Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[guanophore]

I read the document many times. It’s an attempt to stress the consequences of his actions and the possibilirt of redemption. It was a balanced document. However, 7 months after that document Luther was excommunicated.

I don’t disagree with this at all.

Re: exterminate, keep reading

Exsurge Domine is originally in Latin. English translations tend to sometimes really screw up the original language.

Extermination there, comes from the Latin latin-dictionary.net/definition/20066/extermino-exterminare-exterminavi-exterminatus

You see it doesn’t mean what you think. Now don’t you feel better?

Did you think I felt bad?

One way to “dismiss” heresy and heretics is to dismiss them from this life.

We can also look at the context for meaning:

" Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as
."

How was Jon Huss “dismissed”?

What were the findings of the Council of Constance? The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings. The Council decreed Wycliffe’s works should be burned and his remains exhumed. On 6 July 1415, it also declared Hus a heretic, defrocked him, and had him burned at the stake.

The fact that Wycliffe was already dead was not enough, but he had to be exhumed and burned!

Jerome of Prague(1379 – 30 May 1416) was a Czech and one of the chief followers of Jan Hus who was burned for heresy at the Council of Constance.

I don’t see how you can possibly remove the reference to burning heretics at the stake given this context. The fact that it came out of a Church Council makes it quite clear that there was a strong belief that the burning of heretics was not against the will of the HS.

I agree that all the efforts of the Church were focused on getting Luther to recant, and that the Church was more interested in his eternal fate than his temporal fate, but these specific references cannot be ignored.

 

[Tomyris]

To all my Protestant brethren (Tomi, Novo, Dave Noonan, dronald, Per Crucem?) who are espousing the “There is no such thing as a man who has been infallible” paradigm:

Are you really saying that the authors of the INSPIRED, theopneustos, holy Scriptures are NO DIFFERENT than a weather man who says, “It’s going to rain today”?

These authors just happened to get it right when they wrote their epistles?

Someone who is INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit just “got it right”?

Basically I was asking for a definition of ‘infallible’.

There is no such thing as a man who has been infallible.
BUT
There are people God has used infallibly. It is a property of God not of man.

 

[PRmerger]

Basically I was asking for a definition of ‘infallible’.

The Catholic definition is: there are people God has used infallibly. It is a property of God not of man.

There is no such thing as a man who has been infallible.

Of course there are. When God uses them they become infallible agents.

Thus, if you believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul were agents of God who were able to profess and proclaim some truths INFALLIBLY (and of course you do!), then you believe in the Catholic understanding of infallibility.

And now you have to 'splain why you believe that God “used some men infallibly” yet would stop doing this after a certain period of time.

From whence comes this idea? Is it from a verse in Scripture?

BUT
There are people God has used infallibly. It is a property of God not of man.

Nothing but the truth here!

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;12369018]
Jon

It doesn’t just come from “any one bishop.”

Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 , διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / factions /sedition same word in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19…

Read Gal 5:21 for the consequence of which I spoke. “will not inherit the kingdom of God” i.e. one goes to hell

Where did Paul get those grave warnings and disasterous consequences? From the inspiration of the HS…agreed? Where did the HS get that teaching from that He inspired Paul with? It was Jesus John 16:12-15

So iow, Jesus who will judge everyone, is telling us in advance through the HS through Paul, how He will judge…and in particular the sin I was refering to, if one dies in that sin.

Your personal interpretation of it assumes we are outside the Church, when we are not.

.

How many 1545 versions of Luther’s bible are there? You’re not denying the fact he moved canonical books into apocryphal status are you?

What I’m denying is the false statement that he did not include 74 books in his translation. There were and are 74 books in Luther’s Die Bibel. This is a fact beyond question. Whether or not Luther believed to be equal tothe rest of scripture is irrelevant to the fact that he translated (with help) and included them in his translation. The books are there, regardless of what he thought of them.

Lutheran confessions? please describe them for me, and what was the date?

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, published in 1531:

Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is a testimony in Zech. 1:12, where an angel prays: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on 9] Jerusalem? Although concerning the saints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church universal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general, albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead is extant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Book of Maccabees, 15:14.

2 Macc is part of Scripture.

bookofconcord.org/defense_20_saints.php

only 66 were canonical

That means the others have no status as scripture. You know that’s true from his opinion of the apocrypha.

Actually, that seems to be your view, since you are claiming that only 66 of the books in Luther’s translation are canonical, when the seven DC books are clearly included.

Here’s the point, Steve, and I don’t plan to belabor it anymore, in 1534, Luther’s completed translation was published. It contained 74 books, including the DC’s and the Prayer of Manasseh. The current publication of Luther’s Die Bibel continues to have 74 books in it, including the 7 DC books and the Prayer of Manasseh.
Whether or not Luther considered any of them as less than canonical does not change the fact that he translated and included 74 books. His opinion, much like that of Cardinal Cajetan and many others, does not have an effect on whether or not they are canonical.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Basically I was asking for a definition of ‘infallible’.

There is no such thing as a man who has been infallible.
BUT
There are people God has used infallibly. It is a property of God not of man.

Even Enoch?

Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. 23 Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. Genesis 5:22–25

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Your personal interpretation of it assumes we are outside the Church, when we are not.

That’s correct.

We as Catholics use our personal and individual fallible interpretation of determining the CC to be the one Church. Some Catholics will see it as an exclusive club and their own individual private interpretations of what the encyclicals, bulls, et al truly mean. Very extremely few look over the CCC, and Sources and Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma to find the actual teaching. IOW, in the same manner that Protestants sling Bible verses, Catholics sling Church documents. PERIOD.

What I’m denying is the false statement that he did not include 74 books in his translation. There were and are 74 books in Luther’s Die Bibel. This is a fact beyond question. Whether or not Luther believed to be equal tothe rest of scripture is irrelevant to the fact that he translated (with help) and included them in his translation. The books are there, regardless of what he thought of them.

That is correct. In fact, Luther had no authority to determine a Scriptural Canon. By saying that Luther determined a Canon, he is making Luther an authority. In addition, by tagging along with calling them Apocrypha, he is acting in furtherance of ascribing this non-existent authority. I call them what they [actually] are: Deuterocanonicals. I don’t care what others call them. It is my job to act truthfully.

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, published in 1531:

2 Macc is part of Scripture.

bookofconcord.org/defense_20_saints.php

Thanks .

Actually, that seems to be your view, since you are claiming that only 66 of the books in Luther’s translation are canonical, when the seven DC books are clearly included.

Correct again.

He is using personal private interpretation.

Here’s the point, Steve, and I don’t plan to belabor it anymore, in 1534, Luther’s completed translation was published. It contained 74 books, including the DC’s and the Prayer of Manasseh. The current publication of Luther’s Die Bibel continues to have 74 books in it, including the 7 DC books and the Prayer of Manasseh.
Whether or not Luther considered any of them as less than canonical does not change the fact that he translated and included 74 books. His opinion, much like that of Cardinal Cajetan and many others, does not have an effect on whether or not they are canonical.

Jon

God Bless you Jon, my brother in Christ Jesus.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And my explanation was 846
" Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuseeither to enter it or to remain in it.

And how do you think one comes to know this?

 

[CruxMihiAncora]

Why is it generally frowned upon by society to be a follower of Hitler but more acceptable to follow Luther? Hitler was simply more effective at putting Luther’s ideas into action. Long before Hitler, Luther was busy spreading anti-Semitic beliefs, such as the fact that" We are at fault for not slaying them". Why is one radical anti-Semite vilified and the other glorified?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Why is it generally frowned upon by society to be a follower of Hitler but more acceptable to follow Luther? Hitler was simply more effective at putting Luther’s ideas into action. Long before Hitler, Luther was busy spreading anti-Semitic beliefs, such as the fact that" We are at fault for not slaying them". Why is one radical anti-Semite vilified and the other glorified?

Nobody follows Luther.

All Lutherans reject the anti Semitic writings of Luther.

Just as all Catholics known to me reject the antisemitism of the past RCC.

 

[Contarini]

Why is it generally frowned upon by society to be a follower of Hitler but more acceptable to follow Luther? Hitler was simply more effective at putting Luther’s ideas into action. Long before Hitler, Luther was busy spreading anti-Semitic beliefs, such as the fact that" We are at fault for not slaying them". Why is one radical anti-Semite vilified and the other glorified?

Well, for one thing because Luther, like the Catholic anti-Jewish polemicists on whom Hitler also drew for support, was opposing Jews for religious reasons. He believed that Jews were evil because they rejected Jesus, not because they were intrinsically inferior and worthy of extermination.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

Why is it generally frowned upon by society to be a follower of Hitler but more acceptable to follow Luther? Hitler was simply more effective at putting Luther’s ideas into action. Long before Hitler, Luther was busy spreading anti-Semitic beliefs, such as the fact that" We are at fault for not slaying them". Why is one radical anti-Semite vilified and the other glorified?

Welcome to the thread, Crux.

Modern Lutherans do not follow Luther. No one here is glorifying Luther, either.

 

[CruxMihiAncora]

I was reading through and saw a comment calling Martin Luther his hero, so some people do glorify him. It shocked me and hopefully that comment is not representative of more than one person’s opinion. Interesting note: After his name change, Martin Luther King Jr.'s father implied he had been named after Martin Luther, so there’s another example of someone looking up to him. I was asking a general question about society as a whole. Martin Luther is generally respected by Protestants as a reformer. Why is it that his books and views are not as well known as he is? If you look into it a little you’ll find that Luther shared Hitler’s opinion of perverted German nationalism. In his earlier life, Luther did try to convert Jews but as he got older he started going senile or something. In Mein Kampf, Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest reformers. The Nazi plan to create a German Reich Church laid its bases on the “Spirit of Dr. Martin Luther”. Hitler also wrote in Mein Kampf “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” This refutes the idea put forth by Contarini that Luther is excusable because he was doing for religious reasons. Hitler was just following in Luther’s footsteps.

 

[JonNC]

=CruxMihiAncora;12372486]I was reading through and saw a comment calling Martin Luther his hero, so some people do glorify him. It shocked me and hopefully that comment is not representative of more than one person’s opinion. Interesting note: After his name change, Martin Luther King Jr.'s father implied he had been named after Martin Luther, so there’s another example of someone looking up to him. I was asking a general question about society as a whole. Martin Luther is generally respected by Protestants as a reformer.

Yes. I find “hero” to be a bit strong, but it is the case, regardless of his faults, that some protestants, and many Lutherans, myself included, find many of his works to reflect the true faith. We also recognize that some of his writings do not, and some are nothing short of unacceptable.

Why is it that his books and views are not as well known as he is?

Those works of Luther that the Lutheran tradition believe reflect the faith are well known. For example, virtually every Lutheran child learns the Small Catechism as part of his/her catechesis.

If you look into it a little you’ll find that Luther shared Hitler’s opinion of perverted German nationalism.

It is hard to imagine how Luther could have known about Hitler’s opinion of perverted German nationalism.

In his earlier life, Luther did try to convert Jews but as he got older he started going senile or something. In Mein Kampf, Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest reformers. The Nazi plan to create a German Reich Church laid its bases on the “Spirit of Dr. Martin Luther”. Hitler also wrote in Mein Kampf “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” This refutes the idea put forth by Contarini that Luther is excusable because he was doing for religious reasons. Hitler was just following in Luther’s footsteps.

This almost sounds like you consider Adolf Hitler to be** the **expert on Luther’s anti-Judaism.
I’ve been around here long enough to know that Edwin (poster Contarini) is an incredibly reliable source, even when I disagree with him.

Hitler, on the other hand, not so much.

Jon

 

[clem456]

Well, for one thing because Luther, like the Catholic anti-Jewish polemicists on whom Hitler also drew for support, was opposing Jews for religious reasons. He believed that Jews were evil because they rejected Jesus, not because they were intrinsically inferior and worthy of extermination.

Edwin

Not to hijack the thread, but the sources I have read don’t seem to support this.
The Nazis were pagans not Christians, and were very concerned about re-establishing a natural hierarchy based on superiority. The best sources seem to indicate that Hitler never embraced the Christian culture he grew up in. Once he reached confirmation, he was never at any time a practicing Catholic.

“The Zookeeper’s Wife” details this strange brew of biology and nature worship very well.
From what I have read, Hitler only used Christian sentiments when it suited his purposes in changing people’s minds about an issue.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And my explanation was 846
" Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuseeither to enter it or to remain in it.

This is not directly related to the thread… but, you said you would lose you salvation. It’s not the same as you “could not” be saved “who knowingly”. What you are presenting in your argumentation is that you are saved because you claim to know and if you were to leave you would lose you salvation. You did not say, you “could not” be saved because of your personal knowledge. You are, in fact, presenting the same argumentation a Protestant makes in regards to salvation and their understanding of what the Church is. So you are presenting that you are already saved.

If this knowledge was easy and obvious, there would not be as many denominations and as much division between us. But that is not the reality of things. It is practically impossible to single out the Catholic Church as definitive rational conclusion as the “One”. It requires “Faith”, just the same as out Protestant brothers. In fact, even when studying history it is nearly impossible to single out. The drastic doctrinal developments make it really hard to determine.

If you truly think that Dominus Iesus supports what you are saying you’d be able to understand that 2 things are vital:

1. What is “to know”
2. What is the “Church”

It should not be this difficult to know the One Church, we have done a horrendous job and have only created more confusion and division. We as Catholics are as guilty as our Brethren for division.

 

[clem456]

Exactly. That’s why I don’t disagree that the Catholic Church has **much truth **in it; but sometimes they muck up. Like any denomination.

Begs the question…Does the fullness of truth exist somewhere? Anywhere? Leave the word Catholic out of it for a second. Can you conceive of any body that really exists in the world that expresses the fullness of truth as revealed? Or is truth merely expressed in the abstract?

If the truth really exists (I am the way, the truth, the life), can human beings who have differences of opinion and make mistakes still be unified in Christ?
Or do disagreements justify taking our ball and forming another game?
Our call is to give our trust and assent (faith) to Christ’s body despite differences of opinion. We are called toward unity, not to form another Church based on our selves.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Nobody follows Luther.

All Lutherans reject the anti Semitic writings of Luther.

Yet, some call him “hero.”

Astounding.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

No one here is glorifying Luther, either.

At least one poster (who rhymes with “mouse”) calls him his hero.

 

[spina1953]

yes, it is true that a few call Martin Luther a hero but, then again so too do some call Calvin or Zwingli a hero, but that does not mean that they really are. There are just far to many negatives in their writings to agree that they are. but that is IMHO.

 

[Contarini]

Not to hijack the thread, but the sources I have read don’t seem to support this.
The Nazis were pagans not Christians, and were very concerned about re-establishing a natural hierarchy based on superiority. The best sources seem to indicate that Hitler never embraced the Christian culture he grew up in. Once he reached confirmation, he was never at any time a practicing Catholic.

“The Zookeeper’s Wife” details this strange brew of biology and nature worship very well.
From what I have read, Hitler only used Christian sentiments when it suited his purposes in changing people’s minds about an issue.

Sorry–I structured the sentence confusingly. The “he” was Luther, not Hitler. I was contrasting Luther with Hitler precisely on this point. Luther was not a racial anti-Semite like Hitler. In fact, Heiko Oberman has argued that the closest thing to racial anti-Semitism in the sixteenth century can be found in the works of the “enlightened” Erasmus of Rotterdam!

Edwin