the Catholic Church at the council of Rome established the canon of scripture, that we have today, that is 73 books we call the bible? This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and again at Trent… As we know, Luther on his own removed 7 old testament books, + rejected the epistle of Hebrews, book of Revelation, and epistle of James, calling it “an epistle of straw” because of Jas 2:14–26 conflicting with his personal theology on good works. That’s 10 books!

Get a copy of Luther’s translation and count the books, Steve. Count them: 74.
He did not call it a book of straw.
And guess what: he was allowed to state those opinions. Eramus stated his about the canon, as did Cajetan. Stating opinions about the canon was allowed, though your characterization that he rejected the NT antilegomena is hyperbolic.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

The bible wan’t his in the first place.

He deserved criticism

I provided you with the historical context for the Luther quote you posted. I would certainly be interested in any responses you have according to that context. In regard to your feelings about the context, I’m not interested.

JS

 

[pablope]

The historical record, even from Catholic sources, proves that Tetzel was a main factor that sparked the Reformation:

Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar states,

JS

Thanks, James…I have been doing some spare reading on Tetzel…trying to sift out legend from truth.

Anyway…I would like to get your (name removed by moderator)ut on these, if you can:

From your own blog:
beggarsallreformation.blogspo…n-as-coin.html

Luther writing to Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz said:
Under your most distinguished name, papal indulgences are offered all across the land for the construction of St. Peter. Now, I do not so much complain about the quacking of the preachers, which I haven’t heard; but I bewail the gross misunderstanding among the people which comes from these preachers and which they spread everywhere among common men. Evidently the poor souls believe that when they have bought indulgence letters they are then assured of their salvation. They are likewise convinced that souls escape from purgatory as soon as they have placed a contribution into the chest (LW 48:45, cf. LW 60:172).

newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm

An indulgence, he writes, can be applied only “to the pains of sin which are confessed and for which there is contrition”. “No one”, he furthermore adds, “secures an indulgence unless he have true contrition”. The confessional letters (confessionalia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrition. But such document did not secure an indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary indulgence (Paulus, “Johann Tetzel”, 103).

Are the indulgence letters the same confessional letters? (Luther just called them indulgence letters)

It looks like it.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Tplenary indulgence (Paulus, “Johann Tetzel”, 103).

Are the indulgence letters the same confessional letters? (Luther just called them indulgence letters)

It looks like it.

For a good overview of Tetzel, see Brecht’s first volume on Luther, around page 175 or so and following.

Tetzel’s indulgence preaching focused on four chief graces:

1. The complete remission of all sins (including remission of the punishment in purgatory).
   Earning the right amount of grace for this was possible under certain conditions: contrition of heart, confession (or at least the intention of doing so), visits to 7 churches with particular prayers offered, monetary payment
2. The possibility of obtaining a confessional letter: this enabled a person to receive absolution from all sins (including those committed up to the time of one’s death). This could be obtained without confession.
3. Buy a confessional letter that promised the person who bought it and his dead relatives “participation in all the church’s goods, i.e, its prayers, fasts, alms, and other pious works.” This could be obtained without confession.
4. “Remission of the punishment of sins for souls in purgatory by means of the Pope’s intercession when one paid for these souls”

I’m familiar with Paulus, but as far as I know, the book has not been translated into English. I would be very interested in reading the study put together by Paulus. Keep in mind as well, Tetzel did attempt to defend himself and his practices in writing, so I would be curious to see if Tetzel was developing a defense for his earlier abuses, and how Paulus interpreted Tetzel’s actions. I would also be curious to see how Tetzel preached and then compare it to the “fine print” of the confessionalia.

In a book that gave an overview of many of the Luther studies done around the time of Paulus, note the following comment from Reu’s Thirty Five Years of Luther Research:

Although Tetzel, who was commissioned for his special trade, and of whom Paulus treats in a monogravure (1889), later after his acquittal, taught that the indulgences “served solely in the case of punishment of sins that had been repented of and confessed,” yet his instructions read, outside of indulgence for punishment of sin, of the plenaria omnium peccatorum remissio, and without repenting one could buy an indulgence upon the
presentation of which any promiscuously chosen priest was forced once during lifetime and in the hour of death to grant to the professor a general absolution.

In the same way an indulgence for the dead could be had, for “as soon as the money clinked in the bottom of the chest, the souls of the deceased friends forthwith went into Heaven,” was, according to Prierias, actually preached as “mera et catholica Veritas.” Therefore, it was no trivial issue on which Luther’s battle began; it was an institution, representative of the entire system which brought it forth, and because of whose abuses the entire world suffered.

JS

 

[pablope]

For a good overview of Tetzel, see Brecht’s first volume on Luther, around page 175 or so and following.

Tetzel’s indulgence preaching focused on four chief graces:

I’m familiar with Paulus, but as far as I know, the book has not been translated into English. I would be very interested in reading the study put together by Paulus. Keep in mind as well, Tetzel did attempt to defend himself and his practices in writing, so I would be curious to see if Tetzel was developing a defense for his earlier abuses, and how Paulus interpreted Tetzel’s actions. I would also be curious to see how Tetzel preached and then compare it to the “fine print” of the confessionalia.

In a book that gave an overview of many of the Luther studies done around the time of Paulus, note the following comment from Reu’s Thirty Five Years of Luther Research:

JS

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. So…there are actually existing “confessionalia”? I will do some searching…

 

[Randy_Carson]

It isn’t Rome’s, either.

I kinda get that, Jon…but then I don’t.

**Who wrote the New Testament? Catholics. **

Sure, we could argue that point a bit, but after the shouting has ended and the smoke has cleared, we’re left with the simple fact that everyone who penned a word of the NT was a member of one Church, and that Church was calling itself the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century beginning in Antioch.

Who was the New Testament written for? Catholics.

The authors were writing for the benefit of those who were or would become members of the Catholic Church.

Who compiled the canon of Scripture? Catholics.

We could argue about the Council of Jamnia regarding the OT canon, but I think the torch had passed from the Jews to the Church long before then, don’t you? So, the canon of scripture was ultimately decided, discerned if you prefer, by Catholics.

Who preserved the Bible? Catholics.

Catholic monks, specifically. The laborious task of copying the texts was done by the brothers of the monasteries sitting in their scriptoriums day after day, year after year, for centuries before the invention of the printing press.

Who preached the Bible? Catholics.

Long before Hus or Luther or Calvin raised their voices to proclaim their unique messages, Catholic bishops, priests and deacons had taken the gospel into every corner of the globe and changed the world forever.

The Bible is not a Buddhist book or a Muslim book or even a Jewish book - it is a Christian book and based upon its origins and history we can say with some certitude that it is a Catholic book…one that we are happy to share with the world because that is what Jesus commanded us to do when He told the Apostles, proto-Catholics all: “Make disciples of all nations.”

 

[Peter_J]

**Who wrote the New Testament? Catholics. **

Thought you were going to say “The Orthodox.”

P.S. Well, actually I knew you were going to say “Catholics”, but only because I know that you, the person writing the post, are Catholic.

 

[pablope]

Thought you were going to say “The Orthodox.”

P.S. Well, actually I knew you were going to say “Catholics”, but only because I know that you, the person writing the post, are Catholic.

Were not the Orthodox also catholic prior to 1054 before they were known or called Orthodox?

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11240545]I kinda get that, Jon…but then I don’t.

**Who wrote the New Testament? Catholics. **

Sure, we could argue that point a bit, but after the shouting has ended and the smoke has cleared, we’re left with the simple fact that everyone who penned a word of the NT was a member of one Church, and that Church was calling itself the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century beginning in Antioch.

And I am a member of that one Church, just as you are. IOW, that one Church is not exclusively and only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Who was the New Testament written for? Catholics.

The authors were writing for the benefit of those who were or would become members of the Catholic Church.

So, Orthodoxy has no claim on it? I simply reject the notion that the Church Catholic is only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Who compiled the canon of Scripture? Catholics.

We could argue about the Council of Jamnia regarding the OT canon, but I think the torch had passed from the Jews to the Church long before then, don’t you? So, the canon of scripture was ultimately decided, discerned if you prefer, by Catholics.

Agreed, the undivided Church Catholic, the Catholic Church if you prefer.

Who preserved the Bible? Catholics.

Catholic monks, specifically. The laborious task of copying the texts was done by the brothers of the monasteries sitting in their scriptoriums day after day, year after year, for centuries before the invention of the printing press.

Undoubtedly true.

Who preached the Bible? Catholics.

Long before Hus or Luther or Calvin raised their voices to proclaim their unique messages, Catholic bishops, priests and deacons had taken the gospel into every corner of the globe and changed the world forever.

Agreed, and the Church Catholic continues to do so, as it is the role of the Church to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments.

The Bible is not a Buddhist book or a Muslim book or even a Jewish book - it is a Christian book and based upon its origins and history we can say with some certitude that it is a Catholic book…one that we are happy to share with the world because that is what Jesus commanded us to do when He told the Apostles, proto-Catholics all: “Make disciples of all nations.”

Catholic, but only and exclusively “Roman” Catholic.

Jon

 

[pocohombre]

mistake

 

[pocohombre]

ONT]
Luther was the blockhead

.The more you call him a blockhead the worse you look. Maybe they were “blockhead” times, maybe it was needed, maybe that is all it takes for “reformation”. He was a product of a Catholic world.

 

[benjohnson]

.The more you call him a blockhead the worse you look. Maybe they were “blockhead” times, maybe it was needed, maybe that is all it takes for “reformation”. He was a product of a Catholic world.

He did write a ‘block’ of books - over 50 volumes. Takes about ten fee of shelf space in the library.

They did take a long time to burn:

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/308587/1/The-Burning-Of-Martin-Luther$27s-Works.jpg

 

[JonNC]

Catholic, but only and exclusively “Roman” Catholic.

Jon

This should have said “but** not **only and exclusively”

Jon

 

[steve_b]

It isn’t Rome’s, either.

The writers of the NT were in the Church they wrote to and for. That’s the Catholic Church. Headquartered in Rome, the chair of Peter. And the CC assembled the books she deemed scripture and canonized them in 382 at the council of Rome. That canon was likewise validated in the councils of Hippo, Carthage, Trent.

for some background to my statement

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11209526&postcount=146
J:

BTW, his translation had/has one more book than a Catholic Bible, so I’m not sure which ten books you’re talking about.

Are you being coy?

When books are removed from canonical status and made apocryphal, that’s taking books away from scripture. That happened to 7 OT books. You know them already

The NT books involved were James, Hebrews and Revelation. There’s various stories on why Luther put them back. But he still sneered at them.
J:

Get a copy of Luther’s translation and count the books, Steve. Count them: 74.

How many canonical books were in his OT?
J:

He did not call it a book of straw.

Didn’t he do that in his original opening commentary to the NT in his 1522 version?
J:

And guess what: he was allowed to state those opinions. Eramus stated his about the canon, as did Cajetan. Stating opinions about the canon was allowed, though your characterization that he rejected the NT antilegomena is hyperbolic.

Jon

opinion is one thing changing the status of a book from canonical to aprocryphal is altogether different. And he did manipulate those 3 NT books mentioned

 

[steve_b]

.

The more you call him a blockhead the worse you look.

It was a play on Luther’s own finger pointing.

As he said, I guess you missed it even though I highlighted it

"I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

If Luther was as stiff necked at the end of his days, as was here, I wonder what Jesus said to him when he took his last breath? btw, Paul gave this warning Galatians 5:19-21 , but it came from Jesus John 16:12-15 . Luther knew full well about this warning.
P:

Maybe they were “blockhead” times, maybe it was needed, maybe that is all it takes for “reformation”. He was a product of a Catholic world.

There is no expiration date to that warning above. There is no such thing as seperate but equal in Our Lord’s teaching. John 17:20-23 Those who divide from His Church and die that way, will not inherit heaven. Luther was divided from Our Lord’s Church. He had chances during his life to correct that. Only God knows what went through Luther’s at his moment of death

 

[Peter_J]

Agreed, the undivided Church Catholic, the Catholic Church if you prefer.

Hey don’t make me come over there! :nunchuk:

 

[steve_b]

And I am a member of that one Church, just as you are. IOW, that one Church is not exclusively and only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Who are you trying to convince?

Catholic means those specific followers of Christ united to the bishop of Rome. Jesus establish the Catholic Church. He called it my Church. He appointed st Peter the head of his Church, and gave him personally charge to feed and tend His flock. The followers of Christ understood this, acted like it, preached it, lived it, http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11209526&postcount=146

Jesus is absolutely insistant on perfect unity John 17:20-23 there is no such thing as seperate but equal. Jesus established one Church not many, not even two, ONE Church. He gives all His promises to His Church. Outside of which there is no salvation.
J:

So, Orthodoxy has no claim on it? I simply reject the notion that the Church Catholic is only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Where did Jesus give permission to be seperated from Peter? He didn’t.

 

[Novocastrian]

Who are you trying to convince?

Catholic means those specific followers of Christ united to the bishop of Rome. Jesus establish the Catholic Church. He called it my Church. He appointed st Peter the head of his Church, and gave him personally charge to feed and tend His flock. The followers of Christ understood this, acted like it, preached it, lived it, http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11209526&postcount=146

Jesus is absolutely insistant on perfect unity John 17:20-23 there is no such thing as seperate but equal. Jesus established one Church not many, not even two, ONE Church. He gives all His promises to His Church. Outside of which there is no salvation.

Where did Jesus give permission to be seperated from Peter? He didn’t.

We just don’t accept the premises of the arguments you’re making here.

 

[pablope]

And I am a member of that one Church, just as you are. IOW, that one Church is not exclusively and only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

S
Jon

That one Church…which one? The one that bucked the authority of the bishops in favor of the paper confessions? The one that called a bishop as antiChrist?

 

[pablope]

We just don’t accept the premises of the arguments you’re making here.

well…how about your own counter arguments? Why should they be accepted?