E
Eden
Guest
- Status
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Correct you are. Luther was a MONK, not a priest. I’m getting a little tired of people calling him a “Catholic priest” all the time. That was why he said he would give his MONK’S cowl to anyone that could reconcile James and Paul.
E
EA_Man
Guest
I know it can be annoying when you take the time to type out a long post and someone that you were not addressing picks out one sentence and runs with it BUT (you knew there was a ‘but’ coming), doesn’t Isaiah 22:22 refer to a singular key and Matthew 16:19 refer, as you correctly note, to plural keys?
What other key besides the one referred to in Isaiah 22 is being given in Matthew 16?
Is it important to keep singularity or plurality intact when interpreting scripture?
Peace
J
JohnPaul0
Guest
EA, in this case the point that Eden was making is that a key is a symbol of authority. So, it doesn’t matter if the symbol is singular in one case and plural in another.
M
Mickey
Guest
I agree with Eden and JohnPaul. However I would be interested to see EA’s interpretation. The following is an excerpt from Scott Hahn:
**King David had been dead many years when this took place. Therefore, this verse shows that the office of key holder / master of the palace, was an office with successors just as the office of king was. It was the transferring of the keys that denoted the transfer of power to the new successor of this office as the king’s representative, his regent, the master of the palace. **
The entire article can be accessed at: http://members.aol.com/joyinliving7/keys.html
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
Luther was ordained into the Priesthood April 3rd 1507 before that he was a deacon.
E
Eden
Guest
EA is referring to what Protestant apologists believe is a “controversial” passage. They have made the distinction between “key” and “keys” to determine that the papacy is not legitimate. In other words, they do not take the rest of the evidence about Peter’s special position into account but have zeroed in on “key”,“keys”. Look at this site:
aomin.org/index.php?itemid=105
These apologists ignore the other supporting passages that show Peter’s authority and special position:
Peter is the only apostle given ‘keys’ by Jesus, setting him apart:
Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build
my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou
shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
QUESTION: Isn’t this authority given to all the apostles, just as ‘binding and loosing’
was in Matthew 18:18?
ANSWER: The Douay Rheims (and King James Version also) use ‘thee’ to signify a singular
subject or person, and you for plural. Thus, Jesus was specifically addressing Peter.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:
aomin.org/index.php?itemid=105
These apologists ignore the other supporting passages that show Peter’s authority and special position:
Peter is the only apostle given ‘keys’ by Jesus, setting him apart:
Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build
my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou
shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
QUESTION: Isn’t this authority given to all the apostles, just as ‘binding and loosing’
was in Matthew 18:18?
ANSWER: The Douay Rheims (and King James Version also) use ‘thee’ to signify a singular
subject or person, and you for plural. Thus, Jesus was specifically addressing Peter.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:
- There is no other disciple mentioned as frequently and prominently in the New
Testament as Peter. - Peter served as:
a. Group spokesman following Pentecost (Acts 1:14 +)
b. God chooses Peters in Acts 10_11 to introduce the Gentiles into the Church, and
those who objected ‘held their peace’ (Acts 11:18) at Peter’s testimony
c. Peter is a target of imprisonment and miraculous escape (rather than being a
martyr as James)
d. Peter’s words are respected and authoritative at the first Church Council in
Jerusalem (Act 15:7 +)
e. Paul specifically visits Peter before working for the Church: Galatians 1:18
Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with
him fifteen days. - Only Peter is commissioned specifically by Jesus to “feed my lambs” (John 21:15).
Aside from references to Christ, the Greek word lamb (arnion) is only used in he
New Testament to refer to the disciples (aren) in Luke 10:3. Thus, Jesus is
commissioning to lead and care for the other apostles.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
I’ve never heard that before. Everything I’ve read says he was just a monk.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
The powers given to those ordained come by way of the ordination itself through the college of Apostles and not through the See of Peter. This information I got directly from the words of a Catholic Bishop Colin Campbell see Catholic Answers Radio Show on August 27 1988. Which is why I brought up this issue that confused you…
The only reason why I brought up the Eastern Orthodox Church was to show that one retained valid lines of ordination even though one is not in communion with Rome. This is further made evident in the fact that the Catholic Church holds that the Anglican Church retained valid lines of ordination up until they changed the form in which their Priests were ordained.
I have no problem with the Primacy of the Pope so as to prevent schism.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia
I was off on the date…
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia
E
Eden
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
WRT the “Jesus as adulterer” quote, note that Dave Armstrong (from whom Eden got the citation) admits that Luther certainly did not mean it literally. Dave is not inclined to let Luther off the hook for his outrageous way of putting things. I’ve been round this issue with Dave before–he finds Luther’s rhetoric in general a lot more offensive that I do. I’m pretty sure that Luther’s point here was something like “if you judge by what people said or by outward appearances, then even Jesus would be guilty.” But since no one so far has favored us with the context, we’re left in suspense. I’ll try to track it down when I’m next in a close encounter with the Weimar Ausgabe (that will be Friday). Meanwhile, it is (once again) not very honest of Eden to try to use the quote to make a point that even his source (Dave Armstrong) admits is implausible (that Luther actually believed Jesus was an adulterer). Eden, if you want to convince people, you will have to be a bit more careful and hold yourself to a higher standard.
As for Luther being a “monk,” first of all you can be a both a monk and a priest. Second, Luther used the term “monk” loosely, as many people in his day did. He was actually not a monk but a friar, a member of the Observant branch of the “Hermits of St. Augustine.” This was one of the four mendicant orders of the early 16th century–Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians, and Carmelites. As with the other mendicant orders, the Augustinians had a lot of teaching and preaching responsibilities and had a high number of priests among their members. Luther was indeed a priest, and furthermore was a professor of theology. This was in fact (at least sometimes–as we all know, consistency was not one of Luther’s strong points) the basis for Luther’s claim to authority, which I believe is Eden’s basic (and legitimate) concern. He saw himself as having received authority from the Church to teach Christian theology, and on that basis felt compelled to proclaim the Gospel as he saw it.
Edwin
As for Luther being a “monk,” first of all you can be a both a monk and a priest. Second, Luther used the term “monk” loosely, as many people in his day did. He was actually not a monk but a friar, a member of the Observant branch of the “Hermits of St. Augustine.” This was one of the four mendicant orders of the early 16th century–Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians, and Carmelites. As with the other mendicant orders, the Augustinians had a lot of teaching and preaching responsibilities and had a high number of priests among their members. Luther was indeed a priest, and furthermore was a professor of theology. This was in fact (at least sometimes–as we all know, consistency was not one of Luther’s strong points) the basis for Luther’s claim to authority, which I believe is Eden’s basic (and legitimate) concern. He saw himself as having received authority from the Church to teach Christian theology, and on that basis felt compelled to proclaim the Gospel as he saw it.
Edwin
E
Eden
Guest
Edwin, perhaps you missed the post when I quoted Dave Armstrong from that dialogue:
**But I would quickly add that the statement itself is blasphemous and shouldn’t have been uttered or written in *any ***context: humorous or sarcastic or not. What is so funny or “educational” or pastorally- or pedagogically necessary or edifying about our Glorious Lord and Savior Jesus fornicating with two or three women? What’s the point in making such an outrageous statement in any way, shape or form, even if Luther didn’t believe it literally, and was trying to make some point – one that is almost peculiar and unique in Christian history to his own highly individual and frequently contradictory rhetoric?
**In that sense, Luther doesn’t “get out of” the sinfulness of his errant tongue, whether it was (in this instance) the tongue of a drunk man or not. I don’t see a very big loophole. Perhaps we can cut Luther a little slack for his filthy mouth in other contexts, but when it comes to our Lord Jesus, that is where any Christian must draw the line and call Luther on his serious error. **
. . . I would like to see the context of this remark, if there is one available in print somewhere, and hear what Luther scholars think about it (provided they can bring some real, relevant facts to the table, not just speculation and wishful thinking). Even the editor of* Luther’s Works *in English did not know the “probable context” and had to refer to a sermon four years later which may have “suggested” the context. He is merely speculating. It seems plausible to me, but it is still speculation and not fact. So there is nothing improper whatsoever in wondering aloud what the immediate context was. It looks like it isn’t available in English. Whether it is available in German editions of the Table-Talk is the question that interests me . . .
Second, you said:
“He (Luther) saw himself as having received authority from the Church to teach Christian theology, and on that basis felt compelled to proclaim the Gospel as* he* saw it.”
**If the Church had the power to give him that authority, they had the power to take it away. He was excommunicated by the Church because he was proclaiming the Gospel the way he saw it. **
**But I would quickly add that the statement itself is blasphemous and shouldn’t have been uttered or written in *any ***context: humorous or sarcastic or not. What is so funny or “educational” or pastorally- or pedagogically necessary or edifying about our Glorious Lord and Savior Jesus fornicating with two or three women? What’s the point in making such an outrageous statement in any way, shape or form, even if Luther didn’t believe it literally, and was trying to make some point – one that is almost peculiar and unique in Christian history to his own highly individual and frequently contradictory rhetoric?
**In that sense, Luther doesn’t “get out of” the sinfulness of his errant tongue, whether it was (in this instance) the tongue of a drunk man or not. I don’t see a very big loophole. Perhaps we can cut Luther a little slack for his filthy mouth in other contexts, but when it comes to our Lord Jesus, that is where any Christian must draw the line and call Luther on his serious error. **
. . . I would like to see the context of this remark, if there is one available in print somewhere, and hear what Luther scholars think about it (provided they can bring some real, relevant facts to the table, not just speculation and wishful thinking). Even the editor of* Luther’s Works *in English did not know the “probable context” and had to refer to a sermon four years later which may have “suggested” the context. He is merely speculating. It seems plausible to me, but it is still speculation and not fact. So there is nothing improper whatsoever in wondering aloud what the immediate context was. It looks like it isn’t available in English. Whether it is available in German editions of the Table-Talk is the question that interests me . . .
Second, you said:
“He (Luther) saw himself as having received authority from the Church to teach Christian theology, and on that basis felt compelled to proclaim the Gospel as* he* saw it.”
**If the Church had the power to give him that authority, they had the power to take it away. He was excommunicated by the Church because he was proclaiming the Gospel the way he saw it. **
M
mark_a
Guest
Many posts have indicated Luther had advisors who were able to influence him and build a concensus about certain issues.
Who today would be the modern day Luther?
Or which group carries on the work and beliefs represented by Luther, not necessarily the exact work, but work that has evolved without denying the basic elements of his work?
Who today would be the modern day Luther?
Or which group carries on the work and beliefs represented by Luther, not necessarily the exact work, but work that has evolved without denying the basic elements of his work?
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
mark a:
Take Care,
James Swan
Correct me if i’m wrong, but doesn’t the pope have advisors?
Take Care,
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
As far as i can tell, the Luther quotes you “utilize” have been answered. I answered some of them twice. In regard to the post where I “culled extracts” of your words, I answered that post of yours with 3 (count 'em) 3 posts. .
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Well, I read Catholic material all the time. I guess I wrongly assumed that people actually want to know what the other side is saying, rather than having someone tell them what the other side is saying.
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Yes, but when you first gave that Luther quote, you did not give a reference (see the thread on the Luther Movie). Hence, I wondered why you have used that quote in the first place, given Armstrong’s immediate words in which he gives Luther the benefit of the doubt. It appeared to me, you didn’t read his essay, but were citing words to try to show how much of a bogeyman Luther was.
Interestingly, I was part of that discussion with Armstrong, my friends BJ Bear and Bonnie (great Lutherans!), but for reasons I can’t remember, My part in the discussion was edited out (perhaps Dave Remembers, I think I asked him to remove me from the dialog). I don’t agree with Dave’s chastisment of Luther, because i’ve read a lot of Luther. He spoke outrageously to make points. Since there is no context for that quote, it’s best not to speculate.
On the other hand, Luther was not a drunkard. I don’t care how many Lutherans, Catholics, or AA members want to say he is. His literarry output, work as a preacher, work as a leader, family man, etc was tremendous. He lived an incredibly busy life. I know a lot of drunks. They are not productive. I challenge anyone to talke a look at the amout of work Luther produced, and then tell me he had a drinking problem.
James Swan
M
mark_a
Guest
You bet he does.
Maybe my written word skills aren’t up to par, but this question was not a jab. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I’m looking for roots to research.
I prefer the official “we believe” teachings of an official representative of a particular group or denomination to the unofficial “we don’t believe” teachings of someone with an ax to grind.
The ax grinders are too difficult to sort from the people who want to share their beliefs for another’s benefit.
Man!! You are on this thread like white on rice!!
E
Eden
Guest
These are the “snip” “snips” that you did not address directly on the thread of origin:
"Great answers, I also would love an answer for the "strange reason."Maybe askEden (whom you quoted). She has informed me:
“Luther’s work is undeserving of continued, intense scrutiny. For all Catholics, it is important that we not become victims of revisionist history about the heresy that was Martin Luther. Apologist work for Luther is abetting the Devil.”
-snip-
“Whether I have the “correct translation” from the German or not, it is clear that Luther encouraged his followers to “sin and sin often” without the fear of losing salvation.”
-snip-
"Luther’s corrupt philosophy can be explained away in mellifluous language, abundant Scripture quotations and blithe dismissal but its sounds ring from a dark source. Remember the angel who “knew more than God”? Luther was, in the end, just another “fallen angel”. "
- Status