Protestant view of Trent

[ajcstr]

So, I’m pulling this off a different thread because its off topic there but it really intrigued me and I wanted to continue discussing:

The Protestant Reformation sparked the Catholic Counter- Reformation and the Decrees of the Council of Trent, which finalized the structure of your church ( in that sense, the Catholic Church is nearly fifty years younger than the Lutheran Church… so, out goes the " older brother argument"), the Canon of Scripture was finalized at Trent ( so, the Books Luther omitted were actually in dispute anyway).

So my response would be yes, Trent discussed several disputed topics (as all prior councils did) but to say the Catholic Church is really 50 years younger than the Lutheran Church… well lets see. Using this logic, the Council of Nicaea defined a doctrine of the Trinity that never existed before (sound familiar).

And as far as the Canon of Scripture, my argument is that the 73 books of the Bible were the same 73 found in the Latin Vulgate which was THE Catholic Bible for over 1,000 years and it contained all these books.

 

[steido01]

So, I’m pulling this off a different thread because its off topic there but it really intrigued me and I wanted to continue discussing:

So my response would be yes, Trent discussed several disputed topics (as all prior councils did) but to say the Catholic Church is really 50 years younger than the Lutheran Church… well lets see. Using this logic, the Council of Nicaea defined a doctrine of the Trinity that never existed before (sound familiar).

The doctrine and concept of the Trinity clearly existed prior to its beautiful enunciation at Nicaea. Christianity was completed in the work of Christ; the church doesn’t have the power to make up new beliefs.

And as far as the Canon of Scripture, my argument is that the 73 books of the Bible were the same 73 found in the Latin Vulgate which was THE Catholic Bible for over 1,000 years and it contained all these books.

73? The Bible Luther translated had 74. Why did Catholics cut a book out of the bible after Luther died?

Look, Holy Scripture has always had a bit of a rational disagreement to it, dating well before the Vulgate was written. But since you mentioned the Vulgate, we should note that you’re mistaken on the number of books originally included. The man who was commissioned to translate the various books into one compilation was St. Jerome, who actually came to a conclusion similar to Luther with regard to 1)which books belong in the canon and 2)what sort of authority each group of books ought to have in relation to others. Luther ended with a canon of 74 books, around 65-67 or so were most authoritative. Jerome thought that only 71 books deserved to be included in the original Vulgate, and believed that 7 books and three partial additions probably weren’t true Scripture. He left that up to individual churches. That Christian freedom carried through to Luther’s day. Even theologians who disagreed with Luther on most other things found agreement on the canon right up until Trent (See Erasmus and Cardinal Catejan). Interesting. History sure is messier than some Catholics like to think.

---

I also wonder whether Trent can truly be considered an ecumenical council when the East wasn’t represented and the Reformers were intentionally dis-invited (even true heretics like Arius were at least permitted to be heard at councils!), after being told for more than 15 years that a council will be held here, no, there, now there, now… and on and on. It seems like the Papal team just sat on the ball -literally waiting for their opponents to die- and then proceeded to kick the winning goal with the clock at :00. Hardly Ecumenical. It caused Luther to write the following introduction to the Smalcald Articles, which explain Lutheran positions on theological topics:

Since Pope Paul III convoked a Council last year, to assemble at Mantua about Whitsuntide, and afterwards transferred it from Mantua, so that it is not yet known where he will or can fix it, and we on our part either had to expect that we would be summoned also to the Council or [to fear that we would] be condemned unsummoned…

I have accordingly compiled these articles and presented them to our side. They have also been accepted and unanimously confessed by our side, and it has been resolved that, in case the Pope with his adherents should ever be so bold as seriously and in good faith, without lying and cheating, to hold a truly free [legitimate] Christian Council (as, indeed, he would be in duty bound to do), they be publicly delivered in order to set forth the Confession of our Faith.

But though the Romish court is so dreadfully afraid of a free Christian Council, and shuns the light so shamefully, that it has [entirely] removed, even from those who are on its side, the hope that it will ever permit a free Council, much less that it will itself hold one, whereat, as is just, they [many Papists] are greatly offended and have no little trouble on that account [are disgusted with this negligence of the Pope], since they notice thereby that the Pope would rather see all Christendom perish and all souls damned than suffer either himself or his adherents to be reformed even a little, and his [their] tyranny to be limited, nevertheless I have determined meanwhile to publish these articles in plain print, so that, should I die before there would be a Council (as I fully expect and hope, because the knaves who flee the light and shun the day take such wretched pains to delay and hinder the Council), those who live and remain after me may have my testimony and confession to produce, in addition to the Confession which I have issued previously, whereby up to this time I have abided, and, by God’s grace, will abide…

I verily desire to see a truly Christian Council [assembled some time], in order that many matters and persons might be helped…

O Lord Jesus Christ, do Thou Thyself convoke a Council, and deliver Thy servants by Thy glorious advent!

Of course, this was par for the course for the Papal team at the time. Did you know they didn’t even let the Reformers read a copy of the Confutation? The Reformers were told to recant and acquiesce to a document that they weren’t allowed to study. What an open, Christian thing to do!

 

[LutheranScholar]

So, I’m pulling this off a different thread because its off topic there but it really intrigued me and I wanted to continue discussing:

So my response would be yes, Trent discussed several disputed topics (as all prior councils did) but to say the Catholic Church is really 50 years younger than the Lutheran Church… well lets see. Using this logic, the Council of Nicaea defined a doctrine of the Trinity that never existed before (sound familiar).

And as far as the Canon of Scripture, my argument is that the 73 books of the Bible were the same 73 found in the Latin Vulgate which was THE Catholic Bible for over 1,000 years and it contained all these books.

Okay. Out of respect for you, ajcstr, I’ll continue this. I’ll split this into two parts, because they both deserve to be addressed as thoroughly as possible. First, I’ll use some imagery, because it’s fresh in my brain as I’m typing, I’m seeing. See the Christian Church for the first 1,000 years as a straight line, starting out in Judaea, going over to Greece, then Rome and from Rome, into the forests of Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, with Gallic missionaries sailing to the British Isles. This line diverges when Roma and Constantinople split, but the same Vein runs in both branches. Around the sixteenth century, due to religious, social and political conditions, the Christian Church splits again, the same vein running through the churches.

The Holy Spirit works through these churches, right? The Church as such, as the Church Catholic, remains One in faith, else Jesus’ High Priestly prayer ( John 17: 20-2):
" 20I am not asking on behalf of them alone, but also on behalf of those who will believe in Me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one—"… would be fruitless ( I think that the Christian Church has indeed produced much fruit. Look at the missionary successes in Asia and Africa!) and I would posit that the faith of the Apostles is the common heritage of every church that calls itself Christian.

Okay. The Church by the time of Jan Hus had already been rent by theological dissensions, schisms and heresies. Relatively new teachings had been introduced to the Church and people felt no real obligation to accept all of them without question, in fact, healthy debates occurred with the promulgation of these teachings facstaff.bloomu.edu/hickey/to%201650%20%20lecture%2014.htm, history-world.org/midchurchhigh.htm, history-world.org/a_history_of_the_catholic_church.htm, catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/the-real-issues-of-the-reformation.html, ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/RELICS.HTM, equip.org/article/papal-infallibility-the-catholic-protestant-debate-over-papal-infallibility/.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The doctrine and concept of the Trinity clearly existed prior to its beautiful enunciation at Nicaea. Christianity was completed in the work of Christ; the church doesn’t have the power to make up new beliefs.

73? The Bible Luther translated had 74. Why did Catholics cut a book out of the bible after Luther died?

Look, Holy Scripture has always had a bit of a rational disagreement to it, dating well before the Vulgate was written. But since you mentioned the Vulgate, we should note that you’re mistaken on the number of books originally included. The man who was commissioned to translate the various books into one compilation was St. Jerome, who actually came to a conclusion similar to Luther with regard to 1)which books belong in the canon and 2)what sort of authority each group of books ought to have in relation to others. Luther ended with a canon of 74 books, around 65-67 or so were most authoritative. Jerome thought that only 71 books deserved to be included in the original Vulgate, and believed that 7 books and three partial additions probably weren’t true Scripture. He left that up to individual churches. That Christian freedom carried through to Luther’s day. Even theologians who disagreed with Luther on most other things found agreement on the canon right up until Trent (See Erasmus and Cardinal Catejan). Interesting. History sure is messier than some Catholics like to think.

---

I also wonder whether Trent can truly be considered an ecumenical council when the East wasn’t represented and the Reformers were intentionally dis-invited (even true heretics like Arius were at least permitted to be heard at councils!), after being told for more than 15 years that a council will be held here, no, there, now there, now… and on and on. It seems like the Papal team just sat on the ball -literally waiting for their opponents to die- and then proceeded to kick the winning goal with the clock at :00. Hardly Ecumenical. It caused Luther to write the following introduction to the Smalcald Articles, which explain Lutheran positions on theological topics:

Of course, this was par for the course for the Papal team at the time. Did you know they didn’t even let the Reformers read a copy of the Confutation? The Reformers were told to recant and acquiesce to a document that they weren’t allowed to study. What an open, Christian thing to do!

The ‘74th’ book you refer to was a appendix and never considered scripture. But I believe you already know that

73 books in the Vulgate at the beginning of the 5th century and 73 books today in the Latin rite church. Remarkable consistency.

And Jerome’s opinion on the disputed books actually changed over time. I wonder if Luther realized that or if he cared at all.

The Church has the authority to make truthful declarations without scriptural precedent. Read ACTS 15 for more info.

Pax

 

[LutheranScholar]

So, I posit that Jesus is the Vine and we are the branches ( at least our various church bodies are, as are also we, personally), according to my own Confirmation Verse, John 15:5. I also say that the Church Catholic can make that universal claim to antiquity, regardless of branch, because they all come out of the doctrines of the Early Christian Church. The Church of England traces its heritage back to the Early Anglo- Saxon and Celtic Christians, despite its Protestant designation today.

Let’s get to Scriptural canon and when that was definitively decided. " The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time." catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm, bible.org/seriespage/7-bible-holy-canon-scripture, christianbiblereference.org/faq_bibles.htm, bible-researcher.com/canon1.html.

 

[ajcstr]

Let’s get to Scriptural canon and when that was definitively decided. " The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time." catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm, bible.org/seriespage/7-bible-holy-canon-scripture, christianbiblereference.org/faq_bibles.htm, bible-researcher.com/canon1.html.

I am not arguing that Trent was not the final declaration of the canon, I am saying the canon was not (to my knowledge) something that was in flux since the earlier councils of Carthage and Hippo. Before those councils, or synods if you protest to the word councils, even the NT books were in dispute. I use the Vulgate as an example because despite the initial misgivings by Jerome, I am under the impression that those books were considered as part of the Bible. Yes, I understand a church father here or there had issues with one or more of them and I realize that the eastern churches had still additional books. I am talking about the current Catholic canon and the fact that it can be traced at least back to the 4th century.

 

[ajcstr]

So, I posit that Jesus is the Vine and we are the branches ( at least our various church bodies are, as are also we, personally), according to my own Confirmation Verse, John 15:5. I also say that the Church Catholic can make that universal claim to antiquity, regardless of branch, because they all come out of the doctrines of the Early Christian Church. The Church of England traces its heritage back to the Early Anglo- Saxon and Celtic Christians, despite its Protestant designation today.

I follow what you are saying above (although St Frances DeSales would probably disagree), but not below:

The Protestant Reformation sparked the Catholic Counter- Reformation and the Decrees of the Council of Trent, which finalized the structure of your church ( in that sense, the Catholic Church is nearly fifty years younger than the Lutheran Church… so, out goes the " older brother argument")

It sounds like you are saying the Catholic Church did not exist until Trent or that Trent drastically modified what did exist.

 

[LutheranScholar]

I am not arguing that Trent was not the final declaration of the canon, I am saying the canon was not (to my knowledge) something that was in flux since the earlier councils of Carthage and Hippo. Before those councils, or synods if you** protest** to the word councils, even the NT books were in dispute. I use the Vulgate as an example because despite the initial misgivings by Jerome, I am under the impression that those books were considered as part of the Bible. Yes, I understand a church father here or there had issues with one or more of them and I realize that the eastern churches had still additional books. I am talking about the current Catholic canon and the fact that it can be traced at least back to the 4th century.

To the bolded: . The word " councils" works for me, man. Here are some more links: churchhistory101.com/feedback/apocrypha.php, beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/12/luther-and-apocrypha-revisited.html, sothl.com/2011/01/13/the-apocrypha-early-church-councils-and-martin-luther/.

 

[LutheranScholar]

I follow what you are saying above (although St Frances DeSales would probably disagree), but not below:
t sounds like you are saying the Catholic Church did not exist until Trent or that Trent drastically modified what did exist.

" In that sense." Three words. In the sense that the doctrines that Luther, Erasmus and some others felt the freedom to debate doctrine, Luther and the Reformers already came to their own conclusions well before the Council of Trent finalized the official viewpoint of the Catholic Church in 1558. They were also validly baptized Christians and Luther himself was an ordained Catholic priest who rejected in the strongest terms Pope Leo X’s excommunication of him and he actually excommunicated Pope Leo X! From his reply:
*If anyone despises my fraternal warning, I am free from his blood in the last judgment. It is better that I should die a thousand times than that I should retract one syllable of the condemned articles. And as they excommunicated me for the sacrilege of heresy, so I excommunicate them in the name of the sacred truth of God. Christ will judge whose excommunication will stand. Amen. * law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/luther/againstexecrablebull.html

I might as well simply present a link to the doctrines of the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod and pray that we can all find common ground in the statements contained therein lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition.

 

[boomerang]

So, I’m pulling this off a different thread because its off topic there but it really intrigued me and I wanted to continue discussing:

So my response would be yes, Trent discussed several disputed topics (as all prior councils did) but to say the Catholic Church is really 50 years younger than the Lutheran Church… well lets see. Using this logic, the Council of Nicaea defined a doctrine of the Trinity that never existed before (sound familiar).

And as far as the Canon of Scripture, my argument is that the 73 books of the Bible were the same 73 found in the Latin Vulgate which was THE Catholic Bible for over 1,000 years and it contained all these books.

There seems to be a belief among some protestants that the Catholic Church suddenly began at Trent, before which there was no Church! And at the Council of Trent, all Catholic dogma was suddenly pulled out of thin air, made up on the spot!

Church councils were called, usually, to respond to some outside threat to the Church’s dogmas, not normally to make up something new. Trent just reaffirmed what Catholics always believed and held true, including how many books were considered to be sacred scripture.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

There seems to be a belief among some protestants that the Catholic Church suddenly began at Trent, before which there was no Church! And at the Council of Trent, all Catholic dogma was suddenly pulled out of thin air, made up on the spot!

Church councils were called, usually, to respond to some outside threat to the Church’s dogmas, not normally to make up something new. Trent just reaffirmed what Catholics always believed and held true, including how many books were considered to be sacred scripture.

Exactly, the Church has a long history of responding to controversy and heresy…

1st bible- Vulgate- 73 books - roughly 405 AD
2nd bible, Gutenberg - 73 books roughly 1455 AD

Trent reaffirms what’s already there in case anyone of that particular era was confused about it. We know the major disputes stopped with Jerome. And it’s not like there were any protestants in existence with their 66 book canon during that 1000 year period.

And I seriously wonder if the Marian dogmas ever become official if the reformers didn’t evolve and become too radical and anti-Mary. The Church already held these beliefs on her but i think had to respond to protect her honor, just like they respond to all other falsehoods that people come up with, to include the book listings of the canon.

 

[ajcstr]

1st bible- Vulgate- 73 books - roughly 405 AD
2nd bible, Gutenberg - 73 books roughly 1455 AD

Quick sidetrack - What language was the Gutenberg Bible and was this the first bible off the printing press?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Quick sidetrack - What language was the Gutenberg Bible and was this the first bible off the printing press?

Printed at Germany but in Latin as it was a Vulgate in printed form. Yes, that was his inspiration, to be the first to print some bibles, among other things.

 

[MaryT777]

The ‘74th’ book you refer to was a appendix and never considered scripture. But I believe you already know that

73 books in the Vulgate at the beginning of the 5th century and 73 books today in the Latin rite church. Remarkable consistency.

And Jerome’s opinion on the disputed books actually changed over time. I wonder if Luther realized that or if he cared at all.

The Church has the authority to make truthful declarations without scriptural precedent. Read ACTS 15 for more info.

Pax

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by LutheranScholar
The Protestant Reformation sparked the Catholic Counter- Reformation and the Decrees of the Council of Trent, which finalized the structure of your church ( in that sense, the Catholic Church is nearly fifty years younger than the Lutheran Church… so, out goes the " older brother argument"), the Canon of Scripture was finalized at Trent ( so, the Books Luther omitted were actually in dispute anyway).

I suppose that would be true … if you identify age with last time reformed.

 

[LutheranScholar]

I suppose that would be true … if you identify age with last time reformed.

Sure. One could also say that the same Church was Reformed in several different places, by several different people, drawing on their understanding of Scripture and sacred tradition in doing so ( and utilizing different governing forms).

 

[exnihilo]

Look, Holy Scripture has always had a bit of a rational disagreement to it, dating well before the Vulgate was written. But since you mentioned the Vulgate, we should note that you’re mistaken on the number of books originally included. The man who was commissioned to translate the various books into one compilation was St. Jerome, who actually came to a conclusion similar to Luther with regard to 1)which books belong in the canon and 2)what sort of authority each group of books ought to have in relation to others. Luther ended with a canon of 74 books, around 65-67 or so were most authoritative. Jerome thought that only 71 books deserved to be included in the original Vulgate, and believed that 7 books and three partial additions probably weren’t true Scripture. He left that up to individual churches. That Christian freedom carried through to Luther’s day. Even theologians who disagreed with Luther on most other things found agreement on the canon right up until Trent (See Erasmus and Cardinal Catejan). Interesting. History sure is messier than some Catholics like to think.

I agree. History can be messier then we think. Disagreement has been part of the Church since the very beginning. Many of the Epistles are written, at least in part, to correct error. The history of the Church has been to allow speculation and disagreement where permissible. However for the sake of unity and truth the Church does at times need to define dogmatic truths.

Jerome was no more the authority on the canon then was Erasmus or Luther. Some speculation was allowed until that speculation cleaved the Church. The principle whereby Luther or any other man could unilaterally determine the canon has rendered the Church devoid of any real authority. The reality of this is a fundamental choice between a Church to which the individual is accountable or a Church of the individual’s own making.

 

[steido01]

Jerome was no more the authority on the canon then was Erasmus or Luther.

Well, he was considered enough of an expert by your communion’s leaders to be commissioned to determine what ought to be included. Though I’d agree with you that no single man has any power to determine what Scripture is.

The principle whereby Luther or any other man could unilaterally determine the canon has rendered the Church devoid of any real authority.

Luther had no such power and never claimed it. He made this explicitly clear in his commentaries. I can provide quotes, if you’d like. The power to determine the canon belongs and has always belonged to the church catholic, in general, with doctors of the church, like the men we’ve mentioned, adding useful commentary and guidance. The idea that Luther chose to single-handedly make his own bible is a vicious myth.

The reality of this is a fundamental choice between a Church to which the individual is accountable or a Church of the individual’s own making.

That is a false dichotomy in the case of Luther and Lutherans, though I’d share your criticism for those odd Protestant groups who do build their churches around their own beliefs.

 

[ajcstr]

1st bible- Vulgate- 73 books - roughly 405 AD
2nd bible, Gutenberg - 73 books roughly 1455 AD

So you would agree with me that the Vulgate always had the 73 books? I have never seen otherwise.

 

[ajcstr]

Of course if the disputes prior to the Reformation would have been handled the same way, we would have additional denominations called the Arians, the Pelagians, the Sabellianists, and the Gnostics to name a few.