S
St_Violet
Guest
Luther was no a reformer, infact he failed miserable in reforming the Church. He was a heretic and a rebel.
- Status
B
bengal_fan
Guest
curious as to how you would categorize the men who split from rome in 1054? were the eastern bishops also heretics and rebels? i am not saying i agree with everything luther did or his motivations for doing it, but i also don’t agree with everything that comes out of rome. some great stuff has come out of rome for sure, but so has some bad stuff and downright evil stuff (the selling of indulgences being one of the evil things). i love the catholic church and the Catholic church. but no church is completely infallible and it was never promised that it would be. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide her into all truth, but He didn’t promise that there wouldn’t be some human error included in that. whoever seeks shall find, and to suggest that if some one doesn’t find the RCC means they were never truly seeking is preposterous.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Absolutely. Raban Maur, borne in Mainz in 776, translated the Bible into Teutonic. Later, Valafrid Strabon made a translation, as did Huges of Fleury.
Prior to Luther’s issue in 1522, there were at least 14 editions in High German (Codex Teplensis), and three in Low German.
The Paulist have a copy of a German Bible printed in 1483, the year Luther was born. The Protestant historian Wilhelm Walther proves that in 1521 there were 17 editions of the whole Bible in German.
Luther had less than the average College language major today has in Greek. Luther had little reverence for the Bible, changed it and falsified it to buttress his new religion. It is easy to prove that Luther did not ‘discover’ the Bible, and was not the first to give it to the people in German.
peace,
mgrfin
M
mgrfin
Guest
No, Jesus never would say that there would be lies and untruth in the teachings of the Church. That would be saying that the devil, the father of lies, was leading us.
The Holy Spirit has preserved the Church from error in faith and morals. In this regard, the Church is infallible, and has infallibly taught us. Otherwise, how would men know what to believe. We would be like modern day Protestants, picking and chosing for ourselves what appeals to us.
“Credo in unam, sanctam, catholicam apostolicam ecclesiam”.
pax,
mgrfin
S
St_Violet
Guest
are you referring about the time when The Catholic Church and the Church of Constantinople were excommunicating each other, simply because the the bishop of constantinople didn’t recognize the Authority of the Pope the bishop of rome, the sucessor of Peter, Peter being the leader of the apostles, Peter being the rock in Mattew 16, etc etc?
S
St_Violet
Guest
The Pope is only infallible when it comes to Faith and Morals, the Catholic Church had to remind everyone of this in 1869 i believe in the the doctrine of papal infalliblity
A
allofgrace
Guest
Thank you for this - Some copies of these are in museums to be seen today.
Any man who can pick and choose books from the Bible and exalt some and condemn others has no reverence for the Bible. We were taught as Evangelicals to do just what he did - take a verse from here and a verse from there to proof text our pretexts. I have long since said that it is the Catholic Church that is the Bible-believing Church. The day I was brought into full communion with the Church I walked from church to the hall where we would have a reception for those who came into the Church - this was Easter Vigil, 1993 at St. Francis Cabrini in Savannah, GA. I walked over with Fr. Nelson and I said to him, the Catholic Church is actually the only FULL GOSPEL Church in the world. He said, “I never really thought of it that way before.”
Fourteen years later I’m all the more convinced.
C
Contarini
Guest
He defends it as necessary to convey the meaning of the original. That is a translation issue.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Thank you. That is the point I have been trying to make. This is what the people who talk about Luther’s “addition” simply do not understand.
Your point that Luther may not have been a good enough Greek scholar to translate the Bible all by himself is a far more valid critique.
Yes. I have heard that there were 17, though I’m not sure if they were separate translations as opposed to separate editions. (And there were printed, accessible translations in most of the other European languages as well–English was the exception because of the English Church’s misguided response to the Lollards; English-speaking Protestants have drawn inaccurate generalizations from the English situation.) However, I’m not sure how readable they were, and they may have been written in less accessible dialects. Whatever else you say about Luther, he was one of the great prose writers of his day.
Edwin
M
mgrfin
Guest
That’s the point: it was not a trranslation issue. “Only” was not in the original Greek. The German didn’t require it.
Have modern German translations required the insertion?
He inserted it in German to reinforce his justification theology.
peace
mgrfin
C
Contarini
Guest
He said it did. It is a translation issue. As I have pointed out ad nauseam, neither “only” nor “allein” were in the original Greek because they are not Greek words.
I am not defending Luther’s translation. I am saying that it is a translation and must be debated on linguistic grounds, not simply rejected as a patently dishonest addition to the text.
One could argue whether the Douay-Rheims is justified in translating “presbuteros” as “priest,” since the semantic range of “presbuteros” in first-century Greek was almost entirely different from that of “priest” in sixteenth-century English. But again, it’s a translation choice, good or bad.
Adding meaning (which “priest” certainly does when used as a translation of first-century-Greek “presbuteros”) based on theological presuppositions is no different from using four words to translate three based on theological presuppositions. As anyone knows who has done any translation at all, the idea of a “word-for-word translation” is nonsense. Sometimes you have to “add” words to make the meaning clear. Whether or not Luther really needed to add “allein,” the “addition” of a word in this way is not in principle illegitimate or dishonest. That is what I am trying to say.
Edwin
A
allofgrace
Guest
Right! He defends it as a translation issue DISHONESTLY. Luther was not above lying and twisting things.
In fact he defended the use of THE BIG LIE to get done what you have to do - the end justifies the means.
Protestants defend it because they have to. But I have asked Protestants to show in the Bible ALONE, chapter and verse where it supports “the Bible ALONE” or “by faith ALONE” and they can not do it. It is not there.
Many, at that point either go into denial or begin to question those doctrines.
C
Contarini
Guest
You have no evidence for this except your cynicism about Luther’s character. Was it also dishonest for the Douay-Rheims to translate the text in ways that no modern scholar (Catholic or Protestant) would support?
I certainly don’t have to. I disagree strongly with Luther’s doctrine of justification. I think most of it was unnecessary at best. As a Wesleyan, my understanding of justification is by and large closer to the Catholic position than to that of Luther.
Edwin
R
rr1213
Guest
You’re beating your head against the brick wall on this one Edwin…they are so invested in their position that Martin Luther was the devil incarnate that they are incapable of understanding any other viewpoint. 
S
St_Violet
Guest
Luther is a hard man to understand, He is one of the men in History I had difficultly understanding. one side of him he seems to be a saint who happens to care about the people and concerned about the Doctrine of the Church, and this other side he is this hot temptered, arrogant, a loud mouth who just didn’t have the ability to shut up. I think Luther gets this from childhood, like he said his mother used to beat him until he bled and his father was really strict and tough on him, that’s probably because he wanted Luther to grow up to be better then he was ( Luther’s father used to work in the mines), which is why he encouraged him to go to Law School and become a lawyer.
now, the fact that he placed the word “alone” in his translation does raise many eyebrows , but recognizing the highth of his arrogance and his pride, it does not suprise me that Luther would defend his own error just like he would defend himself not believing certain books aren’t inspired. Luther was a man who wanted to promote HIS OWN interpretation and his Doctrine, he was far from being the hero trying to give people bibles for themselves and come up with their own conclusion especially knowing that illiteracy was not uncommon, I don’t think anyone can deny his temper towards those who disagreed with him.
now, the fact that he placed the word “alone” in his translation does raise many eyebrows , but recognizing the highth of his arrogance and his pride, it does not suprise me that Luther would defend his own error just like he would defend himself not believing certain books aren’t inspired. Luther was a man who wanted to promote HIS OWN interpretation and his Doctrine, he was far from being the hero trying to give people bibles for themselves and come up with their own conclusion especially knowing that illiteracy was not uncommon, I don’t think anyone can deny his temper towards those who disagreed with him.
A
allofgrace
Guest
Many of Luther’s contemporaries questioned whether he ever had a call to the ministry or not. He used to embarass his wife by talking about their sex life in earthy terms from the pulpit. He was abusive to his family and to anyone who disagreed with him. It was his OWN doctrine indeed that he wanted the Catholic Church to adopt and the Catholic Church said, NO! Big Bad CAtholic Church - imagine that - they refused to accept Luther’s Gospel. What is little known is that he sent Melancthon to try to get the Orthodox to go along with him and THEY SAID NO! I used to have a document from them that stated their position but don’t know where it is at the moment.
N
Nella
Guest
I agree. I don’t personally know a single Catholic that would even so much as admit that Luther could possibly be correct on anything. They have nothing but scorn for the man because he had the courage to stand up against the travesties of the church.You’re beating your head against the brick wall on this one Edwin…they are so invested in their position that Martin Luther was the devil incarnate that they are incapable of understanding any other viewpoint.
D
distracted
Guest
Martin Luther once said that since we are saved by faith alone, a person could commit adultery 20 times in one day and not endanger his/her salvation… 
N
Nella
Guest
How do you know that to be true?? Did he tell you himself? Of all the outlandish statements I ever heard on here, this is one that is an award winner for certain!Martin Luther once said that since we are saved by faith alone, a person could commit adultery 20 times in one day and not endanger his/her salvation…
D
distracted
Guest
It’s one thing to stand up to corruption that admittedly was going on in those days (and always, since the Church is always filled w/ sinners…). It’s another thing to throw the baby out with the bathwater - disrespect popes and bishops, change scripture, etc… I frankly believe Luther was possessed…
An interesting, eye-opening book is The Facts About Luther…
- Status