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

[guanophore]

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 ?

I have never seen this. It is not described this way in “The Leipzig debate in 1519 : leaves from the story of Luther’s life”

"Ech insisted that Paul states everybody will receive according- to that which he has done in the body, and Jerome says plainly that no merits can be earned after death. As to
the claim that Scripture does not mention purgatory, that he declared a well-lmown error of the Greeks.

Luther admitted that a Scripture-proof for purgatory is attempted by means of 2 Mace. 12, but it is not convincing because the books of the Maccabees are not canonical. What
the fathers cited by Eck really say is that no one earns any- thing for himself in heaven or hell.

Eclc asserted the canonicity of the books of the Maccabees on the strength of testimonies from Augustine and Ivo, and claimed that the testimonies which he had adduced from the fathers referred indeed to purgatory.

In his rejoinder Luther called attention to the fact that the Hebrew canon does not contain the books of the Maccabees, and that Jerome has not admitted them as parts of the
Old Testament ; Augustine’s testimony, however, he claimed, says no more than that the Roman Church has accepted these writings."

 

[twf]

There was never any “liberty to question” which books belong to the Bible for Catholics after the definition of Pope Damasus I.

The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God were defined by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament – clearly showing the authority of Christ’s Church, and culminating in the defined Canon of Sacred Scriptures at the Council of Trent.

This can’t be true. It wasn’t until Trent that the canon was definitively settled for the entire Church universal by an ecumenical council. Yes, the Septuagint, the Bible of the Apostles (quoted in the New Testament itself) included various deuterocanonical books, but there was never universal consensus on the canon in the early Church. It wasn’t necessarily a dividing issue. Pope St. Damasus and the various synods noted above bound the Latin Church…not the universal Church. How else would you explain the fact that the various Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, all of which were in full communion with Rome in the 4th century, use various canons - most of which have MORE books than the Catholic Old Testament. The fact that the Byzantine Church had a larger canon than the Latin Church wasn’t an issue before the Great Schism… so clearly they weren’t bound by the more limited Latin canon. Only the West was bound. The canon was decided at the local level only prior to Trent.
Of course Luther had no authority to define his own canon. Trent has now bound the Church once and for all… but let’s not use historical fallacies in our apologetics.

 

[MaryT777]

That is a fair point. But then we run into the issue of authority. I’m not sure but I suspect Luther died before to the settlement of the canon by Trent. It is a counterfactual, but would Luther have submitted to the council’s decision? I suspect not. So while it is true that there was some liberty in this matter prior to Trent, if the Church and its councils are no authority for Luther then citing them would be like citing the laws of England to apply to an American. The problem for Luther was not so much that he expressed doubt regarding the canon but that he had divorced himself from the authority of the Church and simultaneously set himself up as an authority.

Well said!~

Mary.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

twf:

Trent has now bound the Church once and for all… but let’s not use historical fallacies in our apologetics.

In fact, the Council of Trent merely reaffirmed what was the already the canon of Sacred Scripture as defined by the Church since the early 5th century. Look at the Gutenburg Bible, which is the Church’s Vulgate. It has the entire Catholic Canon. All Christian Bibles since the time of St. Augustine until the Council of Trent included the same Canon that was reaffirmed at Trent.

 

[guanophore]

There was never any “liberty to question” which books belong to the Bible for Catholics after the definition of Pope Damasus I.

The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God were defined by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament – clearly showing the authority of Christ’s Church, and culminating in the defined Canon of Sacred Scriptures at the Council of Trent.

If there were not liberty, Jerome would not have done so. The difference is that he had the humility to subject himself to the authority of the Magesterium in this matter. As it happened, it was discovered that the books were written in Hebrew.

This can’t be true. It wasn’t until Trent that the canon was definitively settled for the entire Church universal by an ecumenical council. Yes, the Septuagint, the Bible of the Apostles (quoted in the New Testament itself) included various deuterocanonical books, but there was never universal consensus on the canon in the early Church. It wasn’t necessarily a dividing issue. Pope St. Damasus and the various synods noted above bound the Latin Church…not the universal Church. How else would you explain the fact that the various Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, all of which were in full communion with Rome in the 4th century, use various canons - most of which have MORE books than the Catholic Old Testament. The fact that the Byzantine Church had a larger canon than the Latin Church wasn’t an issue before the Great Schism… so clearly they weren’t bound by the more limited Latin canon. Only the West was bound. The canon was decided at the local level only prior to Trent.

Of course Luther had no authority to define his own canon. Trent has now bound the Church once and for all… but let’s not use historical fallacies in our apologetics.

Europe was not influenced by or subjected to the Eastern Catholics at the time of the Reformation, but all those who became Protestants were Latin Catholics first. Rejecting what the Latin Church had always accepted and practiced was one of the roots of the Reformation.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

guanophore:

If there were not liberty, Jerome would not have done so. The difference is that he had the humility to subject himself to the authority of the Magesterium in this matter. As it happened, it was discovered that the books were written in Hebrew.

Since Apostolic times, Christians have never looked to second temple Judaism to settle any of her own questions. Therefore the Hebrew canon (which did not even exist until around the time of St. Jerome,) was never of any force to Christianity.

That is why it is entirely disingenuous for the reformers to insist on the Jewish canon. Ironically, the reformers allowed that the Christian Church was legitimate for at least the first 3 hundred years or so, and afterwards (depending on the reformer) the Church corrupted. So they are inconsistent in gainsaying the early Apostolic Church in her canon, which was fairly well established by the early 5th century.

 

[guanophore]

Since Apostolic times, Christians have never looked to second temple Judaism to settle any of her own questions. Therefore the Hebrew canon (which did not even exist until around the time of St. Jerome,) was never of any force to Christianity.

That is why it is entirely disingenuous for the reformers to insist on the Jewish canon. Ironically, the reformers allowed that the Christian Church was legitimate for at least the first 3 hundred years or so, and afterwards (depending on the reformer) the Church corrupted. So they are inconsistent in gainsaying the early Apostolic Church in her canon, which was fairly well established by the early 5th century.

It also comes to mind that none of the dogmas of the Church created ex nihilo. The declaratin on the trinity, the hypostatic union, the Theotokos all defined beliefs that had been held from the beginning. Christians did not first begin to believe in the Trinity after the council of Nicea. The canon of Scripture was accepted since the early councils for the same reason. It did not require a decree until the disputes over it became part of the split of the church.

 

[twf]

In fact, the Council of Trent merely reaffirmed what was the already the canon of Sacred Scripture as defined by the Church since the early 5th century. Look at the Gutenburg Bible, which is the Church’s Vulgate. It has the entire Catholic Canon. All Christian Bibles since the time of St. Augustine until the Council of Trent included the same Canon that was reaffirmed at Trent.

In the Latin West, yes. But as I noted the various Eastern and Oriental Churches maintained their own canons, which typically were larger than our Western canon. It wasn’t considered a dividing issue prior to the Great Schism- the Council of Rome, Carthage, etc bound the Latin West, but they were not ecumenical councils and did not bind the East.

 

[twf]

If there were not liberty, Jerome would not have done so. The difference is that he had the humility to subject himself to the authority of the Magesterium in this matter. As it happened, it was discovered that the books were written in Hebrew.

Europe was not influenced by or subjected to the Eastern Catholics at the time of the Reformation, but all those who became Protestants were Latin Catholics first. Rejecting what the Latin Church had always accepted and practiced was one of the roots of the Reformation.

I realize this and agree. I said in my first post that Luther had no authority to define his own canon. I just wanted to point out that we shouldn’t overstate the case. There wasn’t a universally binding canon in the first millennium, even if Luther himself as a Latin priest would have been bound by the Western canon. It may not be directly relevant to the argument at hand, but we still shouldn’t be making sweeping, inaccurate statements.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It also comes to mind that none of the dogmas of the Church created ex nihilo. The declaratin on the trinity, the hypostatic union, the Theotokos all defined beliefs that had been held from the beginning. Christians did not first begin to believe in the Trinity after the council of Nicea. The canon of Scripture was accepted since the early councils for the same reason. It did not require a decree until the disputes over it became part of the split of the church.

Exactly so.

 

[Topper17]

Hi guano,

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.

With regard to the canon, I think that it is just as important, if not more so, that Luther ‘downgraded’ four of the books of the NT, questioning their Inspired status, and put them in a category that was very different from the other 23 books of the NT. Those four books, following Luther’s lead are now considered to be the Lutheran Antilegomena and are not to be used for doctrinal purposes. Jude, Hebrews, Revelations, and of course James, while still technically part of the canon today within Lutheranism, are not considered to be of the same status as the other 23.

One has to question as to whether Luther had the authority to judge Scripture and determine, on the basis of his own personal opinions, whether these books were fully part of the NT.

God Bless You guano, Topper

 

[steve_b]

In the Latin West, yes. But as I noted the various Eastern and Oriental Churches maintained their own canons, which typically were larger than our Western canon. It wasn’t considered a dividing issue prior to the Great Schism- the Council of Rome, Carthage, etc bound the Latin West, but they were not ecumenical councils and did not bind the East.

Florence was an ecumenical council. I would just pose the following question,

what part of this statement and list of books, sounds like a mere suggestion, totally open for debate, and not an absolute defined list of books to be believed in?

"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.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Typo, and thanks. Baptized into the Church.
Never known you to play childish games.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi guano,
With regard to the canon, I think that it is just as important, if not more so, that Luther ‘downgraded’ four of the books of the NT, questioning their Inspired status, and put them in a category that was very different from the other 23 books of the NT. Those four books, following Luther’s lead are now considered to be the Lutheran Antilegomena and are not to be used for doctrinal purposes. Jude, Hebrews, Revelations, and of course James, while still technically part of the canon today within Lutheranism, are not considered to be of the same status as the other 23.

Which, again, was not in any sense a novelty, but was held by many over the centuries. Antilegomena is not a Luther invention.

Jon

 

[Goya]

Typo, and thanks. Baptized into the Church.
Never known you to play childish games.
Jon

Thank you–that makes sense–even more so than what I had figured.

(though I do play my childish games–just not on here).

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Which, again, was not in any sense a novelty, but was held by many over the centuries. Antilegomena is not a Luther invention.

Jon

However, after the canon of the Sacred Scripture was established by the early 5th century, the term was merely historical and no longer relevant to the canon of Sacred Scripture. Therefore when Luther reopened the entire canon to his own personal scrutiny, he revived a term long in disuse, since the Sacred Scripture canon had been closed and decided for more than a thousand years.

BTW, heresies that re-appear under new guises are not novelties either.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Which, again, was not in any sense a novelty, but was held by many over the centuries. Antilegomena is not a Luther invention.

Jon

I disagree Jon. A great deal of what Luther did was extremely novel. Remember Dave Armstrong’s list of 50 Luther innovations even before his was excommunicated? Well, his disrespectful writings and downgrading of Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelations didn’t even make the list; the reason being I suppose that he didn’t write those things until slightly after his excommunication.

Your comment makes it seem that the approach of Lutheranism is typical, inferring that it is the same as the approach used by the Church and the same as used by Protestantism generally today. I don’t think that is true at all.

From what I have seen over the years, most Lutherans seem to believe that Luther and Lutheranism have always approached the canon of Scripture in a perfectly orthodox manner. That is not the case at all. To demonstrate, this please allow me to ask a few important questions and then we can get into the details.

1. What percentage of Lutherans do you think realize that the Lutheran communion does not have an established or set canon of the Scriptures; that the canon is still open?
2. What other Protestant ecclesiastical communities have a still undefined canon of the NT?
3. What percentage of Lutherans do you think realize that Luther, and the Lutheran communions in following him, have downgraded the books of Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation to a lower class, a class from which doctrine is not to be determined?
4. What other Protestant ecclesiastical communities have placed these four books into such a downgraded category?
5. What percentage of Lutherans do you think are aware that Luther made a number of tremendously disrespectful comments, in writing, about those 4 books?
6. How many Lutherans do you think are aware of the fact that Lutherans even have a Homologomena and an Antilegomena, to distinguish between the more and less authoritative books of the NT?
7. How many Lutherans do you think are aware that Luther questioned the Inspiration/Canonicity/Apostolic origin of those 4 books, and that they are no longer questioned?
8. Do you think that the typical Lutheran is aware of how poor a job Luther did in determining what was written by an Apostle and what was not?
9. Do you think that the typical Lutheran is aware that Martin Luther judged the books of the NT depending on whether or not they were consistent with his radical belief about Salvation by Faith Alone?
10. Why do you think the typical lay Lutheran is not aware of the issue of Martin Luther and Lutheranism’s radical approach to the canon of the New Testament?

Actually Jon, I think that the typical Lutheran would be appalled to learn that Luther treated Holy Scripture with such disrespect. Anyone who would do such a thing in the Lutheran communion today, from nothing more than their own self-appointed authority, would be greatly criticized (at the very least.)

Why isn’t Luther?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[guanophore]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

I disagree Jon. A great deal of what Luther did was extremely novel. Remember Dave Armstrong’s list of 50 Luther innovations even before his was excommunicated? Well, his disrespectful writings and downgrading of Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelations didn’t even make the list; the reason being I suppose that he didn’t write those things until slightly after his excommunication.

Your comment makes it seem that the approach of Lutheranism is typical, inferring that it is the same as the approach used by the Church and the same as used by Protestantism generally today. I don’t think that is true at all.

From what I have seen over the years, most Lutherans seem to believe that Luther and Lutheranism have always approached the canon of Scripture in a perfectly orthodox manner. That is not the case at all. To demonstrate, this please allow me to ask a few important questions and then we can get into the details.

1. What percentage of Lutherans do you think realize that the Lutheran communion does not have an established or set canon of the Scriptures; that the canon is still open?
2. What other Protestant ecclesiastical communities have a still undefined canon of the NT?
3. What percentage of Lutherans do you think realize that Luther, and the Lutheran communions in following him, have downgraded the books of Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation to a lower class, a class from which doctrine is not to be determined?
4. What other Protestant ecclesiastical communities have placed these four books into such a downgraded category?
5. What percentage of Lutherans do you think are aware that Luther made a number of tremendously disrespectful comments, in writing, about those 4 books?
6. How many Lutherans do you think are aware of the fact that Lutherans even have a Homologomena and an Antilegomena, to distinguish between the more and less authoritative books of the NT?
7. How many Lutherans do you think are aware that Luther questioned the Inspiration/Canonicity/Apostolic origin of those 4 books, and that they are no longer questioned?
8. Do you think that the typical Lutheran is aware of how poor a job Luther did in determining what was written by an Apostle and what was not?
9. Do you think that the typical Lutheran is aware that Martin Luther judged the books of the NT depending on whether or not they were consistent with his radical belief about Salvation by Faith Alone?
10. Why do you think the typical lay Lutheran is not aware of the issue of Martin Luther and Lutheranism’s radical approach to the canon of the New Testament?

Actually Jon, I think that the typical Lutheran would be appalled to learn that Luther treated Holy Scripture with such disrespect. Anyone who would do such a thing in the Lutheran communion today, from nothing more than their own self-appointed authority, would be greatly criticized (at the very least.)

Why isn’t Luther?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Some very interesting questions, Topper, but violating the forum rules, I fear.

You seem to be asking Jon to answer for the actions of Luther.

Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

Although it seems to me a follly to call one’s religion after someone whose precepts are not followed, informed Lutherans today will tell you their beliefs are not based upon all the ideas and practices of Luther, but upon the creeds and confessions. In fact, I think that Jon has clarified this for you previously. “Lutherans” broke away from some of the excesses of Luther during his own lifetime.

Asking Jon, or any other Lutheran, to defend practices or beliefs of Luther to which they do not subscribe is not appropriate.

 

[Topper17]

Hi guano,

Thanks for your post.

Some very interesting questions, Topper, but violating the forum rules, I fear.

You seem to be asking Jon to answer for the actions of Luther.

Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

Although it seems to me a follly to call one’s religion after someone whose precepts are not followed, informed Lutherans today will tell you their beliefs are not based upon all the ideas and practices of Luther, but upon the creeds and confessions. In fact, I think that Jon has clarified this for you previously. “Lutherans” broke away from some of the excesses of Luther during his own lifetime.

Asking Jon, or any other Lutheran, to defend practices or beliefs of Luther to which they do not subscribe is not appropriate.

I see your point. It probably would have been more appropriate to simply make those 10 comments as statements rather than questions. As for the comments being about Luther, he is after all, the subject of this thread.

My apologies for expressing my points as questions rather than simple statements of historical fact.

God Bless You guano, Topper

 

[Goya]

Some very interesting questions, Topper, but violating the forum rules, I fear.

You seem to be asking Jon to answer for the actions of Luther.

Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

Although it seems to me a follly to call one’s religion after someone whose precepts are not followed, informed Lutherans today will tell you their beliefs are not based upon all the ideas and practices of Luther, but upon the creeds and confessions. In fact, I think that Jon has clarified this for you previously. “Lutherans” broke away from some of the excesses of Luther during his own lifetime.

Asking Jon, or any other Lutheran, to defend practices or beliefs of Luther to which they do not subscribe is not appropriate.

Respectfully disagree with your characterization of Topper’s post.

First, he isn’t asking Jon to defend Luther–his questions were “…what percentage of Lutherans [today] know X”? and “would they abide, if they did?”

Here’s one Topper missed–how many Lutherans even know that their current, still effective articles of faith, to which they adhere as a matter of official declaration…expressly declares the Papacy to be the antichrist?

Michele Bachman wasn’t even aware of this, and left her church, when she became aware of it (i.e.–was called out for it).

So no, it doesn’t appear that Topper is asking Jon to defend some obscure holding of Luther from centuries ago–he is inquiring about currently held beliefs–and more specifically…how many (few) Lutherans even know what they believe in, by virtue of declaring themselves Lutheran?

We as Catholics, are constantly being called upon to answer for the Church, and our beliefs–incidental to being Catholic.

Seems pretty damn fair to me, to turn the tables every now and then, and have others–such as Lutherans–answer for theirs.

…and in the process, let the readers be informed as to what they actually believe–rather than only what they wish their denomination holds.