I
- Status
C
clem456
Guest
Your equating civil protest with taking “privilege” with the Church’s Tradition, which had an established canon of scripture. Going back to my reply to your original post, Tradition does not need to be engraved in gold in legalese to be Tradition.The “heart of the protest” was this:
In response to the actions of the Diet of Speyer in 1529 of the Holy Roman Empire, where the religious tolerance set out at the 1st Diet in 1526 were being reversed:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Speyer_%281529%29
The protest was against the actions of civil authorities, much like the current protest against the HHS Mandate which your communion and mine both are protesting against.
In that way, your line, “Show me the letter of the law, or I retain my privilegeeek
And BTW, the LCMS is proud to stand beside the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in this protest.
Jon
It is good we are fighting against religious oppression. There is a real and objective standard at work there that needs to be recognized.
.
Actually, that’s what you said. Your statement was that exercising the Catholic privilege to dispute books was “at the heart of the protest”. This is a misunderstanding of “the protest”.
As for the point about Tradition, I agree. Let’s be clear, however, it was at Trent that the Catholic Church did the “engraving” regarding the canon of Scripture.
Absolutely agree, and behind it is the objective standard of life - He knew us in our mothers’ wombs.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Incidentally, I suppose you share this view along with the Sedevacantists. They, too, believe that they can claim the name Catholic while denying the authority of the pope.
They certainly make that claim. Its something to remember by those who want to criticize the apparent disunity among those who claim to be Lutheran.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
What is it that is to be remembered? That there is another group of folks who have divorced themselves from the BoR?They certainly make that claim. Its something to remember by those who want to criticize the apparent disunity among those who claim to be Lutheran.
Jon
C
clem456
Guest
It’s hard to keep track of it all. The virtue of simplicity is one I need for sure. Dancing does not help.
This is what you said in response to steveb:
To which I replied this:
No. The fact that not all who call themselves Catholic are, or frankly need to be, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though that unity will be welcome when reconciliation comes.What is it that is to be remembered? That there is another group of folks who have divorced themselves from the BoR?
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah.
I don’t see how that changes the discussion.
There have always been folks who want to claim the name Catholic.
That makes it seem more like the real deal, no?
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
I will allow the great Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus make the following comment:
**“He evaluated the books according to the norm of their apostolic content. This is the true test of all books, when we see whether or not they preach Christ. **For all the Scriptures show us Christ (Rom. 3:21) and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (I Cor. 2:2). Whatever does not teach Christ is certainly not apostolic even though St. Peter or St. Paul teaches it…For Luther, ‘preaching’ Christ means proclaiming that the crucified and risen Christ is the Savior and that the salvation he brings is received through faith alone. Luther was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture, that he did not think of himself as approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criterion but with the standard which Scripture itself offers in it’s on-going central proclamation (“St. Paul and all the evangelists”). Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than the Scripture. To that extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.” Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, Pg. 83
The point in bold is the issue at hand. Althaus of course takes a “Lutheran position” in regards to Luther’s ‘treatment’ of the canon.
“In 1522 Luther writes that he can find ‘no trace’ of evidence that the Revelation of John ‘was written by the Holy Spirit’, that is, inspired. He places it in a category with the Second Book of Esdras. In accordance with this, Luther also changed the traditional order of the New Testament books. He placed those just named with Jude at the end of his Bible. ‘They have from ancient times had a different reputation’ and do not belong to the ‘true and certain chief books of the New Testament……After 1530, he even omitted the sharpest phrases in the ‘Preface to James” (for example, “Luther therefore did not intend to that the congregation should continue to read these judgments. For himself and in speaking before his theological students he maintained his judgment of James even later. In this, however, he was for the most part more concerned with preventing his Roman opponents from continually using James as an argument against the Reformation gospel than he was about the letter as such. In 1530 he replaced the completely negative 1522 Preface to the Revelation of St. John, with another which interprets the book in terms of the history of the church and shows its continuing value for the church, **But for the rest of his life, he continued to put different values on the books which he had put together at the end of his Bible than on the ‘main books’.” **Althaus, Theology, pg. 84-5
Luther thought that it was within his purview to change just about everything he didn’t agree with. He even thought that it was within his scope of authority to change the order of the NT books, by placing the ones that he didn’t care for as much at the back of the NT, which would reinforce to his readers that they were not ‘equivalent’ to those that he preferred and called the ‘main books’. Here we see Luther displaying an astonishing lack of respect for well accepted Scripture, but (again) showing that he didn’t really have a very good idea what was written by and Apostle and what was not. Of course, we have to remember that Luther had developed a criteria by which he could determine what was and what was not canonical/inspired. Those things which did not ‘Preach Christ’ were (to him) clearly not canonical. And what was the most important thing about ‘preaching Christ’?
**
“He thereby established the principal that the early church’s formation and limitation of the canon is not exempt from re-examination. **At the same time, he thereby goes beyond the method of dealing with the Bible as if it were a legal document equally binding in all its parts. Within the canon itself, he distinguishes books in terms of their closeness or distance from the center of the Scripture. Since these are distinction in the clarity of the gospel, they also involve distinctions in the relative authority and significance of the book for the Church. To this extent, the canon is only relatively closed. Therewith Luther has abandoned every formal approach to the authority of the Bible. It is certainly understandable that Luther’s prefaces were eventually no longer printed in the German Bibles.” Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 85
Jon, if within Lutheranism the canon is not formally closed, then are there any ‘restrictions’ as to how Lutheran Theologians can view the ‘importance’ of the various books? As an example, would it be acceptable if a Lutheran University Professor were to proclaim to his students that the Lutheran antilegomena should include 7 books instead of 4? Or would it be acceptable for that Professor to suggest that the Gospel of John was not actually written by the Apostle John, and that it was not really one of the ‘main books’ of the NT?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
You might not prefer to believe that Luther ‘did violence’ to Scripture, but I would suggest that what he wrote about Scripture was, at the very least, extremely irreverent. As you know, his actual comments about several books of the NT are exceptionally disturbing. No Lutheran today would be allowed to make those kinds of remarks without being challenged by Lutherans.
I will allow the great Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus make the following comment:
**“He evaluated the books according to the norm of their apostolic content. This is the true test of all books, when we see whether or not they preach Christ. **For all the Scriptures show us Christ (Rom. 3:21) and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (I Cor. 2:2). Whatever does not teach Christ is certainly not apostolic even though St. Peter or St. Paul teaches it…For Luther, ‘preaching’ Christ means proclaiming that the crucified and risen Christ is the Savior and that the salvation he brings is received through faith alone. Luther was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture, that he did not think of himself as approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criterion but with the standard which Scripture itself offers in it’s on-going central proclamation (“St. Paul and all the evangelists”). Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than the Scripture. To that extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.” Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, Pg. 83
The point in bold is the issue at hand. Althaus of course takes a “Lutheran position” in regards to Luther’s ‘treatment’ of the canon.
“In 1522 Luther writes that he can find ‘no trace’ of evidence that the Revelation of John ‘was written by the Holy Spirit’, that is, inspired. He places it in a category with the Second Book of Esdras. In accordance with this, Luther also changed the traditional order of the New Testament books. He placed those just named with Jude at the end of his Bible. ‘They have from ancient times had a different reputation’ and do not belong to the ‘true and certain chief books of the New Testament……After 1530, he even omitted the sharpest phrases in the ‘Preface to James” (for example, “Luther therefore did not intend to that the congregation should continue to read these judgments. For himself and in speaking before his theological students he maintained his judgment of James even later. In this, however, he was for the most part more concerned with preventing his Roman opponents from continually using James as an argument against the Reformation gospel than he was about the letter as such. In 1530 he replaced the completely negative 1522 Preface to the Revelation of St. John, with another which interprets the book in terms of the history of the church and shows its continuing value for the church, **But for the rest of his life, he continued to put different values on the books which he had put together at the end of his Bible than on the ‘main books’.” **Althaus, Theology, pg. 84-5
Luther thought that it was within his purview to change just about everything he didn’t agree with. He even thought that it was within his scope of authority to change the order of the NT books, by placing the ones that he didn’t care for as much at the back of the NT, which would reinforce to his readers that they were not ‘equivalent’ to those that he preferred and called the ‘main books’. Here we see Luther displaying an astonishing lack of respect for well accepted Scripture, but (again) showing that he didn’t really have a very good idea what was written by and Apostle and what was not. Of course, we have to remember that Luther had developed a criteria by which he could determine what was and what was not canonical/inspired. Those things which did not ‘Preach Christ’ were (to him) clearly not canonical. And what was the most important thing about ‘preaching Christ’?
**
“He thereby established the principal that the early church’s formation and limitation of the canon is not exempt from re-examination. **At the same time, he thereby goes beyond the method of dealing with the Bible as if it were a legal document equally binding in all its parts. Within the canon itself, he distinguishes books in terms of their closeness or distance from the center of the Scripture. Since these are distinction in the clarity of the gospel, they also involve distinctions in the relative authority and significance of the book for the Church. To this extent, the canon is only relatively closed. Therewith Luther has abandoned every formal approach to the authority of the Bible. It is certainly understandable that Luther’s prefaces were eventually no longer printed in the German Bibles.” Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 85
Jon, if within Lutheranism the canon is not formally closed, then are there any ‘restrictions’ as to how Lutheran Theologians can view the ‘importance’ of the various books? As an example, would it be acceptable if a Lutheran University Professor were to proclaim to his students that the Lutheran antilegomena should include 7 books instead of 4? Or would it be acceptable for that Professor to suggest that the Gospel of John was not actually written by the Apostle John, and that it was not really one of the ‘main books’ of the NT?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
P
pablope
Guest
But those in the east do not have to redefine “apostolic”…for they are indeed apostolic, and they never call the BOR the anti-christ. In your case, you have to redefine apostolic in order to rationalize and make it fit to your paradigm…
That is the big difference…
For some reason, I was not startled by the bolded.
Well, I don’t know if they’d be “allowed” to or not, but you probably overlooked the part in this thread where I said I don’t agree with Luther’s assessment of the canon.
Yes, I agree with his assessment.
I think Steve b and I had a pretty good idea of the "issue at hand, thank you.
Yes. This is my understanding of Luther’s view. Perhaps you missed it in the thread where I commented that I differ with Luther on his opinion of the canon.
It needs to be made clear here that, while strategically buried between and around quotes by Althaus, this is the opinion of Topper17.
continued
Yes. I understand that this was Luther’s approach. It also needs to be pointed out that there are also other measures that Luther used in his assessment of the canon, such as authorship. Further, Luther’s opinion of the Antilegomena reflect disputes about them, all the way back to Eusebius. None of these disputes did violence to Scripture.
Just as Cardinal Cajetan, or Erasmus, or Luther, were permitted their opinion on the canon, so is anyone else. Having an opinion is just that, having an opinion.
I don’t share all of Luther’s opinion of the canon, so I’m not going to defend his opinion. What I will defend is his right to hold that opinion, which is well within the range of historic Catholic views through history.
Jon
Z
Zooey
Guest
:nerd:In fairness to Luther (something I
rarely bother with), Bibles were printed with the whole canon up until the late 18th & early 19th C. when the Bible societies in England & the USA, decided that a good way to lower shipping costs on the Scriptures would be to remove the Deuterocanon. (Let’s be fair to them, too, & point out that since many of the books they shipped were scripture portiojns anyhow; it probably didn’t seem all that shocking to them to , as it were, “edit” the Old Testament. Esp. the ones being shipped to us:hypno: wild Yahoos in the:whackadoo: Americas).Its not like Luther took the texts out
physically, on the spot.:curtsey:I will now return you to your:yup: regularly scheduled thread.:coffeeread:
Z
Zooey
Guest
:wave:On which of the
904,757,456.937621 questions herein raised is my viewpoint solicited? (She asked, amiably).Actually, you kind of answered the question when you said::wave:On which of the
“In fairness to Luther (something I rarely bother with),…”.
IOW, I think you made my point that other communions make decisions about topics such as the canon of scripture for themselves, Luther’s opinion notwithstanding.
While both of our communions are often placed under the (useless) umbrella of protestant, Methodists aren’t Lutheran, and Lutherans aren’t Methodist.
Thanks,
Jon
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Ahhh, so now we see what is the TRUE “norm that norms all norms”.
Got it.
Or is this subjective “apostolic content” the norm that norms the norm that norms all norms?
S
steve_b
Guest
You get the feeling we aren’t going to agree on this?
yesJ:
What’s changed? Do protestants today follow the same rallying cry as the 16th century protestants? Sola fide, sola scriptura, etc? Yes. Protestantism
J:
For clarification, are you saying Lutherans who ordain women priests are not confessional Lutherans?
J:
That group came out of Germany during the Protestant revolt. Left the Catholic Church over Church authority particularly papal authority. Gee how novel!
J:
What’s changed, to make the name Protestant not fit any longer? Protestantism
J:
It’s not meant to designate a “communion” as if they are perfectly together. It does designate however division and seperation in all it’s forms from the one True Church
J:
How so? Lutherans are just one form of Protestantism
J:
How about, they ALL have one thing in common. God didn’t start them.
Since Jesus wants perfect unity in His Church and those brought to faith from His Church, John 16:12-15 , and the Holy spirit doesn’t speak on His own but only what He hears from Jesus, John 17:20-23 , then we can say comfortably, neither Jesus nor the HS is the author of all the confusion and division we see as Protestantism.
J:
Jon,
Augustine answered this in his day.
“.although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).
As I’ve said in previous posts, when a stranger comes into town, and asks direction to the Catholic Church, they will NOT be directed to the Lutherans, or the Baptists, or the Methodists, or Presbyterians, or Evangelical of some sort, etc etc. They will be led to the Catholic Church.
J:
so few ever disputed the books. And the canon NT & OT didn’t change after 382. The OT was the Septuigint. That didn’t change from ~150 B.C.
J:
Look at the Vulgate. That was Jeromes translation. No seperation of the OT books that Luther seperated. Jerome’s bible had all the OT books interspersed with the canon, no seperation.
J:
the canon of scripture, of the CC has been stable from 382 a.d. till today.
I’ve asked this question before of anyone who might have the answer. I really WOULD like to have this answer. Can you quote for me where OO Church, or EO Church, or Orthodox Church, appears in writing? References please. I’ve asked this question in different ways for years on these forums. No answer yet. Maybe you’ve got the answer
J:
That as you can see didn’t matter. Did the canon change? No! Jerome’s Vulgate has 73 books in the canon. Jerome’s questions arose over Hebrew texts vs Greek texts of the OT. The Church went with the Septuagint and therefore so did Jerome.
S
steve_b
Guest
Augustine answered this in his dayIt is yes and no.
No because Steve used the capital c-Catholic Church, and yes, if you use the small c-catholic church…
“.although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).
newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm
S
steve_b
Guest
I draw your attention to Ch’s 4& 5
newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm
200 years prior to this I draw your attention to
- Bk 3 [Chapter 2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm) vs 2-3
- Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) v 1-3
- Status