Certain video too uncharitable toward Martin Luther?

[AbideWithMe]

I was only talking on personal experience, I am the only catholic in my family- a convert.
There is not just my family who thinks catholicism is wrong, go on other message boards
outside of here and the catholic bashing gets pretty hairy. I’m not saying ALL protestants are catholic bashers, in my experience it’s about 7 out of 10. Just out of curiosity, if you were happy and well educated in protestantism why did you convert? (I’m self taught.)
I know what the ccc teaches, but it seems to me that some here are acting like the
counter-reformation never happened. I’m all for catholics and protestants working together,
I just feel that either catholicism is the one true faith or it isn’t.

October baby–I’m sorry your family isn’t supporting you in your religious convictions. That’s got to be difficult.

There are all sorts of hairy, obnoxious things being written by all kinds of Christians on the internet. The Catholics I know in real life are lovely people. On the internet, though, I’ve seen plenty of jaw-droppingly obnoxious Catholic writers, as well as plenty of obnoxious Protestants that make me want to bang my head against the wall.

In my own experience, being among different kinds of Evangelicals and main-liners for 45 years, I can honestly say I’ve yet to meet a Catholic basher in person, except for ex-Catholics who have become agnostics, atheists, or New Agers. Among those groups, I’ve met probably 8-10 in person who went out of their way to bad mouth Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

I would just like to insert an act of charity toward Martin Luther into this thread. At Sunday Mass we sang " A Mighty Fortress is our God". I love this hymn, and was very pleased to find it in the choral book used at Mass. As we sang it I realized how far we have come toward unity that this hymn can be used in the Cathoic liturgy and be credited to Martin Luther.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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

Some of the information is correct, but Voris mostly repeats the same tired Catholic canards about Luther, the Bible and the Reformation.

Catholics rightly should be upset when people misrepresent their beliefs, but in turn there should be some compunction about misrepresenting the faith of others and/or historical facts just to make a point.

But I did have to chuckle at the “S.T.B.” in his video. “Wee hoo, I have a bachelors/post bacc degree! ”

 

[kbwall]

Anti-Catholic Protestants are not the only ones guilty of not wanting to examine the facts. Anti-Protestant Catholics are often guilty of that as well, so let’s not be naive. What Luther did did not happen in an historical vacuum. Had abuse and corruption among Catholic clergy (in some cases going all the way up to the papacy itself) not been as much of a problem as it actually was, the Protestant Reformation might not have ever happened. When Catholics blame the whole sad affair on Protestants, it makes it look as if Catholics are the ones who have a problem facing the truth. Catholics like Leo X are no less to blame for the fracturing of Christianity than are Protestants like Luther.

Right, but in that video, Vorris acknowledges that there was indeed corruption in the Catholic Church. Nobody is trying to excuse Leo X or the corruption that happened. That doesn’t change the fact that Luther was wrong for throwing out doctrines and books of the Bible, due to what is essentially ad hominem logic.

 

[RyanBlack]

Right, but in that video, Vorris acknowledges that there was indeed corruption in the Catholic Church. Nobody is trying to excuse Leo X or the corruption that happened. That doesn’t change the fact that Luther was wrong for throwing out doctrines and books of the Bible, due to what is essentially ad hominem logic.

I’m not saying that Luther was right. I’m saying that he is no less responsible than were those corrupt and immoral members of the Catholic hierarchy whose scandalous behavior did much to precipitate the actions of the Protestant Reformers and the masses of people who followed them into schism.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Right, but in that video, Vorris acknowledges that there was indeed corruption in the Catholic Church. Nobody is trying to excuse Leo X or the corruption that happened. That doesn’t change the fact that Luther was wrong for throwing out doctrines and books of the Bible, due to what is essentially ad hominem logic.

The point is, Voris’s bit about Luther taking out some books of the Bible and “trying” to take out other books in the New Testament is historically not factual. Voris can certainly disagree with and even strongly attack Luther’s theology–that’s perfectly within his right to disagree, but ignoring the facts of history to try to make a theological point is not OK. I’m sure most Catholic don’t appreciate it when the tables are turned and others make false historical claims about the Catholic Church.

 

[kbwall]

If Luther didn’t do take those books out, then who did?

The New Testament thing I never heard of until watching the video, so I find that a bit suspect.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

If Luther didn’t do take those books out, then who did?

The New Testament thing I never heard of until watching the video, so I find that a bit suspect.

There are numerous threads here on this topic, but basically they began to be omitted from the Bible around 1820 by the British and Foreign Bible Society. In fact, the first King James Bible also included 3 & 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses.

 

[JonNC]

If Luther didn’t do take those books out, then who did?

The New Testament thing I never heard of until watching the video, so I find that a bit suspect.

Luther’s translation included/includes 74 books. Luther’s view of the D-C’s is not a novelty of his, but reflects the view not unusual within the Church dating back to St. Jerome.

Now, I’m not totally convinced that Luther’s view of them was completely correct, but I am convinced that the video’s portrayal is far more rhetorical than it is historically accurate.

Jon

 

[october_baby]

There are numerous threads here on this topic, but basically they began to be omitted from the Bible around 1820 by the British and Foreign Bible Society. In fact, the first King James Bible also included 3 & 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses.

If this true, than why don’t protestant bible include the cut text’s TODAY?

 

[JonNC]

If this true, than why don’t protestant bible include the cut text’s TODAY?

For American Lutherans, and I can say this because I am one, its laziness and an infiltration of Reformed protestantism. We’re used to the bibles we have,and we’re going to need our leadership to guide us, teach us again to understand the importance of the D-C’s.
There’s a reason why Luther did not “cut” them out, but instead made sure they were included in his translation. Regardless of their historically disputed nature, they are an important part of the Church’s scriptural history.

Jon

 

[october_baby]

For American Lutherans, and I can say this because I am one, its laziness and an infiltration of Reformed protestantism. We’re used to the bibles we have,and we’re going to need our leadership to guide us, teach us again to understand the importance of the D-C’s.
There’s a reason why Luther did not “cut” them out, but instead made sure they were included in his translation. Regardless of their historically disputed nature, they are an important part of the Church’s scriptural history.

Jon

How can protestants take the high road then? According to some of the posts here both Lutheran and Church of England both had the cut books of the catholic bible, Maybe Luther didn’t do it, but HIS SUCCESSERS DID.
If protestants want credibility, they should not quibble over details and be honest and admit the bottoms line, which is protestants DID remove books from the original bible.

 

[guanophore]

How can protestants take the high road then? According to some of the posts here both Lutheran and Church of England both had the cut books of the catholic bible, Maybe Luther didn’t do it, but HIS SUCCESSERS DID.
If protestants want credibility, they should not quibble over details and be honest and admit the bottoms line, which is protestants DID remove books from the original bible.

This thread topic is about Voris and his misrepresentation of the facts. It is uncharitable to bear false witness agianst one’s neighbor. Are you holding Luther accountable for wrongs committed after his death?

 

[RyanBlack]

How can protestants take the high road then? According to some of the posts here both Lutheran and Church of England both had the cut books of the catholic bible, Maybe Luther didn’t do it, but HIS SUCCESSERS DID.
If protestants want credibility, they should not quibble over details and be honest and admit the bottoms line, which is protestants DID remove books from the original bible.

Just who is denying that? I don’t see anybody denying that it was Protestants who decided to remove the so-called Deutero-Canonical books. There are differing perceptions as to which particular individuals made the decision, but I don’t see anybody denying that it was Protestants who made the choice to remove them.

 

[Stilldreamn]

How can protestants take the high road then? According to some of the posts here both Lutheran and Church of England both had the cut books of the catholic bible, Maybe Luther didn’t do it, but HIS SUCCESSERS DID.
If protestants want credibility, they should not quibble over details and be honest and admit the bottoms line, which is protestants DID remove books from the original bible.

And english-speaking Lutherans are bringing them back, friend! Concordia Publishing House (LCMS) just published the ESV version of the Apocrypha with study notes. This was completed too late to include in the newest version of our ESV Lutheran Study Bible, but according to CPH that is in the future. It will take time to reintroduce these to a people that have not seen them.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

And english-speaking Lutherans are bringing them back, friend! Concordia Publishing House (LCMS) just published the ESV version of the Apocrypha with study notes. This was completed too late to include in the newest version of our ESV Lutheran Study Bible, but according to CPH that is in the future. It will take time to reintroduce these to a people that have not seen them.

The Augsburg Fortress Lutheran Study Bible includes them.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

If this true, than why don’t protestant bible include the cut text’s TODAY?

Many do.

 

[JonNC]

How can protestants take the high road then? According to some of the posts here both Lutheran and Church of England both had the cut books of the catholic bible, Maybe Luther didn’t do it, but HIS SUCCESSERS DID.
If protestants want credibility, they should not quibble over details and be honest and admit the bottoms line, which is protestants DID remove books from the original bible.

What do you mean by the “high road”?
And which “successors” are you speaking of? The “successors” of Luther wrote the Formula of Concord, which does not cut any books, but leaves the canon open.
If you want to know why protestants “cut them”, ask them.

Voris lays the blame on Luther, a claim which the facts don’t bear up.

One additional comment, the Bible you claim to be the “original” is in fact the western Bible. the Bible of the East has more books. Who’s to say which is the original.
Jon

 

[october_baby]

Many do.

I haven’t shopped for a protestant bible in a while, but recently, I shopped for a protestant
bible from CBD and there were NO protestant bible with the cut text. As a matter of fact,
when I was a protest the only protestant bible I found with the cut text, the Oxford Study
Bible, and that was an accident. The bottom line is that the MAJORITY of protest bibles DO NOT have the cut texts, my guess is they are considered " catholic".

 

[october_baby]

What do you mean by the “high road”?
And which “successors” are you speaking of? The “successors” of Luther wrote the Formula of Concord, which does not cut any books, but leaves the canon open.
If you want to know why protestants “cut them”, ask them.

Voris lays the blame on Luther, a claim which the facts don’t bear up.

One additional comment, the Bible you claim to be the “original” is in fact the western Bible. the Bible of the East has more books. Who’s to say which is the original.
Jon

Nice sarcasm, I cannot ask the people who cut books out of the bible because according
to you this was done about 150 years ago.The successors of Luther were the protestants who came after him who cut the books. I’m not defending Voris if he’s wrong, I’m doubtful
that he is, but, the point i’m trying to make, is that protestants HAVE cut books from the bible. As far as the Eastren Orthadox goes, to my knowelege, the east had the same bible as the roman catholics (Jeromes Vulgate) until the east - west schism later in the 1st
century. (sorry for the spelling, my spell checker is not working.)