As I read a Protestant Bible it occurs to me...

[Gabriel_Serafin]

No, in Christ. Just like it would be wrong for a protestant to say you put your faith in the pope above Christ.

Lutheranism is founded on the teachings of a man named Luther. Luther’s followers are called Lutherans. But Luther is also the Father of Protestantism. So whether one wants to face up to that reality or not, Protestants have put their faith in Luther as if he had legitimate authority to teach. But Luther had no authority whatsoever and the fact that Protestants only have 66 books in their Protestant Bible instead of the traditional 73 is something that should alarm anyone serious about searching for the truth. Jesus warned not to call anyone “father” or “teacher”–meaning we are to trust in Christ’s promise to send the Holy Spirit Who will guide the Church throughout the ages.

False teachers believe they teach the truth. They may even sound persuasive to some, but in reality are mere blind guides, weaving teachings laced with error. Fueled by a pride which blinds the mind to the truth, heretics shun legitimate authority, making themselves the final authority on truth, while claiming that their final authority is the Bible. Sadly, they deceive themselves into thinking that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit and become instruments of division.
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4414/martinlutherj.jpg
The consequence of pride of very smart men, is that they lose the gift of wisdom, making themselves instruments of Lucifer. Thus it is that very smart men are often not very wise, and often spearhead the rationalization of evil in society. One of the traits of false teachers is disobedience to the authority of the Church. Scripture warns against those who are “bold and arrogant” and “despise authority.” Thus it is that we will know them by their fruit.

The same authority that every Catholic had prior to Trent - the question the books, based on the historic disputes about them

Trent officially confirmed what the Church always held as Sacred Tradition. For example, the reason the Catholic Church dogmatically defined the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was because individuals in the Church were challenging the Sacred Traditions of the Church which had always taught the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Heretics were using the words of Christ in Scripture to argue against the teachings of the Church, argueing against the doctrine of the Holy Trinity with passages such as “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

The Church defines its doctrines and declares them dogmas in the face of heresy. But realize that this has been the case since the first century. Read the Acts of the Apostles and how the Church convened legitimate councils to discuss doctrinal issues in the midst of false teaching being spread by those who had no authority to teach in the name of the Church. We get a clear example of this in Acts 15. The Council of Jerusalem was convened because of false teachings:

"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them."

After convening and discussing the matter the Church defined its teachings and wrote the following letter to be taken to those who were arguing the matter:

Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorizationand disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul—*men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of"mouth what we are writing."

Luther not only shunned legitimate Church authority, he also appointed himself council and arbiter of doctrinal matters, deciding for all Protestants what Books in the Bible were inspired and which were not. Luther ushered in the myriad of self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters who over the past 500 years have injected confusion, division and false teachings in the minds of men, spreading the false doctrine of *Sola Scriptura *, which dismisses the need for legitimate Church authority.
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8693/calvini.jpg
But the Church has been busy dealing with self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters who thought they knew better than the Church and its guidance of the Holy Spirit. All the problems were started by people in the Church, some of whom were priests and bishops:

The Circumcisers (1st Century)
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
Arianism (4th Century)
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
Nestorianism (5th Century)
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
Catharism (11th Century)
Protestantism (16th Century)
Jansenism (17th Century)

We know where the bible comes from. We know the role of the Church. Luther knew that role.

Again, the Bible does not tell you what books are supposed to be in the Bible; you have to trust the Sacred Traditions of the Church. Those who make their interpretation of the Bible their sole authority and condemn Church teaching are simply naive, since one has to trust the authority of the Church if they trust the Bible.

Perhaps you might read what Luther says in totality, intead of out-of-context half quotes.

The problem with Protestants is that most do not know Church history very well, and what they think they know about Luther is based on the Select Works of Luther. Much of what he wrote is hateful and vile and he seemed to have an obsession with mentioning excrement and farts (no joke). It’s frankly astounding how it is that this man is revered as a teacher, and that his followers would call themselves by his name, being that after 1,500 years of Church teaching, Luther pops into history and decides to dismiss books from the Bible and to teach his own doctrines.

Exercising the exact same Catholic liberty as was exercised throughout the history of the Church, from Eusebius and Jerome, to Luther and Erasmus and Cajetan.

Nonsense. Eusebius, Jerome, Erasmus and Cajetan did not reject Church teaching; rather they trusted the teachings of the Church it despite the corruption and abuses that were, are, and always will be among the clergy and laity alike—the wolves and the weeds which Scripture would always be among the flock.

Luther not only rejected Church authority, he dismissed Church teaching and weaved new doctrines known as “Lutheranism”. There’s no such thing as “Cajetanism” or Jeromism. St. Augustine, after the Church settled the doctrinal errors of Pelagius, wrote:[On the matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons131:10 [A.D. 411]).

FYI, Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and taught that that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers without the need of God’s grace

The errors of Protestantism ushered in the myriad of self-appointed teachers and “pastors” mangling the Sacred writings and producing false teachings, leading generations further away from the truth. FYI, the fathers of Mormonism and the Jehova´s Witnesses both had Protestant roots. An error in the beginning is an error indeed, and the errors of Luther have misled countless people.

Partial quote, taken out of context, from a letter, not a doctrinal statement. I would encourage you to read the letter in context.

I would suggest you read Luther in his entirety, not just his “Selected Works” to get an idea of who this man really was. You will begin to realize that the man was not sent from God and may even begin to suspect demonic influence. Whatever the case, his errors and rebellion against Church authority have misguided millions away from the sure path which leads to God.
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/8513/jesuschristq.jpg

Luther’s writings have available for centuries but his complete writings only became available in English long after his death and can be found as a set of 55 volumes in most libraries. If one takes the time to drudge through his often psychotic ramblings you will come across things such as:

“…I can with good conscience consider him [the pope) a fart-*** and an enemy of God. He cannot consider me an ***, for he knows that I…am more learned in the Scriptures than he and all his asses are.”[/COLOR](Volume 41, pg. 344-45)

About Pope Clement’s decretal, Luther writes:

“I was frightened and thought I was dreaming, it was such a thunder clap, such a great, horrid fart did the papal *** let go here! He certainly pressed with great might to let out such a thunderous fart - it is a wonder that it did not tear his hole and belly apart!”

There are a mountains of vile quotes, not to mention his hatred of the Jews. No matter what context you read them in or what sort of rationalization you can conjure, they are reveal who the Father of Protestantism really was. And I can’t help but chuckle when I think of historical and religious scholars sifting through Luther’s writings and having to perform the task of translating “fart-***.”

But recent excavations in Germany have revealed the truth about Luther, and how he was not exactly the many the Reformers have painted him to be: Here is an article about the find: READ NOW

 

[CalCatholic]

Which Bible is that?

Anna

Mother Angelica uses the Jerusalem Bible.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for the history lesson, Gabriel, but honestly, I’ve seen all of what you have to say time and again. I must say, however, the way you speak about Luther doesn’t much resemble the way Pope Benedict speaks of him.

That said, and without wasting too much time, just a couple of brief comments:

=Gabriel Serafin;9501582]Lutheranism is founded on the teachings of a man named Luther. Luther’s followers are called Lutherans.

While Luther played a key role in the Lutheran Reformation, Lutherans are not in any way bound to him. He was but a man. We are bound to Christ. We preach Christ and Him crucified. Lutherans are called such as the result of a slur by Luther’s apponents, much the same way the “Roman Catholic” started as a slur. And in the same way, both labels stuck, more by the choice of the communion than by some outside force.

That said, the Book of Concord, the Lutheran confessions, begins with the three creeds. these are the ancient symbols of the faith. We confess all three of them. And Luther neither wrote them or is mentioned in them. We preach Christ, and Him crucified.

So, when you say that Lutheranism is founded on the teachings of Martin Luther, the answer is no, they are founded on Christ, though we agree with many, certainly not all, of the things he wrote.

But Luther is also the Father of Protestantism. So whether one wants to face up to that reality or not, Protestants have put their faith in Luther as if he had legitimate authority to teach

I don’t believe one can say universally what protestants think, about Luther or otherwise. Most of them reject many of the basic teachings of Luther - infant baptism, the real presence, confession/Absolution, the ability to reject grace, amongst many others.
Be that as it may, your lengthy post seems intent on telling me what I believe, and using your words, I’m not sure where you think you have the authority to do that. However, if you would like to dialogue with me on where our communions agree :dancing:, and where we disagree , I will be pleased to do so.

As for Luther’s more harsh and somethimes ugly side, this isn’t new relevation, and we reject many of the things he said in this vain. After all, he was but a man.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel Serafin;9501582]
Luther not only shunned legitimate Church authority, he also appointed himself council and arbiter of doctrinal matters, deciding for all Protestants what Books in the Bible were inspired and which were not.

I first ignored this, but on second thought…
The Lutheran confessions make no such determination. In fact, there is no dogmatic listing of the books considered inspired. Luther claimed more than once that others were free to hold their own opinions regarding books (reflecting Catholic liberty of the time). what is true is that Luther had opinions about the books of the OT and Nt that had a history of dspute regarding them, long before he came on the scene.

The comment that Luther appointed himself council and arbiter of doctrinal matters makes nifty polemics, but instead I’d like to see your source for the charge. Where did he say this, outside his typical hyperbole?

Luther ushered in the myriad of self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters who over the past 500 years have injected confusion, division and false teachings in the minds of men, spreading the false doctrine of *Sola Scriptura *, which dismisses the need for legitimate Church authority.

Actually, if you read the Lutheran confessions, and understand the orthodox understanding of SS, you would find that there is no such dissmissing of Church authority.

But the Church has been busy dealing with self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters who thought they knew better than the Church and its guidance of the Holy Spirit. All the problems were started by people in the Church, some of whom were priests and bishops:

The Circumcisers (1st Century)
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
Arianism (4th Century)
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
Nestorianism (5th Century)
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
Catharism (11th Century)
Protestantism (16th Century)
Jansenism (17th Century)

Interesting that Lutherans concurr in the rejection of all these. Of course, there really is no such thing as protestantism, but that’s another thread.

Again, the Bible does not tell you what books are supposed to be in the Bible; you have to trust the Sacred Traditions of the Church. Those who make their interpretation of the Bible their sole authority and condemn Church teaching are simply naive, since one has to trust the authority of the Church if they trust the Bible.

I thought I answered this before.
Though here’s a thought: there are varying canons of scripture, depending on the communion. This has been the case since well before the Reformation. And all of them come out of Sacred Tradition.

Nonsense. Eusebius, Jerome, Erasmus and Cajetan did not reject Church teaching; rather they trusted the teachings of the Church it despite the corruption and abuses that were, are, and always will be among the clergy and laity alike—the wolves and the weeds which Scripture would always be among the flock.

The problem with your comment is that, prior to Trent, they were allowed to have opinions about the canon of scripture. So was Luther.

The errors of Protestantism ushered in the myriad of self-appointed teachers and “pastors” mangling the Sacred writings and producing false teachings, leading generations further away from the truth. FYI, the fathers of Mormonism and the Jehova´s Witnesses both had Protestant roots. An error in the beginning is an error indeed, and the errors of Luther have misled countless people.

And perhaps those errors have their roots in the corruption of the Church of that time. Again, these are nifty polemics, but how do they add to dialogue?

I would suggest you read Luther in his entirety, not just his “Selected Works” to get an idea of who this man really was. You will begin to realize that the man was not sent from God and may even begin to suspect demonic influence. Whatever the case, his errors and rebellion against Church authority have misguided millions away from the sure path which leads to God.

*“What constantly exercised him [Luther] was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey.” *

And this from Mark Brumley, of St. Ignatius Press:
For those who think themselves more Catholic than the Pope, Benedict’s approach to Luther and to ecumenical action in general may displease. But for the rest of us, it was inspiring to see a German pope, addressing a group of German Lutherans and, without compromise to Catholicism, quoting Martin Luther. If full Christian unity in the west is ever to be restored this side of the Eschaton, it surely will come along the path trod by Pope Benedict: not watering down our specifically Catholic commitments but likewise not backtracking our steps in order to rejoin the road of recrimination and Christian apartheid.
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/939/the_pope_martin_luther_and_our_time.aspx

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

Mother Angelica uses the Jerusalem Bible.

Thanks, CalCatholic,

I used to watch her lessons from time to time; but I don’t get EWTN anymore.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .And this from Mark Brumley, of St. Ignatius Press:
For those who think themselves more Catholic than the Pope, Benedict’s approach to Luther and to ecumenical action in general may displease. But for the rest of us, it was inspiring to see a German pope, addressing a group of German Lutherans and, without compromise to Catholicism, quoting Martin Luther. If full Christian unity in the west is ever to be restored this side of the Eschaton, it surely will come along the path trod by Pope Benedict: not watering down our specifically Catholic commitments but likewise not backtracking our steps in order to rejoin the road of recrimination and Christian apartheid.
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/939/the_pope_martin_luther_and_our_time.aspx

Jon

Jon,

Very interesting quote.

Anna

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

must say, however, the way you speak about Luther doesn’t much resemble the way Pope Benedict speaks of him.

Pope Benedict did not lift the excommunication of Martin Luther, and he knows that today’s protestants are not the original Protestants, all of who were Catholic heretics who broke away from the Catholic Church. The pope is German, as was Martin Luther and not all things that Luther wrote were bad, thus the pope could find kind things to say about Martin Luther to the German Lutheran leadership who invited him to address them. There were many good things which Luther said and wrote, but that does not take away from the fact that he is still excommunicated.

While Luther played a key role in the Lutheran Reformation, Lutherans are not in any way bound to him. He was but a man. We are bound to Christ. We preach Christ and Him crucified.

Lutheranism preaches a brand of Christianity shaped by the man Luther, the Father of Protestantism.

So, when you say that Lutheranism is founded on the teachings of Martin Luther, the answer is no, they are founded on Christ, though we agree with many, certainly not all, of the things he wrote.

Lutheranism rejects the teachings of the Catholic Church as it pertains to the sacraments, the priesthood and the Communion of Saints. Now, either Martin Luther was teaching the truth or he was not. If he was not then he was a false teacher. He was excommunicated not because of his foul language, but because of his heretical teachings. There’s no question there was corruption among the clergy in the 16th century, just as there is now, and there was in the 1st century. Luther was correct in pointing out the corruption; it was his error to attempt to start teaching doctrine.

I don’t believe one can say universally what protestants think,

it’s actually impossible, being that there is so much division and contradiction in teaching, thanks to the false teaching of Sola Scriptura, and a rejection of the authority of the Church. Thanks to heretics in history, may Christians today are deprived of the Sacraments and the basic knowledge of the reality of Purgatory, the value of redemptive suffering, etc. tc.

Most of them reject many of the basic teachings of Luther - infant baptism, the real presence, confession/Absolution, the ability to reject grace, amongst many others.

So let me get this straight. If Luther was teaching erroneous things about baptism, the Real Presence, confession/absolution, and grace,are you saying he was a false teacher or a blind guide? Or merely a self-appointed freelance Bible interpreter? Also, why are we supposed to simply ignore all the filthy and vile writings of his?

your lengthy post seems intent on telling me what I believe, and using your words, I’m not sure where you think you have the authority to do that. However, if you would like to dialogue with me on where our communions agree :dancing:, and where we disagree , I will be pleased to do so.

I have no authority to do anything. All I am saying that the Martin Luther was excommunicated from the Church for teaching false teachings. As far your disagreements with the teachings of the Church, to whom shall we go to settle the disputes? The writings of Luther? Your opinion? The Missouri Synod? I’m just saying that you should trust the same Church that defined the Holy Trinity and the Canon of Scripture in the first place…

As for Luther’s more harsh and somethimes ugly side, this isn’t new relevation, and we reject many of the things he said in this vain. After all, he was but a man.

He was also the Father of Protestantism and the reason the Protestant Bible only has 66 books. The Church considers Inspired Scripture sacred, yet most Protestant Bibles don’t even have the books anymore, and Luther had much to do with that, beginning by relegating them to an index of books outside of inspired Scripture. Ironically, of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, about two-thirds of them are from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles considered the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament Sacred Scripture, which Luther had no authority to dismiss.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Which Bible is that?

Anna

1966 version of the Jerusalem Bible. This version is back in print.

I need LARGE PRINT though.

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel Serafin;9502783]Pope Benedict did not lift the excommunication of Martin Luther, and he knows that today’s protestants are not the original Protestants, all of who were Catholic heretics who broke away from the Catholic Church. The pope is German, as was Martin Luther and not all things that Luther wrote were bad, thus the pope could find kind things to say about Martin Luther to the German Lutheran leadership who invited him to address them. There were many good things which Luther said and wrote, but that does not take away from the fact that he is still excommunicated.

Well then, I guess the Lucifer remark is withdrawn.

Lutheranism preaches a brand of Christianity shaped by the man Luther, the Father of Protestantism.

Certainly he and the other Lutheran reformers have shaped our understanding of the apostolic faith.

Lutheranism rejects the teachings of the Catholic Church as it pertains to the sacraments, the priesthood and the Communion of Saints.

Not entirely an accurate statement. We do define what constitutes a sacrament differently, but what you call a sacrament you will find in Lutheranism. With regards the Communion of Saints, you’ll have to be more specific.

Now, either Martin Luther was teaching the truth or he was not. If he was not then he was a false teacher. He was excommunicated not because of his foul language, but because of his heretical teachings. There’s no question there was corruption among the clergy in the 16th century, just as there is now, and there was in the 1st century. Luther was correct in pointing out the corruption; it was his error to attempt to start teaching doctrine.

Actually, he was excommunicated for all his teachings, even those that the CC later confirmed. Was Tetzel, for example, telling the truth, or was he not? Was Pope Leo X telling the truth or was he not? All three probably did both, as is the case of human beings.

it’s actually impossible, being that there is so much division and contradiction in teaching, thanks to the false teaching of Sola Scriptura, and a rejection of the authority of the Church. Thanks to heretics in history, may Christians today are deprived of the Sacraments and the basic knowledge of the reality of Purgatory, the value of redemptive suffering, etc. tc.

Then why do you insist on grouping them together?

So let me get this straight. If Luther was teaching erroneous things about baptism, the Real Presence, confession/absolution, and grace,are you saying he was a false teacher or a blind guide?

He wasn’t teaching erroneous things about them.

Or merely a self-appointed freelance Bible interpreter?

Even Catholics can interpret scripture, outside of doctrine. Interpreting scripture is commonplace, but as Chemnitz points out, we shouldn’t rely on our own interpretations.

Also, why are we supposed to simply ignore all the filthy and vile writings of his?

Did I say ignore them? I said recognize that Luther was a human being, witth flaws like you and me. Read them and learn that this is not how we should treat each other as Christians. But if you insist on removing the speck from his eye…

I have no authority to do anything

Me neither. So, try to make no attempt to tell other what they believe. I have attempted to understand what Catholics believe, and have found significant agreement.

All I am saying that the Martin Luther was excommunicated from the Church for teaching false teachings.

And true ones.

As far your disagreements with the teachings of the Church, to whom shall we go to settle the disputes? The writings of Luther? Your opinion? The Missouri Synod? I’m just saying that you should trust the same Church that defined the Holy Trinity and the Canon of Scripture in the first place…

No to the writings of Luther, necessarily, certainly no to my opinion. Scripture, the Lutheran confessions, the ancient creeds, the first 7 councils for that matter, and as you’ve stated, the LCMS are the places I would turn.

He was also the Father of Protestantism and the reason the Protestant Bible only has 66 books. The Church considers Inspired Scripture sacred, yet most Protestant Bibles don’t even have the books anymore, and Luther had much to do with that, beginning by relegating them to an index of books outside of inspired Scripture. Ironically, of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, about two-thirds of them are from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles considered the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament Sacred Scripture, which Luther had no authority to dismiss.

Well, we’ve finally circled back around to the canon of scripture. So, here’s the point. Luther translated 74 books (with help from others). He included them all in his 1534 publication. He didn’t need to do this, since he was already excommunicated. He did it because they are important books, and out of respect for the historic Church. Regarding the books, he did no different than St. Jerome, his excommunication for other disputes notwithstanding.
Coincidentally, the Lutheran confessions also do not exclude them. They are referenced, and not necessarily in a negative way. Lutheran scholars regularly use them, and even Lutheran lectionaries will at times. There are hymns in our Lutheran hymnal that reflect them. The Lutheran practice is to not use them solely for matters of doctrine, but in support of the universally attested books. And finally, and again, I am not convinced Luther was right in his view of the D-C’s or the NT antilegomena, other than to recognize their disputed nature in the history of the Church. What I am convinced of is that, historically, prior to Trent, Luther had every privilege to his opinion regarding the canon of scripture, as every Catholic did.

Jon

 

[jpaul1953]

This Protestant Bible is leading me into studying Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, because Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory, Peter being the leader, Mary not being blessed. Yet I will explain why this made me began to ponder.

Luke 12:59 says, “I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” But it if it was talking about Hell, Jesus said once in Hell your in there forever, whats the point of that verse then? He’s talking about somewhere you go and you do suffer but to get all your sins payed for, thus he’s is talking about a 3rd place, because you cannot get out of Hell.

Matthew 16:18 states “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” You can interpret that this is saying Jesus knew Peter would be a good person to place being in charge of the Church.

Luke 1:48 states, “for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,” Mary Knew she was going to be called Mother because she gave birth to God in his human birth,.

My take of Protestantism now:

So far I think they build there entire faith on John 3:16, at least for the most part, that verse does not directly end, meaning that it can be interpreted as that’s the main thing in general for salvation BUT not the only thing.

I think once I finish studying a bit more with this protestant Bible I will quit my Protestant finding in a Church and look at Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Dear Study Christian,

I am a cradle Catholic. Protestantism began claiming faults, not so much in Catholic doctrine, but the governance of our Church. There were many higher eschelon individuals in our Church at the time that lost their individual humility and replaced it with strong egos.

If you notice, today almost none of the Protestant churches resemble the original Protestant churches. The newer Protestant churches have broken away from the old Protestant churches. Mostly all the fragmented churches of today don’t resemble each other, but together they mostly agree that Catholicism is a no-no. That’s the thread that holds them together

The first Protestant churches still believed in the Eucharist, the virginity of Mary, marriage , Purgatory (some), along with other strongly held Catholic beliefs.

May the Holy Spirit guide you home,

Joe

 

[Taestron]

As I was reflecting on this thread, a question occurred to me. Which is worse, adding books to the canon that are not Scripture or removing books that are Scripture? Clearly both are less than ideal, but in my mind it seems that removing Scripture is the worse offense. I don’t know if I could support that, but if true, the 66 book canon is a more dangerous option than the 73. However, certain Orthodox canons have even more books so the RC position cannot be completely defended with this thought.

 

[C_the_K]

This Protestant Bible is leading me into studying Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, because Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory, Peter being the leader, Mary not being blessed. Yet I will explain why this made me began to ponder.

Matthew 16:18 states “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” You can interpret that this is saying Jesus knew Peter would be a good person to place being in charge of the Church.

.

You didn’t finnish Matthew 16:18, it ends with Jesus saying “what ever YOU bind on earth will be BOUND in earth and what ever you LOOSE on earth will be LOOSED in Heaven”. If Jesus is the rock as Protestants claim and not Peter, who is going to do the binding and loosing? If it was Jesus He would have had to use the personal pronoun I not you.

 

[C_the_K]

This Protestant Bible is leading me into studying Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, because Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory, Peter being the leader, Mary not being blessed. Yet I will explain why this made me began to ponder.

Matthew 16:18 states “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” You can interpret that this is saying Jesus knew Peter would be a good person to place being in charge of the Church.

.

You didn’t finnish Matthew 16:18, it ends with Jesus saying “what ever YOU bind on earth will be BOUND in earth and what ever you LOOSE on earth will be LOOSED in Heaven”. If Jesus is the rock as Protestants claim and not Peter, who is going to do the binding and loosing? If it was Jesus He would have had to use the personal pronoun I not you.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

1966 version of the Jerusalem Bible. This version is back in print.

I need LARGE PRINT though.

Indeed!

The print is painfully small in the one I got - Hardcover. I’d say the print is about 8 probably.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Luther claimed more than once that others were free to hold their own opinions regarding books (reflecting Catholic liberty of the time). what is true is that Luther had opinions about the books of the OT and Nt that had a history of dspute regarding them, long before he came on the scene.

Luther said the same about the Book of Revelation, The Book of James, Jude and Hebrews. Are you saying that you are free to dismiss those books as inspired and optional for your Bible? If not, why not?

The comment that Luther appointed himself council and arbiter of doctrinal matters makes nifty polemics, but instead I’d like to see your source for the charge. Where did he say this, outside his typical hyperbole?

Luther himself is the source; that;s why I urge you to read his complete works, not just the Selected Works edited all the nasty stuff. It is well known that Luther edited the Bible, adding “alone” to Romans 3:28 in order to fit his evolving doctrines. After it was brought to his attention, this was his arrogant and infamous response:

"If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and a* are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom."*

Actually, if you read the Lutheran confessions, and understand the orthodox understanding of SS, you would find that there is no such dissmissing of Church authority.

Don’t be silly; Luther was excommunicated after he defied Church authority and refused to back down on his doctrinal innovations. Realize that Lurher eventually dismissed core Catholic teachings, such as Purgatory, the priesthood, etc. based on his new doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Luther’s ideas were constantly evolving.

Of course, there really is no such thing as protestantism, but that’s another thread.

Huh?

there are varying canons of scripture, depending on the communion.

Yes, Protestants follow Luther’s lead. Again, Luther was excommunicated form the Catholic Church. People are free to dismiss any Book of the Bible they wish, and start their own “communion”; it doesn’t mean they are right. Tell me, what’s your definition of a false teacher and a blind guide?

The problem with your comment is that, prior to Trent, they were allowed to have opinions about the canon of scripture.

Maybe you are missing the point. Up until the Church convened and defined the doctrine of baptism people were having no small contests with Paul and Barnabas about the necessity for circumcision for salvation. The Church defined and clarified its teachings.

*“What constantly exercised him [Luther] was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey.” *

This could also be said of any heretic who thought their interpretation of Scripture is right, or for any passionate Muslim who believes Christians are infidels. The question of God also constantly exercised Joseph Smith of Mormon fame, who also had a deep passion which was a driving force of his whole life’s journey.

For those who think themselves more Catholic than the Pope, Benedict’s approach to Luther and to ecumenical action in general may displease. But for the rest of us, it was inspiring to see a German pope, addressing a group of German Lutherans and, without compromise to Catholicism, quoting Martin Luther.

*That’s the point. Martin Luther thought himself more Catholic than the pope. The Pope is the vicar of Christ and has been given an authority along with the Bishops of the Church which Martin Luther never had. There’s a reason why the pope did not compromise Catholicism while quoting Martin Luther. Pope John Paul II did just as much in his brilliant book On the Threshold of Hope where he speaks about Mohammed and Islam.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Well then, I guess the Lucifer remark is withdrawn.

No, I believe the devil is the father of lies and half truths, and I happen to believe that Luther fell prey to his deceptions. The division, confusion and contradiction introduced into Christianity by the pen and mouth of Martin Luther is undeniable.

Certainly he and the other Lutheran reformers have shaped our understanding of the apostolic faith.

Some would say it was a deformation leading to an incomplete and false understanding, ultimately depriving millions of the sources of Sanctifying Grace established by Christ through the Seven Sacraments. The Pope and the Church believe that Protestants only have 2 valid Sacraments (Baptism and Marriage). Because of men such as Luther, millions of souls are deprived of the sacraments of Holy Eucharist, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Holy Orders and the Anointing of the Sick. The reason they are invalid is because Protestantism does not have a valid priesthood (Holy Orders). I’m sure Pope Benedict would have made that clear to the German Lutherans had they asked him directly.

With regards the Communion of Saints, you’ll have to be more specific.

The Communion of Saints defines the Church: *The Church Militant *(The People on earth living and spreading the Gospel of Christ) *The Church Suffering *(The people in Purgatory who died in the state of grace yet were not fully detached from the things of the earth) and The Church Triumphant—the people in heaven in who’ve already been purified on earth or in purgatory and are in perfect union with God.

Those on earth pray and can offer sacrifices and yes, indulgences, for those suffering purification in Purgatory. Martin Luther had a problem with this and he used his dislike of the doctrine of Purgatory to dismiss 2 Maccabees from the Old Testament, which speaks about offering prayers and sacrifices for the dead. St Paul and Jesus Himself speak about Purgatory. It’s a shame Protestants still actively argue against this teaching.

Even Catholics can interpret scripture, outside of doctrine. Interpreting scripture is commonplace, but as Chemnitz points out, we shouldn’t rely on our own interpretations.

Yes, so what do you rely on? Your opinion on who you want to trust? Why not just trust yourself? Why is anyone else more trustworthy than you?

Did I say ignore them? I said recognize that Luther was a human being, witth flaws like you and me. Read them and learn that this is not how we should treat each other as Christians. But if you insist on removing the speck from his eye…

The more you read Luther the more you will suspect he was a false teacher. The problem,is that most Protestants don’t even know much of what the Father of Protestantism wrote…

No to the writings of Luther, necessarily, certainly no to my opinion. Scripture, the Lutheran confessions, the ancient creeds, the first 7 councils for that matter, and as you’ve stated, the LCMS are the places I would turn.

So you’re not sure if you can trust all of Luther, and only some of the councils based on your judgment, the Creed defined by the Catholic Church, and a group of people in Missouri, U.S.A. Is this what you recommend for everyone in the world? Who exactly has a final authority? The Missouri Synod?

Luther translated 74 books (with help from others). He included them all in his 1534 publication. He didn’t need to do this, since he was already excommunicated.
He did it because they are important books, and out of respect for the historic Church.

So his excommunication made him more trustworthy? So the gates of hell prevailed against the historic Church and God sent us Martin Luther to guide us?

egarding the books, he did no different than St. Jerome,

The diferece is that Jerome yielded to the authority of the Church and was humble enough to trust the teachings of the Church, which has the promise of Christ to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Luther was simply too proud.

What I am convinced of is that, historically, prior to Trent, Luther had every privilege to his opinion regarding the canon of scripture, as every Catholic did.

Again, the problem with Luther is that he appointed himself an authority over the decisions of the Church. Tell me, in your opinion, what are the traits of a false teacher?

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel Serafin;9503186]Luther said the same about the Book of Revelation, The Book of James, Jude and Hebrews. Are you saying that you are free to dismiss those books as inspired and optional for your Bible? If not, why not?

No, because Luther is not the final word. Additionally, it is up to the Church, not me.

Luther himself is the source; that;s why I urge you to read his complete works, not just the Selected Works edited all the nasty stuff. It is well known that Luther edited the Bible, adding “alone” to Romans 3:28 in order to fit his evolving doctrines. After it was brought to his attention, this was his arrogant and infamous response:

"If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and a* are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom."*

You do not see sarcasm in this quote? I’ve read the letter this comes from, on translation.

Don’t be silly; Luther was excommunicated after he defied Church authority and refused to back down on his doctrinal innovations. Realize that Lurher eventually dismissed core Catholic teachings, such as Purgatory, the priesthood, etc. based on his new doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Luther’s ideas were constantly evolving.

Most of the things you refer to here came later.

Yes, Protestants follow Luther’s lead. Again, Luther was excommunicated form the Catholic Church. People are free to dismiss any Book of the Bible they wish, and start their own “communion”; it doesn’t mean they are right. Tell me, what’s your definition of a false teacher and a blind guide?

Really, what other communions do you need to take to them.

Maybe you are missing the point. Up until the Church convened and defined the doctrine of baptism people were having no small contests with Paul and Barnabas about the necessity for circumcision for salvation. The Church defined and clarified its teachings.

Umm, we agree on Baptsim.

**That’s the point. Martin Luther thought himself more Catholic than the pope.

Source, please, where he said he thought this. Again, this is old polemics.

The Pope is the vicar of Christ and has been given an authority along with the Bishops of the Church…

You have swerved into my conflict about the pope. What the nature and jurisdiction of that authority is, and how the authority of the Bishops is affected by Schism.

which Martin Luther never had.

No argument.

There’s a reason why the pope did not compromise Catholicism while quoting Martin Luther. Pope John Paul II did just as much in his brilliant book On the Threshold of Hope where he speaks about Mohammed and Islam./

This is probably where we need to end our conversation.

His peace,
Jon

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

This is probably where we need to end our conversation.

Yes, it simply boils down to a question of authority. Jesus did not hand out Bibles, instead he established a Church invested with authority tot each throughout the ages until the end of the world, despite the scandals, the wolves and the weeds among the clergy and laity. I would simply suggest to study the Early Church Fathers; you will see that everything the Church teaches today was believed and taught by the early Church.

Individuals pop into history with their own ideas giving themselves authority to teach in the name of Jesus. But only the Church can teach authoritatively and infallibly on matters of faith and morals and the sure way to salvation. Luther was just one among many who simply introduced division and confusion; which are the hallmarks of demonic deception. Not to say that Luther was evil; I do say he was a confused and proud man, which are the traits of false teachers…

 

[pablope]

As I was reflecting on this thread, a question occurred to me. Which is worse, adding books to the canon that are not Scripture or removing books that are Scripture? Clearly both are less than ideal, but in my mind it seems that removing Scripture is the worse offense. I don’t know if I could support that, but if true, the 66 book canon is a more dangerous option than the 73. However, certain Orthodox canons have even more books so the RC position cannot be completely defended with this thought.

The Bible canon is not a source of dispute between the Orthodox and the CC…because the Bible was, and has, not been intended to replace the authority of the Bishops.

Moreover…one of original intent of compiling the canon was to have a standard set of readings to be read during the Mass…not to extract doctrine.

The additional books of the Orthodox have more to do with what was in their tradition…these books were read during their Liturgy/Mass…so they remained there.

 

[pablope]

No, because Luther is not the final word. Additionally, it is up to the Church, not me.

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and a** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”

Just looking at this…this statement seem to indicate a fullness of pride and an unwillingness to listen to reason…and someone wanting to have his own way.

This is from an initial impression…