Certain video too uncharitable toward Martin Luther?

[guanophore]

Is this episode of The Vortex too uncharitable toward the late Martin Luther?

In general I find Michael Voris lacking in charity. I do not find myself overwhelmed by the fruit of the Spirit in the way he formulates his ideas. I understand there is some fact woven into his opinions, but I would not consider this video, or any other production of his, an accurate representation of historical facts. He infuses his opinion into the events upon which he comments.

 

[Ranp]

…spreading the good news as Christ commands us to, and helping those in need as He expects us to.

And that good news is the gospel of Jesus Christ found in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Martin Luther failed to do that. Luther created and promoted a false doctrine of heresy. No one does what God expects of us when they spread heresy. When Martin Luther created the Protestant division he was not doing the work of God.

Being nice, getting along, holding hands, and enjoying social & emotional highs takes a far back seat to seeking the salvation of God.

Ran Pleasant

 

[JonNC]

And that good news is the gospel of Jesus Christ found in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Martin Luther failed to do that. Luther created and promoted a false doctrine of heresy. No one does what God expects of us when they spread heresy. When Martin Luther created the Protestant division he was not doing the work of God.

As the thread is not about Luther, per se, but about the video, I will only respond far enough to say neither was Leo X or Tetzel, and a lot of folks of that era.

Being nice, getting along, holding hands, and enjoying social & emotional highs takes a far back seat to seeking the salvation of God.

I don’t recall implying this in my post, but I will say that being ugly, not getting along, etc. don’t seem to help much.

Jon

 

[october_baby]

I had to stop once Mr. Voris spoke incorrectly:

Despite Luther’s concerns, Luther’s German bible translation was complete with 77 book - he didn’t “throw out” any books as Mr. Voris claims.

When trying to be persuasive, one must be really careful with facts. An audience generally stops listening once one says something that isn’t obviously true.

If this true, then why are protestant bibles missing the OT books that the catholic bibles have? BTW Voris is right about Luther wanted to take out the book of James.

 

[october_baby]

Not uncharitable, when compared to somethings I’ve seen. Some of it is factually incorrect. Some of it expresses a similar tone that we’ve seen in the past by folks like Father O’Hare. Some of it sounds like he wants to up his “hit totals”.
Some folks, Lutheran and Catholic, seem bent on continuing the lobbing of anathemas back and forth, even though that old practice seems gone among our respective Church leaders.
Luther was Luther. Pope Leo X was Poe Leo X. Nothing will change who they were. Nothing will change to time they lived in, or the mistakes they made. The challenge for Lutherans and Catholics today is to recognize that, 495 years later, our vision should be on the tasks at hand today - working with the Spirit’s guidance toward the unity Christ calls us to, spreading the good news as Christ commands us to, and helping those in need as He expects us to.

Jon

I am not saying all lutherans are uncharitable, but as protestant yourself you have to admit that there are elements in the 30,000 denominations that share the title protestant
that do nothing but misrepresent the teaching of the catholic faith. And only 1 church can
claim to be the fullest expression of Jesus’s mission on earth, and his teaching. Once
again I say if I did’t think it was the catholic church, I wouldn’t have left protestantism
to join the catholic church. :newidea:

 

[JonNC]

=october baby;9962518]If this true, then why are protestant bibles missing the OT books that the catholic bibles have?

Because certain English translations, purportedly to save money, felt no need to include them. The original KJV had 73 books, as well. Luther’s translation always had all of the books in a typical western Bible plus the inclusion of Prayer of Manassess. It still does today. It seems that only English speaking Lutherans have settled for the 66 book protestant Bible, and a couple of factors seem to point to a (positive) change in that.

BTW Voris is right about Luther wanted to take out the book of James.

Not in the sense some Catholic apologists claim. Luther questioned the authorship of James. He also pointed to the fact that it was from the early Church antilegomena, or disputed. He also felt James spoke too little about Gospel, and focused too much on law. That said, these from Luther:

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients,** I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.** However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;…"

and

“…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author,** it has come to be regarded as authoritative**.”

Lutherans to this day accept James as part of the canon, but we also view all of the disputed books, the Antilegomena, with less weight than the undisputed books, or Homologoumena, when considering them for doctrine.

Jon

 

[october_baby]

Because certain English translations, purportedly to save money, felt no need to include them. The original KJV had 73 books, as well. Luther’s translation always had all of the books in a typical western Bible plus the inclusion of Prayer of Manassess. It still does today. It seems that only English speaking Lutherans have settled for the 66 book protestant Bible, and a couple of factors seem to point to a (positive) change in that.

Not in the sense some Catholic apologists claim. Luther questioned the authorship of James. He also pointed to the fact that it was from the early Church antilegomena, or disputed. He also felt James spoke too little about Gospel, and focused too much on law. That said, these from Luther:

and

Lutherans to this day accept James as part of the canon, but we also view all of the disputed books, the Antilegomena, with less weight than the undisputed books, or Homologoumena, when considering them for doctrine.

Jon

If luther had no problem with James why did he call it the “epistle of straw”?

 

[JonNC]

If luther had no problem with James why did he call it the “epistle of straw”?

For the reason I stated, but he did not call it an epistle of straw. He said it was an epistle of straw when compared to others. Here’s the full quote:

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it

Its a comparative. When one reads it with the quote from above, "I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men* but vigorously promulgates the law of God**."* one can see his viewpoint, even if one disagrees.
This is quite different than saying, “I want to remove James from the canon”, which I’m not aware of him ever saying.

Jon

 

[Ranp]

If luther had no problem with James why did he call it the “epistle of straw”?

Moreover, the Book of James just happens to be the book that makes clear beyond any doubts that good works in life are required for salvation, ie. faith without good works is dead (James 2:20). The Book of James completely blows a hole in Luther’s Faith Alone heresy. That IS the reason Luther wanted to remove the book.

Ran Pleasant

 

[JonNC]

Moreover, the Book of James just happens to be the book that makes clear beyond any doubts that good works in life are required for salvation, ie. faith without good works is dead (James 2:20). The Book of James completely blows a hole in Luther’s Faith Alone heresy. That IS the reason Luther wanted to remove the book.

Ran Pleasant

Read the Lutheran Confessions, and you will see that neither Luther nor Lutherans deny the necessity of good works.

From Luther,
The Smalcald Articles:

And such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins is followed by good works. And what there is still sinful or imperfect also in them shall not be accounted as sin or defect, even [and that, too] for Christ’s sake; but the entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. 3] Therefore we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy, but as it is written, 1 Cor. 1:31: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, namely, that he has a gracious God. For thus all is well. 4] We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true.

and

There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.

and his commentary on Galatians 5:6

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. **To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men. **

So, two facts: 1) I’ve seen no quote from Luther where said he “wanted to remove the book of James”, 2) James in no way contradicts sola fide.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Read the Lutheran Confessions, and you will see that neither Luther nor Lutherans deny the necessity of good works.

So, two facts: 1) I’ve seen no quote from Luther where said he “wanted to remove the book of James”, 2) James in no way contradicts sola fide.

Jon

Originally Posted by Ranp
Moreover, the Book of James just happens to be the book that makes clear beyond any doubts that good works in life are required for salvation, ie. faith without good works is dead (James 2:20). The Book of James completely blows a hole in Luther’s Faith Alone heresy. That IS the reason Luther wanted to remove the book.

Ran Pleasant

Just piggy backing on Jon’s explanation…hope it helps our understanding each other…catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

Justification by Faith
PETER KREEFT
The Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic monk rediscovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.

The monk, of course, was Luther; the doctrine was justification by faith; and the book was the Bible.

For everything is at stake here. The question is nothing less than how to get to heaven. Luther thought the Catholic Church was teaching not only heresy (heretics always call orthodoxy heresy, by the way) but another religion, another way of salvation, “another gospel” (Gal 1:6). That’s about as serious a charge as you can imagine. We need to examine this charge very carefully to justify the surprising claim that the fundamental dispute between Protestants and Catholics was due to a misunderstanding.

It certainly doesn’t look like a misunderstanding. It looks like a flat-out contradiction: the Catholic Church taught that we are saved by faith and good works, while Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide). But appearances may be deceiving.

For one thing, even if the two sides did disagree about the relationship between faith and works, they both agreed (1) that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation and (2) that we are absolutely commanded by God to do good works. Both these two points are unmistakably clear in Scripture.

For another thing, the terms of the dispute are ambiguous or used in two different senses. When terms are ambiguous, the two sides may really disagree when they seem to agree because they agree only on the word, not the concept. Or the two sides may really agree when they seem to disagree because they agree on the concept but not the word. The latter holds true here.

When Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone, he meant by salvation only the initial step, justification, being put right with God. But when Trent said we are saved by good works as well as faith, they meant by salvation the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny and that process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, the works of love.

This “faith”, though prompted by the will, is an act of the intellect. Though necessary for salvation, it is not sufficient. Even the devils have this faith, as Saint James writes: “Do you believe that there is only one God? Good! The demons also believe — and tremble with fear” (James 2: 19). That is why James says, “it is by his actions that a person is put right with God, and not by his faith alone” (James 2:24). Luther, however, called James’ epistle “an epistle of straw”. He did not understand James’ point (applied to Abraham’s faith): “Can’t you see? His faith and his action worked together; his faith was made perfect through his actions” (James 2:2 2).

 

[JonNC]

And the next paragraph says:

Faith is the root, the necessary beginning. Hope is the stem, the energy that makes the plant grow. Love is the fruit, the flower, the visible product, the bottom line. The plant of our new life in Christ is one; the life of God comes into us by faith, through us by hope, and out of us by the works of love. That is clearly the biblical view, and when Protestants and Catholics who know and believe the Bible discuss the issue sincerely, it is amazing how quickly and easily they come to understand and agree with each other on this, the fundamental divisive issue. Try it some time with your Protestant friend.

Indeed!!

My I also recommend James Akin
catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/justification-by-faith-alone-by-james-akin/

*One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define “faith”; that is, as an unconditional “placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.” The definition Protestants normally give to “faith” is the definition Catholics use for “hope.”

However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which “works by charity” then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.*

Jon

 

[gcnuss]

Moreover, the Book of James just happens to be the book that makes clear beyond any doubts that good works in life are required for salvation, ie. faith without good works is dead (James 2:20). The Book of James completely blows a hole in Luther’s Faith Alone heresy. That IS the reason Luther wanted to remove the book.

From Luther’s Smalcald Articles –

Part III, Article XIII. How One is Justified before God, and of Good Works.

1] What I have hitherto and constantly taught concerning this I know not how to change in the least, namely, that by faith, as St. Peter says, we acquire a new and clean heart, and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ, our Mediator. And although sin in the flesh has not yet been altogether removed or become dead, yet He will not punish or remember it.

2] And such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins is followed by good works. And what there is still sinful or imperfect also in them shall not be accounted as sin or defect, even [and that, too] for Christ’s sake; but the entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. 3] Therefore we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy, but as it is written, 1 Cor. 1:31: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, namely, that he has a gracious God. For thus all is well. 4] We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true.

Works are the fruits of a true faith. The sentences bolded above reflect the importance of works in the life of the faithful.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Just piggy backing on Jon’s explanation…hope it helps our understanding each other…catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

Justification by Faith
PETER KREEFT
The Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic monk rediscovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.

The monk, of course, was Luther; the doctrine was justification by faith; and the book was the Bible.

For everything is at stake here. The question is nothing less than how to get to heaven. Luther thought the Catholic Church was teaching not only heresy (heretics always call orthodoxy heresy, by the way) but another religion, another way of salvation, “another gospel” (Gal 1:6). That’s about as serious a charge as you can imagine. We need to examine this charge very carefully to justify the surprising claim that the fundamental dispute between Protestants and Catholics was due to a misunderstanding.

It certainly doesn’t look like a misunderstanding. It looks like a flat-out contradiction: the Catholic Church taught that we are saved by faith and good works, while Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide). But appearances may be deceiving.

For one thing, even if the two sides did disagree about the relationship between faith and works, they both agreed (1) that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation and (2) that we are absolutely commanded by God to do good works. Both these two points are unmistakably clear in Scripture.

For another thing, the terms of the dispute are ambiguous or used in two different senses. When terms are ambiguous, the two sides may really disagree when they seem to agree because they agree only on the word, not the concept. Or the two sides may really agree when they seem to disagree because they agree on the concept but not the word. The latter holds true here.

When Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone, he meant by salvation only the initial step, justification, being put right with God. But when Trent said we are saved by good works as well as faith, they meant by salvation the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny and that process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, the works of love.

This “faith”, though prompted by the will, is an act of the intellect. Though necessary for salvation, it is not sufficient. Even the devils have this faith, as Saint James writes: “Do you believe that there is only one God? Good! The demons also believe — and tremble with fear” (James 2: 19). That is why James says, “it is by his actions that a person is put right with God, and not by his faith alone” (James 2:24). Luther, however, called James’ epistle “an epistle of straw”. He did not understand James’ point (applied to Abraham’s faith): “Can’t you see? His faith and his action worked together; his faith was made perfect through his actions” (James 2:2 2).

Peter Kreeft in the last paragraph confuses faith (faith “in”; trust) and belief (which is an act of the intellect). IMO he clouds the issue.

 

[guanophore]

I had to stop once Mr. Voris spoke incorrectly:

Despite Luther’s concerns, Luther’s German bible translation was complete with 77 book - he didn’t “throw out” any books as Mr. Voris claims.

When trying to be persuasive, one must be really careful with facts. An audience generally stops listening once one says something that isn’t obviously true.

That is the same spot where I shut it off too. If a person will give misinformation about one thing, especially one so critical, what else will they twist?

 

[guanophore]

If this true, then why are protestant bibles missing the OT books that the catholic bibles have? BTW Voris is right about Luther wanted to take out the book of James.

The Deuterocanonical books were removed by publishers who wanted to save paper, and thus money, on not printing the books.

 

[joe370]

JonNC;9961604]Not uncharitable, when compared to somethings I’ve seen. Some of it is factually incorrect. Some of it expresses a similar tone that we’ve seen in the past by folks like Father O’Hare. Some of it sounds like he wants to up his “hit totals”.
Some folks, Lutheran and Catholic, seem bent on continuing the lobbing of anathemas back and forth, even though that old practice seems gone among our respective Church leaders.
Luther was Luther. Pope Leo X was Poe Leo X. Nothing will change who they were. Nothing will change to time they lived in, or the mistakes they made. The challenge for Lutherans and Catholics today is to recognize that, 495 years later, our vision should be on the tasks at hand today - working with the Spirit’s guidance toward the unity Christ calls us to, spreading the good news as Christ commands us to, and helping those in need as He expects us to.

Jon

Hey Jon; I agree. By the way, I always thought it was kind of strange that Martin Luther would post the 95 Theses on October 31 of 1517 and then, about a year later, make the following statement:

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519…

 

[missadeangelis]

Hey Jon; I agree. By the way, I always thought it was kind of strange that Martin Luther would post the 95 Theses on October 31 of 1517 and then, about a year later, make the following statement:

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519…

So Luther just got a bad rap in a big misunderstanding and wasn’t actually a heretic? I’m not clear on your position. The former would be a massive rewrite of history.

 

[joe370]

So Luther just got a bad rap in a big misunderstanding and wasn’t actually a heretic? I’m not clear on your position. The former would be a massive rewrite of history.

I’m just sharing a quote… I am confused as to why ML would say what he said, and then ignore his own advise.

 

[Contarini]

If this true, then why are protestant bibles missing the OT books that the catholic bibles have?

In the case of English Bibles, the decision was made around the beginning of the 19th century by the Bible Societies that flourished at that time, I believe. Before that time, English Protestant Bibles included those books, albeit in a separate section between the Testaments.

Edwin