Protestants

[SpiritMeadow]

The Fathers held the Church to be the final authority. Protestants, on the other hand, hold the individual believer to be the full and final authority. Despite its many obscurities, each man is to be able to decided on his own final authority what the Bible means

It’s probably never a good idea to claim that ALL Protestants believe… . . Certainly all Protestants don’t believe in individual interpretation, nor do all Protestants believe in sola scriptura.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

It’s probably never a good idea to claim that ALL Protestants believe… . .

I agree - sorta.

Certainly all Protestants don’t believe in individual interpretation, nor do all Protestants believe in sola scriptura.

Certainly, as a practical matter, most Protestants don’t practice private interpretation, lest utter chaos result! No, they simply follow the traditions into which they were born. But these traditions can be traced directly back to those violent and scandal ridden reformers - Luther, Calvin, Knox et al - and their fundamental insistence on Bible alone.

But what Protestant is there who believes in the binding authority of the Church - *any *church?? And if there are none, then what else have they, as a practical matter, but the Bible and private interpretation? (I’m of course here defining one aspect of SS as being the rejection of any absolute binding authority of the one Church).

And just so you don’t think I’m being unfair or inaccurate when I speak of the reformer’s violence and scandals, let me just call your attention to the chief reformer’s own words:

I am compelled to confess it, my doctrine has produced many scandals. - Luther

In, Charles of Europe, Dominic Bevan Wyndham Lewis, New York, Coward-McCann, 1931, p. 213.
books.google.com/books?lr=&ei=jafXSb-IDoW0NJ_dlMoB&q=%22I+am+compelled+to+confess+it%2C+my+doctrine+has+produced+many+scandals%22&btnG=Search+Books
Citing, Opera Lutheri., edit. Wittenberg , II, 281.

Worldcat results for various volumes of the Wittenberg edition of Luther’s Works:

*Omnium Operum Reverendi Domini Martini Lutheri *
worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3Aomnium+operum+reverendi+domini+Martini+Lutheri&fq=&start=21&qt=next_page

“If,” [Luther], says, “the madness of the Romanists be continued, it seems to me that the only hope of salvation left is that Emperor, kings, and princes, take up arms and attack this pest of the earth, and thus bring matters to a conclusion, no longer by words but by steel.

“If a thief is punished by a halter a murderer by the sword and a heretic by fire why should not we with all our weapons attack these teachers of corruption these Popes Cardinals and all the rabble of the Roman Sodom *and wash our hands in their blood *(et manus nostras in sanguine istorum lavamus).”

Luther’s Latin:

Si fures furca, si latrones gladio, si haereticos igne plectimus, Cur non magis hos magistros perditionis, hos Cardinales, hos Papas et totam istam Romanae Sodomae colluviem, quae Ecclesiam dei sine fine corrumpit, omnibus armis impetimus et manus nostras in sanguine istorum lavamus.

Ludwig Pastor, The History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages: Drawn from the secret archives of the Vatican and other original sources., 1908, Ralph Francis Kerr, vol, 7, p. 393.
books.google.com/books?id=Y1QZaRY6Q4UC&pg=PA393&dq=luther+%22Wash+our+hands+in+their+blood%22&lr=&ei=HrbXSaTjJIjYMMH5qd8C&client=firefox

Luther’s own statements concerning his teaching and its results, Henry O’Connor, p. 41.
books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA149&dq=luther+%22Wash+our+hands+in+their+blood%22&lr=&ei=HrbXSaTjJIjYMMH5qd8C&client=firefox

Citing: D. Martini Lutheri Opera Latina Varii Argumenti, 1865, Henricus Schmidt, Franfurt am Main & Erlangen, vol. 2, p. 107.
books.google.com/books?id=TQ_x1DnPabsC&pg=PA107&dq=%22si+latrones+gladio,+si+haereticos%22&lr=&ei=-LTXScXuEo_EM4HkldoH

 

[CWBetts]

CW, I actually have no problem with the canon as formulated in the Early Church - I’m a little more Anglican than Methodist where that is concerned.

But it’s simply not true that the Deterocanonicals were a part of Hebrew tradition; indeed, the Masoretic Text/Tanakh did NOT have the deterocanonicals present in them. That’s why they’re called “deterocanonicals”, as opposed to “protocanonicals”, which WERE part of the Masoretic texts.

The acceptance of the Deuterocanonicals was not universal, as someone noted before (Jerome in particular). And in Eastern Orthodoxy, there are other significant differences where the Deuterocanonicals are concerned.

I think I will have that stein of beer now…

O+

The Deuterocanonicals WERE accepted by three ecumenical councils, which were infallible. Therefore, they are scripture. Of course if you refuse to accept the authority of the Church established by Jesus…

 

[JonNC]

I agree - sorta.

Certainly, as a practical matter, most Protestants don’t practice private interpretation, lest utter chaos result! No, they simply follow the traditions into which they were born. But these traditions can be traced directly back to those violent and scandal ridden reformers - Luther, Calvin, Knox et al - and their fundamental insistence on Bible alone.

But what Protestant is there who believes in the binding authority of the Church - *any *church?? And if there are none, then what else have they, as a practical matter, but the Bible and private interpretation? (I’m of course here defining one aspect of SS as being the rejection of any absolute binding authority of the one Church).

And just so you don’t think I’m being unfair or inaccurate when I speak of the reformer’s violence and scandals, let me just call your attention to the chief reformer’s own words:

In, Charles of Europe, Dominic Bevan Wyndham Lewis, New York, Coward-McCann, 1931, p. 213.
books.google.com/books?lr=&ei=jafXSb-IDoW0NJ_dlMoB&q=%22I+am+compelled+to+confess+it%2C+my+doctrine+has+produced+many+scandals%22&btnG=Search+Books
Citing, Opera Lutheri., edit. Wittenberg , II, 281.

Worldcat results for various volumes of the Wittenberg edition of Luther’s Works:

*Omnium Operum Reverendi Domini Martini Lutheri *
worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3Aomnium+operum+reverendi+domini+Martini+Lutheri&fq=&start=21&qt=next_page

Ludwig Pastor, The History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages: Drawn from the secret archives of the Vatican and other original sources., 1908, Ralph Francis Kerr, vol, 7, p. 393.
books.google.com/books?id=Y1QZaRY6Q4UC&pg=PA393&dq=luther+%22Wash+our+hands+in+their+blood%22&lr=&ei=HrbXSaTjJIjYMMH5qd8C&client=firefox

Luther’s own statements concerning his teaching and its results, Henry O’Connor, p. 41.
books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA149&dq=luther+%22Wash+our+hands+in+their+blood%22&lr=&ei=HrbXSaTjJIjYMMH5qd8C&client=firefox

Citing: D. Martini Lutheri Opera Latina Varii Argumenti, 1865, Henricus Schmidt, Franfurt am Main & Erlangen, vol. 2, p. 107.
books.google.com/books?id=TQ_x1DnPabsC&pg=PA107&dq=%22si+latrones+gladio,+si+haereticos%22&lr=&ei=-LTXScXuEo_EM4HkldoH

Do you have any quotes or sources at your fingertips concerning the utter lack of violence and scandal within the Catholic Church during Luther’s time? IOW, if you choose to bring this up, though irrelevent to the conversation, it seems to me you would be able to show that the reformers were the way you claim in a vacuum, and that their words and actions were unique in their time.

It seems to me here at CAF that Catholics have incredible room for personal interpretation.
I see them disagree regularly.

Jon

 

[CWBetts]

Our version of “personal interpretation” is that we can interpret the Bible, provided it fits within the parameters of Magesterial teaching. For example, we can’t decide that one passage teaches that God had no hand in creation whatsoever. But we can have differnces of opinion on a literal six day creation vs. a form of theistic evolution. So there are bounderies that cannot be crossed, but within those bounderies we are free to prayerfully discern hoe the Holy Spirit speaks to us. At least that is my understanding of it. Catholics correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[JonNC]

Our version of “personal interpretation” is that we can interpret the Bible, provided it fits within the parameters of Magesterial teaching. For example, we can’t decide that one passage teaches that God had no hand in creation whatsoever. But we can have differnces of opinion on a literal six day creation vs. a form of theistic evolution. So there are bounderies that cannot be crossed, but within those bounderies we are free to prayerfully discern hoe the Holy Spirit speaks to us. At least that is my understanding of it. Catholics correct me if I am mistaken.

As a Lutheran, pretty much same here.
Jon

 

[CWBetts]

As a Lutheran, pretty much same here.
Jon

Where do you draw your parameters from?

 

[JonNC]

Where do you draw your parameters from?

Lutheran Confessions, early councils, etc.
Jon

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree - sorta.

Certainly, as a practical matter, most Protestants don’t practice

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Do you have any quotes or sources at your fingertips concerning the utter lack of violence and scandal within the Catholic Church during Luther’s time?

Jon,

Take my word, my friend, I’m the last person to deny there have been scandals in the Church, whether in Luther’s time or any other. I did, after all, post this.

IOW, if you choose to bring this up, though irrelevent to the conversation, it seems to me you would be able to show that the reformers were the way you claim in a vacuum, and that their words and actions were unique in their time.

Well, I happen to think it is relevant. But in any case, all I am saying is that those who claimed to be “reforming” the Church were themselves *far move violent and immoral *than the very people and institutions they claimed to be reforming!!

Also, I wouldn’t go so far as to say there was an “utter lack of violence” on the part of certain bad Catholics at the time. Such people are always in the Church; but we would hardly call them “great reformers!”

In any event, there’s no comparison, for example, of the murderous ravings of the reformers and their followers (only a fraction of which I posted above) to the calm and gentle voice of the Church.

But let’s compare:

This is from the Protestant historian, Leopold von Ranke:

This disposition of the sovereign and the favour he shewed towards the Jesuits soon caused great anxiety and in accordance with the spirit of the times occasioned a violent counter movement. No regular church was allowed to the Protestants in Vienna but they used the Landhaus for their public worship and the preacher Joshua Opitz a follower of Flaccius there inveighed against the Jesuits with all the vehemence peculiar to his sect.

Whilst he systematically “thundered against the priests and all the abominations of popery,” he awakened not only conviction, but **violent rage in the minds of his hearers, so that on leaving the church they felt, as a contemporary of Opitz declares, “inclined to tear the Papist to pieces with their hands.” *

History of the Popes, Leopold von Ranke, E. Fowler 1901, vol. 2, p. 87.books.google.com/books?id=USvoVA3tgRcC&pg=PA87&dq=%22he+awakened+not+only+conviction+but+violent+rage+in+the+minds+of+his+hearers+%22&lr=&ei=b9DXSa36EpqwMqSM6YED

• Dr George Eder who, be it observed, was an adversary: extract from his Warnungsschrift in Raupach, Evangel Oestroich ii 286

Presumably, “Evangel Oestroich” is a reference to this publication:
worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3ADas+evangelische+Oesterreich+raupach&=Search&qt=results_page

And now Erasmus:

I behold them coming out from their sermons,*** with fierce looks and threatening countenances***, like men that just came from hearing bloody invectives and seditious speeches.

Accordingly, we find ‘these evangelical people always ready to rise in arms, and equally as good at fighting as disputing.

In, A short history of the Protestant Reformation: chiefly selected from Protestant authors, Patrick Rafferty, Pittsburgh: Johnson & Stockton, 1831. p. 33
books.google.com/books?vid=03wSsK0epbmw_nt-gkn&id=TI0QAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22fierce+looks+and+threatening+%22

But as it is, Luther writes against himself, seeing things go the way he had not expected, and a tribe arising of men who are not evangelicals but diabolicals…

Erasmus to Conradus Goclenius, April, 2, 1524.
books.google.com/books?id=bYVEgXbiunkC&pg=RA2-PT84&dq=erasmus+%22not+evangelicals+but++diabolicals%22&lr=

Finally, compare that tiny sampling of hate and madness with the sane and peaceful and loving voice of the Church.

The Council of Trent, as well as the Pope, did not altogether approve of the strictness of the Inquisition. In a letter to Rome, the legates of the Council openly expressed their opinion that the conditions of the time called for a procedure marked by gentleness and charity, so that those who had strayed might be brought to understand that what was desired was their return to a good life and to ecclesiastical unity, and that the Church, like a kind and loving mother, was holding out her arms to them.

Similar sentiments were to be expected from the Council itself, as being a last attempt to restore the unity of Christendom. Just as after the death of Paul IV, the Council had promised a mitigation of the Index, so it was to be expected that it could and would show greater indulgence than the ordinary ecclesiastical tribunals in dealing with apostates from the Church.

Ludwig Pastor, The history of the popes from the close of the Middle Ages: (1899), London : K. Paul, Trench, Trubner. vol. 16, p. 317.
archive.org/details/historyofthepope16pastuoft

It seems to me here at CAF that Catholics have incredible room for personal interpretation.
I see them disagree regularly.

Could you be more specific?

God bless!

 

[TarlsQtr]

I believe that our Protestant brethren who complain about the use of the phrase “removed books from the bible” are playing the word equivalent of a shell game.

Luther, did indeed remove the books from the bible by putting them on a level less than scripture. Just because they remained in the physical book does not change that fact. One of my bibles has a “How to read the bible in a year” section. Although it is part of the physical bible, it is not part of the bible. Essentially, Luther removed it as scripture and put it on a level of an appendix.

Also, the constant statements that Jerome had questions about the deuterocanonicals being included is pointless. Saints and bishops are not infallible unless they are pope or acting as part of a church council. The councils decreed it, thus it is so. If you give a thorough reading of almost any saint, you will find points of disagreement with the church. The reason that they are saints is because they were able to accept church authority and subordinate their own beliefs.

Luther could have been a great reformer in the church started by Christ, unfortunately he was not able to mirror the behavior of Jerome and the other saints.

 

[CWBetts]

raumzeitmc2;5035394:

I agree - sorta.

Actually I think its been pretty well established that that interpretation of Luther is not particularly correct, but I have no particular interest in Luther. I am not decended from Luther or any that you named,

Actually, though not a “direct descendent” of Luther, there was a strong Lutheran influence in the Parliament during Henry VIII’s “great matter” and his offspring had Lutheran tutors. So to say that the Epispolian (Anglican) Church has no connection with Luther isn’t exactly true. And Wesley actually came out of Anglicanism.

 

[CWBetts]

I believe that our Protestant brethren who complain about the use of the phrase “removed books from the bible” are playing the word equivalent of a shell game.

Luther, did indeed remove the books from the bible by putting them on a level less than scripture. Just because they remained in the physical book does not change that fact. One of my bibles has a “How to read the bible in a year” section. Although it is part of the physical bible, it is not part of the bible. Essentially, Luther removed it as scripture and put it on a level of an appendix.

Also, the constant statements that Jerome had questions about the deuterocanonicals being included is pointless. Saints and bishops are not infallible unless they are pope or acting as part of a church council. The councils decreed it, thus it is so. If you give a thorough reading of almost any saint, you will find points of disagreement with the church. The reason that they are saints is because they were able to accept church authority and subordinate their own beliefs.

Luther could have been a great reformer in the church started by Christ, unfortunately he was not able to mirror the behavior of Jerome and the other saints.

Good point about infallibility, but we must also remeber even popes aren’t ALWAYS infallible. For example, papal homilies are not infallible statements.

 

[TarlsQtr]

Good point about infallibility, but we must also remeber even popes aren’t ALWAYS infallible. For example, papal homilies are not infallible statements.

Thanks for clarifying CW. I did not mean to imply that all papal statements are infallible. They have to be made ex cathedra and be matters of doctrine regarding faith and morals. This is so uncommon that many popes never make an infallible statement.

 

[CWBetts]

I think the last infallible statement by a pope was Pius XII. Vatican II was infallible, but that was a council. But I digress…

 

[ufamtobie]

First, I do not call the Catholic Church a liar. I think, for the early reformers at least, it had to do with abuses (so “historical mistakes”, as you say), and disagreements over the Doctrine of justification. While there has been much improvement and closer understanding in this area (The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and other joint statements), this is still an important issue to be resolved.

Jon

Hi Jon,

Do you know what was the first Historical Mistake in the Church/Catholic that Jesus Christ founded?

The Answer: The First Historical Mistake, though however destined, was the betraying of Jesus Christ, by Judas.

Now did Jesus Say, after being betrayed. Oh well I have to start the “Reformation Earlier than expected”?

The answer: to the above question: NO! Jesus Christ, never intended there to be a Protestant reformation. A reformation by MAN to reform Jesus Christ church only means that Jesus Christ Lied, and the gates of hell prevailed over it. And we know that Jesus Christ does not Lie.

JonNC, Jesus Christ, knew there would be bumps in the Church because Jesus Christ left IT to the care of men. He left His Church in Charge to a man Called Peter, who denied him 3 times and acctually the other Apostles as well, they all abandoned him for a while, exccept John.

JonNC, the Apostle John stood by Virgin Mary, it was Virgin Mary who gave John that Grace and took him under her wing/her mantle, to be strong, and be brave and stand by her side, while her Son and Her God was nailed the cross. JonNC, Imagine, if all the Apostles, Peter, Mark, Andrew, James, Luke… Instead of running off scared, found and stood by Virgin Mary, I tell you, Virgin Mary, she would of gave them all, that same Grace, to be strong brave and loyal as She gave this Grace to John to stand by her and Jesus Christ wether Jesus be on the Cross or in heaven for all eternity, Oh JonNC, what a Beautiful Mother in Virgin Mary WE HAVE, she too would also taken us to the foot of the Cross. Hmmm this can be another thread.

The BIGGEST HISTORICAL MISTAKE EVER was the betral of Jesus by Judas, No other sin can top that of the betrayal of Jesus Christ. All the Historical Mistake in the Catholic Church’s History AFTER THE FIRST combined does not scratch the surface or come close to, like the betrayal of Jesus By Judas… This being True, How can any other Historical Mistake in the Catholic Church give a right to a Man to start the Protestant Reformation, when the First Historical Mistake the WORSE EVER, did not?

Throughout history there has been bumps in the Catholic Church and it is Jesus Christ, who reforms it FROM WITHIN, and not from a MAN who starts a new church, when Jesus Christ only wants ONE to STAND! Let me tell you, that the Popes, Bishops, Priest, if they are in the wrong, if they caused any bumps it is they who are wrong, but never the Church, in it’s Moral Teachings

Ufamtobie

 

[JonNC]

Could you be more specific?
God bless!

And God bless you as well.

Yes, discussions about Novus ordo compared to traditional latin mass, in particular, and Vatican II in general. Just an example.

I will not get into a contest of whose people were more violent. The list would be long and ugly on both sides, and frankly serves no purpose. And again, it really is irrelevent to the OP’s question.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I believe that our Protestant brethren who complain about the use of the phrase “removed books from the bible” are playing the word equivalent of a shell game.

Luther, did indeed remove the books from the bible by putting them on a level less than scripture. Just because they remained in the physical book does not change that fact. One of my bibles has a “How to read the bible in a year” section. Although it is part of the physical bible, it is not part of the bible. Essentially, Luther removed it as scripture and put it on a level of an appendix.

Also, the constant statements that Jerome had questions about the deuterocanonicals being included is pointless. Saints and bishops are not infallible unless they are pope or acting as part of a church council. The councils decreed it, thus it is so. If you give a thorough reading of almost any saint, you will find points of disagreement with the church. The reason that they are saints is because they were able to accept church authority and subordinate their own beliefs.

Luther could have been a great reformer in the church started by Christ, unfortunately he was not able to mirror the behavior of Jerome and the other saints.

Just a timeline. As a theologian, Luther discussed these issues within that same framework of the church, and truly believed he was doing the pope’s bidding he first challenged the abuses of indulgences. As for the canon, he had no reason to conform any longer to Rome after being excommunicated. And even with that, he translated and included the DC anyway, because he thought they were important.

Jon

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Also, the constant statements that Jerome had questions about the deuterocanonicals being included is pointless. Saints and bishops are not infallible unless they are pope or acting as part of a church council. The councils decreed it, thus it is so. If you give a thorough reading of almost any saint, you will find points of disagreement with the church. The reason that they are saints is because they were able to accept church authority and subordinate their own beliefs.

Exactly!

Take the case of Cyprian and the re-baptism of heretics and schismatics.

Cyprian erroneously held that those baptized by heretical sects had to re-baptized upon coming into the Church.

But let Augustine tell us how great Cyprian was, not for having erred on this or that as yet unsettled question, but rather, for his great humility in having held to bond of unity in the ONE Church.

How much the arguments make for us, that is, for Catholic peace, which the party of Donatus profess to bring forward against us from the authority of the blessed Cyprian…

What, then, do they venture to say, when their mouth is closed by the force of truth, with which they will not agree? “Cyprian,” say they, “whose great merits and vast learning we all know, decreed in a Council, with many of his fellow-bishops … that all heretics and schismatics, that is, all who are severed from the communion of the one Church, are without baptism; and therefore… must be baptized in the Church.”

The authority of Cyprian does not alarm me, because I am reassured by his humility. We know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in any way greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus?

"For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, Matthew 16:18 when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those who were late and newly come…

Here is a passage in which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when he adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with the demands of truth.

If it was therefore possible for Peter in some point to walk not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel… contrary to the rule of truth which the Church afterwards held, why might not Cyprian, in opposition to the rule of faith which the whole Church afterwards held, compel heretics and schismatics to be baptized afresh?

I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. ***For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? ***…

For this same Cyprian, in urging his view of the question, was still anxious to remain in the unity of peace even with those who differed from him on this point…

Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare … You mad Donatists … why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, ***and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? ***…

Wherefore the holy Cyprian, whose dignity is only increased by his humility, who so loved the pattern set by Peter as to use the words,

“Giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues, for the common health and weal,” — he, I say, abundantly shows that he was most willing to correct his own opinion …

What then, you Donatists, what have ye to say to this? If our opinion about baptism is true, yet all who thought differently in the time of Cyprian were not cut off from the unity of the Church, till God revealed to them the truth of the point on which they were in error, why then have ye by your sacrilegious separation broken the bond of peace? …

If, therefore, by such communion with the wicked the just cannot but perish, the Church had already perished in the time of Cyprian. Whence then sprang the origin of Donatus? where was he taught, where was he baptized, where was he ordained, since the Church had been already destroyed by the contagion of communion with the wicked?..

Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of Cyprian in favor of repeating baptism, but cling with us to the example of Cyprian for the preservation of unity. For this question of baptism had not been as yet completely worked out, but yet the Church observed the most wholesome custom of correcting what was wrong, not repeating what was already given, even in the case of schismatics and heretics: she healed the wounded part, but did not meddle with what was whole.

And this custom, coming, I suppose, from apostolical tradition (like many other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors)

Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book II)
newadvent.org/fathers/14082.htm

And listen to Augustine’s own humility:

Wherefore, while rendering due reverence, and paying, so far as I can, the fitting honor to the peaceful bishop and glorious martyr Cyprian, I yet venture to say that his view concerning the baptism of schismatics and heretics ***was contrary ***to that which was afterwards brought to light by a decision, not of mine, but of the whole Church, confirmed and strengthened by the authority of a plenary Council:

On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book VI)
newadvent.org/fathers/14086.htm

"not of mine, but of the whole Church"

What a contrast these holy Fathers are to all so-called “reformers,” whose only lasting legacy has been the tearing asunder of the unity of the Lords one Church!

 

[CWBetts]

Just a timeline. As a theologian, Luther discussed these issues within that same framework of the church, and truly believed he was doing the pope’s bidding he first challenged the abuses of indulgences. As for the canon, he had no reason to conform any longer to Rome after being excommunicated. And even with that, he translated and included the DC anyway, because he thought they were important.

Jon

Included but not as Scripture. Luther was a heretic, who, according to some histories, recanted on his deathbed ( I have personally read them, so I am not vouching for the veracity of these claims). I would no sooner accept Luther’s opinions on Scripture than David Koresh. The fact remaains that Luther thaough he was bigger than the Church.