More precision on Martin Luther, 7 books "tossed out"

[Abu]

JonNC #17
Finally, there are no ecumenical councils after the schism. It is an impossibility.

Another error.

Neither the Orthodox break-away, nor the Protestant Revolt, nor any other schism or heresy can detract from, or reverse, the Catholic Church‘s worldwide mandate from Christ who established His one and only Church with His protection from error in dogma and doctrine

Only Christ’s Catholic Church established by Him can, and does, declare when and what is an Ecumenical Council.

ECUMENICAL. Literally “universal” and commonly used to identify the general councils of the Church. With the rise of the movement for Christian unity, it has become synonymous with “striving for reunification” among the separated Churches of Christendom. (Etym. Latin oecumenicus; from Greek oikoumenē, the inhabited world.)

The 21 Ecumenical Councils are shown at this site.
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[guanophore]

Another error.

Neither the Orthodox break-away, nor the Protestant Revolt, nor any other schism or heresy can detract from, or reverse, the Catholic Church‘s worldwide mandate from Christ who established His one and only Church with His protection from error in dogma and doctrine

Only Christ’s Catholic Church established by Him can, and does, declare when and what is an Ecumenical Council.

ECUMENICAL. Literally “universal” and commonly used to identify the general councils of the Church. With the rise of the movement for Christian unity, it has become synonymous with “striving for reunification” among the separated Churches of Christendom. (Etym. Latin oecumenicus; from Greek oikoumenē, the inhabited world.)

The 21 Ecumenical Councils are shown at this site.
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

That is the point, Abu. After the schism, there was a huge section of the inhabited world, including a huge portion of the Church founded by Christ that no longer participated in Councils. The result was growing separation as the West continued to develop doctrine that the East did not.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The Lutheran confession s do not specify a 66 book canon. In fact, through history, Lutherans have used the DCs liturgically, in hymnody, and in teacher. Use of the books in this way makes them canon. Canon means rule. Steve, you don’t get to decide what Lutherans teach and practice. You especially don’t get to misrepresent who our founder is as you did in that previous post. We preach Christ crucified. Christ is our founder, as we are members of His one True Church. Luther’s opinion was his own. It isn’t one I share entirely, and I am not required to.
Further, Cajetan clearly expresses his view of the DCs. He was permitted to do do. That was his Catholic liberty.
Finally, there are no ecumenical councils after the schism. It is an impossibility.

Jon

Here’s what John Henry Newman would have to say:

“In the present day mistiness is the mother of wisdom. A man who can set down half a dozen general propositions, which escape from destroying one another only by being diluted into truisms, who can hold the balance between opposites so skilfully as to do without fulcrum and beam, who never enunciates a truth without guarding himself from being supposed to exclude the contradictory, who holds that Scripture is the only authority, yet that the Church is to be deferred to, that faith only justifies, yet that it does not justify without works, that grace does not depend on sacraments, yet is not given without them, that bishops are a divine ordinance, yet those who have them not are in the same religious condition as those who have, --this is your safe man and the hope of the Church; this is what the Church is said to want, not party men, but sensible, temperate, sober, well-judging persons, to guide it through the channel of No-meaning, between the Scylla and Charybdis of Aye and No.”

 

[JonNC]

Another error.

Neither the Orthodox break-away, nor the Protestant Revolt, nor any other schism or heresy can detract from, or reverse, the Catholic Church‘s worldwide mandate from Christ who established His one and only Church with His protection from error in dogma and doctrine

Only Christ’s Catholic Church established by Him can, and does, declare when and what is an Ecumenical Council.

ECUMENICAL. Literally “universal” and commonly used to identify the general councils of the Church. With the rise of the movement for Christian unity, it has become synonymous with “striving for reunification” among the separated Churches of Christendom. (Etym. Latin oecumenicus; from Greek oikoumenē, the inhabited world.)

The 21 Ecumenical Councils are shown at this site.
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Orthodox are part of Christ’s Catholic Church. Lutherans are part of Christ’s Catholic Church. And others. But even excluding protestants, without all the bishops, a council isn’t ecumenical. That’s why there are 7.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;13704847]I think the difference is attitude. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it could not be verified that the Deuterocanonical books had been written in Hebrew, which was one of the major elements of inclusion in the canon.

Jerome and Cajetan yielded their opinions to the authority of the Church, while Luther, especially toward the end, had become increasingly hostile and adversarial against the Church authority.

I still don’t think it was fair to ask him to renounce all that he had written, because those who demanded this knew as well as Luther that it did not all contradict the teachings of the CC. In fact, most of it did not. It was an exercise in obedience with which Luther could not comply. Others who were faced with the same demand were able to yield.

There is another aspect of this; Cardinal Cajetan, AFAIK, was not asked to comply to a particular canon. Well, he wasn’t asked to until Trent, which btw, included a debate on the canonicity of the DC books. It was not a settled dogma that they were part of scripture on a par with the universally attested books. He had the liberty to dispute the DC books, as did Luther. Luther, OTOH, did not live to see the Council of Trent’s declaration on the matter.

As for whether or not Luther would have complied, I suspect he would not have. And as you know, Guan, I am not so much defending Luther’s position on the canon, as I am his liberty to hold those opinions, as all other Catholics before Trent had the liberty. IOW, I am defending him against what I believe to be a double standard by some Catholic apologists.

While I can confirm the technical reality of what you are saying, clearly Luther’s opinion was highly influential, and was a major factor that did eventually result in their removal.

Communions that have chosen to “remove” them are perfectly capable of making those decisions. Was Luther influential? Absolutely, but not influential enough. If one reads his prefaces to books such as Judith, and 1 Maccabees, one gets a dramatically different take on Luther’s view of these books than what one sees from some of the anti-Luther Catholic apologists.

For example:

This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred Scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel. For the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy in that chapter, about the abomination and misfortune which was going to befall the people of Israel, is here described—namely, Antiochus Epiphanes—and in much the same way that Daniel [11:29–35] speaks of it: a little help and great persecution by the Gentiles and by false Jews, which is what took place at the time of the Maccabees. This is why the book is good for us Christians to read and to know.

Luther’s translation included them, did not remove them, and in fact, they are still in Die Bibel today. The mistake American Lutherans made was settling for English language 66 book bibles, when a Lutheran bible, as per Luther’s example, should have at least 73 books.

Jon

 

[Goya]

*The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Deuterocanonicals

Was at a bed and breakfast this past weekend and found the Jerome Biblical Commentary on the bookshelf! Flipped through it and read the section on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

One fascinating find was the book of Tobit: four manuscripts of the original Aramaic text of Tobit were found, and one in Hebrew. Recall that one of the most common Protestant arguments against the deuterocanonical books were that none were written in Hebrew (or Aramaic), but only Greek. Well, that argument is sunk by Tobit alone, but of course Protestants couldn’t know that until the 1950s when the scrolls began to be discovered. Judith, Sirach, and 1 Maccabees were also thought to be originally composed in Hebrew.

Also interesting: Sirach was read and copied by the Jews even after 90 AD, and it was recorded by Tosephta in Yadaim that it was a book that “did not soil the hands,” indicating reverence for it.

…

We come to the time of Trent, and questions still remain about the deuterocanonicals. Cardinal Cajetan did not want to accept them as Scripture. But the prelates at Trent ended up accepting the wider canon–not because they knew all the historical arguments, as indeed it seems like they were not the most historically knowledgeable group of clergy–but on the theological basis of which books had been most consistently used by the Church over the centuries.

But the Reformers and Cardinal Cajetan, perhaps influenced by Erasmus, also questioned many NT books. Cajetan shared Erasmus’ reservations about Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. That’s right, Cajetan, the Catholic whom Protestants celebrate as proof that the deuterocanonicals should be rejected,wanted to reject books that all Protestants accept in the NT. Hmmm, maybe he’s not such a great witness for Protestantism?

Luther and Carlstadt also doubted some of those same NT books, as I and others have written about before. They placed them in a second position, lower than the rest of the NT, the “canon within the canon” that to most Protestants today sounds so ludicrous. (Though some Lutherans still hold to that belief.)

In the end, mere historical analysis was not enough to unambiguously know the true canon. The many opinions about both the OT and NT canon demonstrates that. Which is more evidence for the Catholic claim that God preserves His truth by guiding His Church–even men who are less historically knowledgeable than others–into all truth on faith and morals. He guided the prelates at Trent to get the canon right, in spite of the historical ambiguity.

The more I learn about the development of the canon, the more I am grateful to God for His providence in guiding the Church. Without that guidance, we would all be like the Christians at the time of the Reformation: endlessly debating the vague and conflicting evidence for or against this or that book. Never being able to come to conscience-binding certainty on it, and thus not knowing what God’s Word is with confidence.

…
*

devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/10/24/the-dead-sea-scrolls-and-the-deuterocanonicals/

FWIW.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Goya:

The more I learn about the development of the canon, the more I am grateful to God for His providence in guiding the Church. Without that guidance, we would all be like the Christians at the time of the Reformation: endlessly debating the vague and conflicting evidence for or against this or that book.

If only those reformers were truly looking for evidences instead of excuses for dropping books of the Bible that conflicted with there innovations.

 

[JonNC]

If only those reformers were truly looking for evidences instead of excuses for dropping books of the Bible that conflicted with there innovations.

An example of an excuse please, for each book.
Jon

 

[steve_b]

Indeed, but St Jerome was permitted to have that opinion. So was Cardinal Cajetan, and many others . The only one who seems to be held to a different standard by some Catholic apologists is Luther.
Now, I’m not complaining about that bias, as we all have biases on these issues. But St. Jerome, Cajetan, Luther , and all the varying views of the canon, East and West, do not mean anyone added to, or subtracted from the canon. The DRB still has 73 books. For Catholics, no books were “removed”, for Lutherans no books are added or removed, for Orthodoxy, no books are added or removed by the opinions of Dr. Luther.
Jon

Jon

Luther proved that false.

For Lutherans, 66 books are scripture, NOT 73. Luther demoted 7 OT books to apocrypha status. Making 7 canonical books non scripture.

Luther’s statement says it all

“Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” taken from What is the apocrypha?

#[76 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13523261&postcount=76) , #[28 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13512542&postcount=28) , #[24 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13509477&postcount=24) , #[726 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12380697&postcount=726)

as far as

Jerome and Cajetan

• they used the same canon of scripture that pope Damasus decreed.
• the same canon that Florence confirmed
• neither person changed anything regarding the canon

 

[steve_b]

The Lutheran confession s do not specify a 66 book canon. In fact, through history, Lutherans have used the DCs liturgically, in hymnody, and in teacher. Use of the books in this way makes them canon. Canon means rule. Steve, you don’t get to decide what Lutherans teach and practice. You especially don’t get to misrepresent who our founder is as you did in that previous post.

Jon it is not me deciding anything here.

We know historically exactly when Lutherans came to be. Certainly you are not going to deny your own history. Show me where “Lutheran(s)” as a church, or religion, or religious sect, appears “In writing” and “properly referenced” came before Martin Luther?

Re: Luther’s bible, I’ve given you that multiple times. Did you click on the image of Luther’s bible here? #[28 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13512542&postcount=28) It takes you to the books in his bible, and how they are classified in his bible. It separates OT & NT **AND apocrypha **it doesn’t get clearer than that. That’s from 1534

**Note: **Luther’s own statement about the apocrypha,

“Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” taken from What is the apocrypha?
J:

We preach Christ crucified.

Lot’s of people know Jesus was crucified. They might even preach it. It doesn’t mean that statement presto majesto, makes them a member of His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
J:

Christ is our founder, as we are members of His one True Church.

Jon, your Lutheran history, is there for everyone to see.

Lutheran

• doesn’t go further back than the 16th century. Christ is NOT your founder.
• Luther was excommunicated from the One True Church Jesus founded, in the 16th century. Luther was no longer a member of the One True Church. He was then outside the One True Church. NOT a member of the One True Church

J:

Luther’s opinion was his own.* It isn’t one I share entirely*, and I am not required to.

But you do share it… & defend it.
J:

Further, Cajetan clearly expresses his view of the DCs. He was permitted to do do. That was his Catholic liberty.

Liberty ≠ license

This particular post was to another poster #[15 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13704879&postcount=15) , in which I quote the statement from Florence (an ecumenical council) identifying the canon of scripture. This was 40+ years before Luther was even born.

Re: Cajetan,

• did he reclassify any scriptural book in the bible to non scripture status? No
• did he remove any scriptural book from the bible? No

J:

Finally, there are no ecumenical councils after the schism. It is an impossibility.

Jon

Nonsense.

The authority of the successor of Peter, when he exercises his authority over the entire Church makes a council or papal decree ecumenical…i.e. binding on the entire Church. THAT’s the way Jesus established the hierarchy in His Church. Peter is over all the Church. With the keys Jesus gave to Peter alone, Whatever Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever Peter looses on earth is loosed in heaven.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;13709627]Jon it is not me deciding anything here.

We know historically exactly when Lutherans came to be. Certainly you are not going to deny your own history. Show me where “Lutheran(s)” as a church, or religion, or religious sect, appears “In writing” and “properly referenced” came before Martin Luther?

That’s easy:
** And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. **

**Note: **Luther’s own statement about the apocrypha,

“Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” taken from What is the apocrypha?

Yep. Luther’s opinion. Shared by others all through Church history. But it is his opinion.

Lot’s of people know Jesus was crucified. They might even preach it. It doesn’t mean that statement presto majesto, makes them a member of His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

True. Baptism does.

Jon, your Lutheran history, is there for everyone to see.

I didn’t know you knew me well enough to know my history. Here it is. I am a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the Evangelical Catholic Tradition.

But you do share it… & defend it.

Show me where I have defended his very on the DC books. I have only defended his right to hold them, just like other Catholics had the same right. I defend him against the double standard that says others can have their opinion of the disputed books, but Luther can’t. I defend Cardinal Cajetan’s liberty in this regard, as well.
And by that same liberty not denied me by the Council of Trent or the Lutheran Confessions, I have the same liberty to disagree with their conclusions regarding the DC books.

Liberty ≠ license

Agreed. License happens when one bishop claims he has powers not granted by scripture or a council.

This particular post was to another poster #[15 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13704879&postcount=15) , in which I quote the statement from Florence (an ecumenical council) identifying the canon of scripture. This was 40+ years before Luther was even born.

Re: Cajetan,

• did he reclassify any scriptural book in the bible to non scripture status? No
• did he remove any scriptural book from the bible? No

Cajetan’s view of the DC books was essentially the same as Luther’s. This is beyond dispute. If Luther did anything, he added a book to scripture.

The authority of the successor of Peter, when he exercises his authority over the entire Church makes a council or papal decree ecumenical…i.e. binding on the entire Church.

He has only that power in his jurisdiction - the Western Church.

THAT’s the way Jesus established the hierarchy in His Church. Peter is over all the Church. With the keys Jesus gave to Peter alone, Whatever Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever Peter looses on earth is loosed in heaven.

Keys shared by all of the bishops.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

That’s easy:
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

As the apostle James said, (paraphrased) don’t tell me what you believe show me. Lutherans are not Catholic. They are not in, nor do they submit to the Catholic Church.
J:

True. Baptism does.

By definition all these heresies are populated by the baptized
Great Heresies**

As Paul warned Re: heresy

** Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
J:

I am a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the Evangelical Catholic Tradition.

You’re Lutheran. NOT Catholic
J:

Show me where I have defended his very on the DC books. I have only defended his right to hold them, just like other Catholics had the same right.

I defend Cardinal Cajetan’s liberty in this regard, as well.
And by that same liberty not denied me by the Council of Trent or the Lutheran

Note the language used from Florence that follows

“Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches … It professes … It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.*
*Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.”
Session 11 (1442) or ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#5"

Count the books. It’s 73. This took place 100 years before Trent, 1100 + years after
pope Damasus I, decreed the same canon at the council of Rome in 382.

if one keeps reading in that document, it also says

“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; …”

One could ask, was that ever taught in scripture that outside the Church there is no salvation? It was and here it is

This Greek word διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / factions /sedition and is used in both Romans 16:17 and Gal 5:19 Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21, NOTE: the consequence for that sin?

" I warn you as I’ve warned you before, those who live like this will not inherit heaven" Gal 5:21 In Context ]

And because Luther was also a heretic, the following condemned him also

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

That was from post #15
J:

Agreed. License happens when one bishop claims he has powers not granted by scripture or a council.

That’s not license

License = formal permission from a constituted authority to do something one would not be free to do otherwise
J:

Cajetan’s view of the DC books was essentially the same as Luther’s.

and refuted
J:

He has only that power in his jurisdiction - the Western Church.

Where did Jesus restrict Peter’s authority to only the West
J:

Keys shared by all of the bishops.

Jon

No bishop alone can bind the entire Church except the Pope.
All the bishops must be in union with the pope to be universally authoritative

 

[AmbroseSJ]

An example of an excuse please, for each book.
Jon

Jon, it is a truism that heretics always change the bible to suit their doctrines. It needs no defense as it is common knowledge.

But even supposing one seriously believes Luther dropped those biblical books, which for over a thousand years were unquestioned, it must still be at least slightly troubling that those particular books did present some difficulties with Luther’s new doctrines. Just as Luther added “alone” after Faith, one can rationalize it, and see that there could be an honest translational reason. Yet, it would be unreal to deny that it ALSO props up his core doctrine perfectly and most conveniently.

I realize that when it comes to Luther, the founder and guiding light of Lutheranism, (however much it might be modified, modernized and corrected in today’s enlightened environment,) you do insist that his ideas and opinions are just that, one man’s valid or perhaps invalid ideas and opinions. But that begs the question; why adhere to a religion founded on one man’s ideas and opinions, which are admittedly suspect? Are committees and drafted statements and confessions built upon one man’s suspect ideas and opinions really the right foundation for a religion? Do they even trump Sacred Scripture? At least that is what I would ask myself.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, it is a truism that heretics always change the bible to suit their doctrines. It needs no defense as it is common knowledge.

But even supposing one seriously believes Luther dropped those biblical books, which for over a thousand years were unquestioned, it must still be at least slightly troubling that those particular books did present some difficulties with Luther’s new doctrines. Just as Luther added “alone” after Faith, one can rationalize it, and see that there could be an honest translational reason. Yet, it would be unreal to deny that it ALSO props up his core doctrine perfectly and most conveniently.

I realize that when it comes to Luther, the founder and guiding light of Lutheranism, (however much it might be modified, modernized and corrected in today’s enlightened environment,) you do insist that his ideas and opinions are just that, one man’s valid or perhaps invalid ideas and opinions. But that begs the question; why adhere to a religion founded on one man’s ideas and opinions, which are admittedly suspect? Are committees and drafted statements and confessions built upon one man’s suspect ideas and opinions really the right foundation for a religion? Do they even trump Sacred Scripture? At least that is what I would ask myself.

Okay. I’ll wait for an example of an excuse. I’ve read and like all of them. I am particularly fond of 1 Macc , and Judith. But even in the others, with the possible exception of 2 Macc, there’s nothing I find problematic. You claim he “removed” them giving excuses for doing so. I just want one excuse per book

As for the second paragraph, for those of us who are of the Lutheran tradition (Evangelical Catholic) within the Church Catholic, Christ is our founder, our guiding light, and Savior. We are baptized into His a hurt, receive His body and blood in the Eucharist, and we preach Christ crucified.
Jon

 

[gus]

Hi, I recently listened to an audio presentation by Matthew Arnold called “Fire and Sword” where this came up, and here it is again in an apologist post by Peggy Frye. catholic.com/quickquestions/was-martin-luthers-revision-of-the-bible-a-return-to-the-true-bible-of-the-early-chur
Both Matthew Arnold and Peggy Frye said something to the effect that 7 books of the Old Testament were taken out. I think this would be accurate enough if Martin Luther didn’t put them in his German translation, but as far as I know they were there, but in a different order. According to Wikipedia, he put the 7 OT books (he later labeled “apocrypha”) between the Old and New Testaments, and since he didn’t like Hebrews and James, he put them at the end near Revelation. Wikipedia says the “apocrypha” were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament.
My point is that saying “threw them out” is basically inaccurate. There were 73 books in his bible, but in truth he did “downgrade” them by segregating them. If my information is correct, all Catholics should be saying “Martin Luther downgraded 9 books in his German translation of the Bible” instead of “he threw them out”. I think we should be more precise. What do you think?

Why whether he kept them in or not irrelevant he downgraded them to non- conanical status he didn’t have guts enough to remove them entirely.
That took another 150 years .
The King James Bible did the same and actually had over a dozen footnoted references to the rejected books.
I was amazed to find when the Proestant Bible Societies pushed for the complete removal
It was pretty controversial within their rank.
I particularly like the quote of an Angelicans Bishop opposed to their removal.
If men can say that books held by the Church in honor ,to be no longer conanical ,how long will it take for the rest of the book to be called in question. It didn’t take long to get his answer
Luther started the ball rolling and should be called on it.
Your splitting hairs

 

[AmbroseSJ]

As for the second paragraph, for those of us who are of the Lutheran tradition (Evangelical Catholic) within the Church Catholic, Christ is our founder, our guiding light, and Savior. We are baptized into His a hurt, receive His body and blood in the Eucharist, and we preach Christ crucified.
Jon

Is there any heretical sect that would not make the same claim, going back to the first heresiarchs?

As for the excuses, you know them as reasons. Luther DID have reasons for tossing out those books.

 

[Goya]

…

As for the second paragraph, for those of us who are of the Lutheran tradition (Evangelical Catholic) within the Church Catholic, Christ is our founder, our guiding light, and Savior. We are baptized into His a hurt, receive His body and blood in the Eucharist, and we preach Christ crucified.
Jon

Not being difficult Jon, but what does the bolded mean? Is it a typo? If so, what were you intending to write–heart?

Just curious–sincerely–not trying to play childish grammar police games.

 

[guanophore]

Not being difficult Jon, but what does the bolded mean? Is it a typo? If so, what were you intending to write–heart?

Just curious–sincerely–not trying to play childish grammar police games.

It was a very intersting typo, as we are baptized into His death and resurrection. Being united with him in His crucifixion is certainly being joined to His “hurt”. But no, pretty sure this meant to be His Church.

 

[JohnR77]

I believe that Gerry Matatics stated in a talk that when Martin Luther was challenged in a debate on how 2 Maccabees supported the doctrine of Purgatory, his friend Philipp Melanchthon reported that Luther’s jaw dropped open. Does anyone have reference to this incident ?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

I agree it is speculative whether Luther would have accepted Trent. I suspect it would have depended on if participants would had included (safely) members of the Evangelical Catholic churches .
As for authority, let’s remember that this divorce, like any other, was mutual. I will add that having read his prefaces to the DC books, I don’t recall a claim of authority, either explicitly or implicitly.
Jon

I am concerned that the first sentence in your post might be misleading. You seem to believe that there is some doubt as to whether Luther would have accepted the decision of Trent on the canon. In addition, you seem to infer that the Council of Trent would have carried more weight with Protestants IF they had been invited and given safe passage.

As you know from documentation that I have provided in the past.

1. Protestants WERE invited to Trent and WERE given guarantees of safe passage.
2. Martin Luther recommended that Protestants NOT attend Trent.
3. Protestants did not attend the first sessions but did attend at least one later session.
4. When they attended that session, they demanded that all of the decisions made by the prior sessions that they had refused to attend, be nullified.

This is simply from memory and I am sure that you remember at least this much, but I can repost the actual evidence if you like, which I am sure contains additional details which are important to gaining a full understanding of the matter of Protestant attendance at Trent.

That being said, I don’t think that it can be implied that the Protestants were not given safe passage, because they were. In addition, I don’t think it can be inferred that the Protestants were held out of the Council when they in fact were invited and when Luther recommended that they not attend. If the Protestants were not a part of Trent it is totally their own fault. In fact, the Catholic Church bent over backwards to get the Protestants to attend, including assembling the Council at a site agreeable to them.

In addition, I think that there is not much to speculate about at all with regards to whether Luther would have accepted anything at Trent which disagreed with him. The historical facts are very well documented, but not very well known.

Please let me know if you would like to see this documentation again.

On another note, there was NO ecclesiastical community at the time that was known as Evangelical Catholics. None of the Protestants referred to themselves in that manner. That label is of very modern origin.

God Bless You Jon, Topper