Question about Catholic Bible

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave…you are sugarcoating…if you had a book, would you leave page numbers unnumbered?

Now, why would Luther not have page numbers on the location of the DC? So they could not be located…or hard to locate…his actions show how he treated the DCs.

I will definitely check into to see whether it’s true and what it might mean. But I have no idea what it implies-- I’m sorry, I don’t see why that makes them “hard to locate.”

Hmmm…Not sure when. I asked CA before about the order of OT and NT books. I was told the NT order is prescribed.

It’s always good to press people for more details, imo.

And don’t you agree…this is sorely lacking for protestants?

I think that what would be lacking is if Protestants deny that they don’t have authoritative teaching, simply because it’s not honest.

And what did you find out?

That the DC books are included as part of the Old Testament. But I didn’t pay any attention to page numbering so I have no idea whether that is true or not.

So…it is limited to Church practices, and not doctrine?

No, certainly Luther would say that if doctrine conflicts with Scripture that it would have to be changed.

Here, the Immaculate Conception would be a good example. Not so explicit in Scripture, BUT always held by the Church and certainly not in conflict with Scripture, so Luther agrees with and accepts it.

The Church is always in need of reform…Catherine’s reforms were needed during her time…Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic also reformed the Church. Reforms were indeed needed at Luther’s time…but he did not follow the way of Catherine, Francis or Dominic.

No argument there.

Yes, some protestants do not realize it is their pastor.

I think you may be confusing magisterium (the teaching) with the magister (the teacher).

You probably have not heard the anti-catholic polemics…where is the Magisterium in the Bible? Why do Catholics have a magisterium, it is unbiblical!

No, I don’t know that one. Everyone has an authoritative body of teaching.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Pablope,

I think you cannot distinguish, or so far, has failed to distinguish what is opinion and what is not. Jerome and Cajetan held opinions.

But the difference is, they did not propose new teachings to be propogated by the Church…and did not oppose the pope.

Jerome especially was lovingly obedient and did his work in translating the Latin vulgate, despite his misgivings on some books.

This show the Holy Spirit working in guiding Pope Damasus…in that Jerome’s opinions did not prevail on Pope Damasus.

They did not publish their own separate Bibles…this is what you fail to distinguish…as compared to what Luther did.

As Luther also held an opinion. Luther did indeed oppose the papacy, for he saw it as unsupported by scripture or history… Damaus did indeed disagree with Jerome, but didn’t make Jerome change his opinions. The thing is of course as a Protestant, I support Luther in his reformation…

You can examine it…but let Luther’s actions stand on their own…seems you cannot find justification for Luther’s actions that you keep hanging on the coattails of Jerome and Cajetan…which are diametrically opposed.

Did Luther remain obedient to the Pope as Luther?

I can find ample evidence for Luthers actions… There is an excellent article on it here: tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm
Do you mean: Did Luther remain obedient to the pope as Catejan? - No, for again, he saw it as unsubstantiated in scripture or tradition.

But the difference is, they did not propose new teachings to be propogated by the Church…and did not oppose the pope.

Indeed they did not.

Trent closed the canon in response to the actions of the Reformers…it did not add or delete books…but confirmed what had been done before.

Had it not for Trent…how many Bible canons do you think there will be today? Several hundreds, thousands, ten thousands?

It confirmed one particular view from the earlier church yes, not the exclusive view.
How did the church get on before Trent then? If they had no way to be sure? They got on fine, with a collection of books that had always been received by the church, with debate surrounding certain books, some such as Luther having one view, the papacy taking another.

There were reformers prior to Luther, Linc…maybe you should study how they went about reforming the Church…in contrast to the actions of Luther.

Look into Catherine of Sienna, Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic.

I have looked at them , not in any major detail. The thing though of course is I agree with the Reformers doctrines, as I see them as being a sound and accurate witness to sacred scripture, their authority.

Then how come there is still much confusion within the protestant circles? And the continuous splitting? Do you call this reform?

How come there is confusion between churches that claim to follow sacred oral and unwritten apostolic tradition? And the splitting? There is no one voice on this either, there are several groups that claim to be the authentic and one true form of Christianity… Having an ultimate authority doesn’t solve the problem of disagreement… The disagreement is just moved to issues of what authority to follow.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[pablope]

=Lincoln7;9251197]Hi Pablope,

As Luther also held an opinion. Luther did indeed oppose the papacy, for he saw it as unsupported by scripture or history…

This one you will have to read or research more…as to Luther’s view of the papacy.

Damaus did indeed disagree with Jerome, but didn’t make Jerome change his opinions.

And why would Damasus need to change Jerome’s opinion?

I can find ample evidence for Luthers actions… There is an excellent article on it here: tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm

Okay…so why the need to cite Cajetan or Jerome in your defense of Luther’s actions?

It confirmed one particular view from the earlier church yes, not the exclusive view.
How did the church get on before Trent then?

In the same way the Church started without any NT writings…through the Sacred Tradition handed down by the Apostles.

If they had no way to be sure? They got on fine, with a collection of books that had always been received by the church, with debate surrounding certain books, some such as Luther having one view, the papacy taking another.

The CC started without a Bible…and can continue without the Bible. The Bible is not a source of the CC’s doctrines…but confirms the doctrines…as it has always been. Besides, the Bible was not originally for extracting doctrines.

Look into Catherine of Sienna, Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic.

I have looked at them , not in any major detail. The thing though of course is I agree with the Reformers doctrines, as I see them as being a sound and accurate witness to sacred scripture, their authority.

Then, why did their reforms not change doctrine or split the church? Do read up more on Catherine of Sienna.

That is how we know which reform if from God and which is not…1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

How come there is confusion between churches that claim to follow sacred oral and unwritten apostolic tradition?

Sorry…do not know what you are referring to here?

And the splitting? There is no one voice on this either, there are several groups that claim to be the authentic and one true form of Christianity…

Well, Linc…who continues to split? Protestants.

Having an ultimate authority doesn’t solve the problem of disagreement…

What is the nature of the disagreement?

The disagreement with the Orthodox is the issue of the extent of authority of the pope.

The disagreement is just moved to issues of what authority to follow.

Kind regards

Lincs.

This is generally the problem of protestants.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Pablope,

And why would Damasus need to change Jerome’s opinion?

He wouldn’t, I’m just saying tht prior to Trent there was liberty to discuss these books.

Okay…so why the need to cite Cajetan or Jerome in your defense of Luther’s actions?

I cite them simply in response to the myth that no one ever until Luther ever thought of these books as distinct from the rest of sacred scripture.

In the same way the Church started without any NT writings…through the Sacred Tradition handed down by the Apostles.

So prior to Trent no one thought of scripture as where to go for doctrine, that they could only rely on tradition? I must disagree here… Even the comment in my signature from Athanasius utterly contradicts that.

The CC started without a Bible…and can continue without the Bible. The Bible is not a source of the CC’s doctrines…but confirms the doctrines…as it has always been. Besides, the Bible was not originally for extracting doctrines.

Indeed the early church started without a bible, it had the apostolic testimony and authority to guide it, the natural out working of thier mission led to the creation of letters and books, which were given to the rest of the church (1), they are a perpetual testimony to sound apostolic doctrine and teaching.(2). Hence why the reformers called for sola scriptura; in response to the widespread abuses of doctrine that they perceived as having come into the church, they could only be assured of the reliability of scripture as authentic testimony to apostolic doctrine…

Then, why did their reforms not change doctrine or split the church? Do read up more on Catherine of Sienna.
That is how we know which reform if from God and which is not…1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Indeed, whoever is from God listens to the apostles and their teaching, which is recorded in scripture…

Sorry…do not know what you are referring to here?

That the multiple churches who claim to follow oral Apostlic Traditon have very different ideas of what it constitutes…

The disagreement with the Orthodox is the issue of the extent of authority of the pope.

Amongst others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_–_Roman_Catholic_theological_differences

This is generally the problem of protestants.

We all have to make a fallible choice for what we are to follow… I choose scripture, you chose magisterium. That catholic has no more certainty, as their choice that Rome is the true church and their interpretation of the church is just as fallible as the Protestants interpretation of scripture.

Kind regards

Lincs.

1 - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 105
2 - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 104

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Wow. So it was Luther who changed it? My mom says he saved Christianity when he created the Protestant churches.
It’s crazy how she sticks to the Protestant beliefs. She told me she felt I had an interest in Catholicism because I wanted to believe in purgatory. She said, If I believed in purgatory, I wouldn’t have to worry that I was doing things that would get me sent to Hell. Because at least then I had a chance at Purgatory.
Not true. I just realize there were beliefs in my former church that were questionable. So I need to discover what is right.

Maybe you should remind your mom that Martin Luther, on his deathbed, renounced the lutheran faith, the very monster he created, and returned to the Catholic Church (claiming all it was and is to be Truth). And while this is delving a little deep into theology technically Calvin invented protestantism as we know it today. But that’s besides the point. Luther who certainly opened the doors for schisms against Christ ended up seeing the errors of his ways (praise God) and returned home to the Catholic Church!

 

[Lincoln7]

Maybe you should remind your mom that Martin Luther, on his deathbed, renounced the lutheran faith, the very monster he created, and returned to the Catholic Church (claiming all it was and is to be Truth). And while this is delving a little deep into theology technically Calvin invented protestantism as we know it today. But that’s besides the point. Luther who certainly opened the doors for schisms against Christ ended up seeing the errors of his ways (praise God) and returned home to the Catholic Church!

Hi SaintPatrick333,

Where exactly did Luther renounce the Lutheran faith?

Lincs.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Hi SaintPatrick333,

Where exactly did Luther renounce the Lutheran faith?

Lincs.

You won’t get an answer to this…because it doesn’t exist.

 

[PatrickSanDiego]

Yes, and I personally have never intended to start a quarrel with Lutherans with my questions about Luther’s views of certain NT books.

Luther was essentially Catholic and I think that were he alive today, he would never have left the RC Church (nor would it have excommunicated him).

Alex

Yes, yes, Luther was trying to reform, not create that multitentical octopus which goes by the name “Non-denominational Protestant fellowship Christian Evangelical Seventh Day Born Again Fundementalist Pentacostal Brotherhoodism”.

Truth is, when looked at from the outset, truly objectively, it never was rightly labeled “The Reformation”, “The Lutheran Reformation”, or “The Reformation Period”. These are all self-serving semantic-driven labels the Protestants pasted on the movement to feel somehow superior to what they walked away from. A true label would be “The Lutheran Departure”, or “The Lutheran Anti-Papacy Movement”. If they were/are still using our/The Bible, or 90% of it, it would have to have “Luther” or “Lutheran” in the title, and it could not imply reformation.

Alive today and given a chance to choose, he would be undeniably Catholic. One look at the Jumbotron and the prosperity gospel preached, he would understand, things can be righted, things can heal. Breaking away isn’t the answer, it’s self-serving and denies your children their rightful heritage.

 

[CopticChristian]

Maybe you should remind your mom that Martin Luther, on his deathbed, renounced the lutheran faith, the very monster he created, and returned to the Catholic Church (claiming all it was and is to be Truth). And while this is delving a little deep into theology technically Calvin invented protestantism as we know it today. But that’s besides the point. Luther who certainly opened the doors for schisms against Christ ended up seeing the errors of his ways (praise God) and returned home to the Catholic Church!

This I have about Luther. Do you have support for what you say about Luther?

socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/05/martin-luthers-regrets-as-to-relative.html

1. Luther says: “As soon as our Gospel began . . . decency . . . and modesty were done away with, and everybody wished to be perfectly free to do whatever he liked.” [Walch. V. 114]
2. “We deserve that our Evangelicals (the followers of the new Gospel) should now be seven times worse than they were before. Because after having learnt the Gospel, we steal, tell lies, deceive, eat and drink (to excess), and practice all manner of vices.” [Walch. III. 2727]
3. “After one Devil (Popery) has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have come down upon us, as is the case with Princes, Lords, Nobles, Citizens and Peasants.” [Walch. III. 2727]

. . . ]

1. “I think it must needs be the case, that those who follow the Gospel . . . should be worse after (receiving) the Gospel than they had been before, not on account of the Gospel, but on account of the people who so abuse the Gospel.” [Walch. XIII. 2193]
2. “The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow.” [Walch. XII. 2120]
3. “People are now possessed with seven Devils, whereas formerly they were possessed with one Devil; the Devil now enters into the people in crowds, so that men are now more avaricious, unmerciful, impure, insolent . . . than formerly under the Pope.” [Walch. XIII. 19]
4. "After the dominion and power of the Pope has ceased . . . the people, while despising the true doctrine, are now changed into mere irrational animals and beasts;

[p. 55]

the number of holy and pious teachers becomes constantly less." [Walch. I. 615]

. . . ]

1. . . . about seven months before his death, Luther wrote to his wife, “Away from this Sodom (Wittenberg) . . . I will wander about, and sooner beg my bread than allow my poor old last days to be martyred and upset with the disorder of Wittenberg.” [July 1545. de Wette. V. 753]
2. . . . “See how foolishly the people everywhere behave towards the Gospel, so that I scarcely know whether I ought to continue preaching or not.” [Walch. XI, 3052]
3. . . . “If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel.” [Walch. VI. 920]
4. In 1538, . . . Luther dwells on the same thought: “Who would have begun to preach, if we had known beforehand that so much unhappiness, tumult, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have been the result?” [Walch. VIII. 564]
5. . . . “I confess, that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests.” [Walch. IX. 1311]

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is it true that there are several other books of the Bible in the Catholic Bible?

Yes, they are called the Deuterocanonical books, they are:
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Plus Esther and Daniel, each have more chapters and verses.

They were included in a version of Scriptures known as the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures). Most (300 out of 350 I believe) of the quotes on the New Testament regarding the Old Testament are from the Septuagint (LXX).

Why do Protestants claim the other books not included are not “spirit-breathed?”

Some Protestants might claim that. However, the Jews had a council in about 90A.D. called the Council of Jamnia, during that council they established a Canon that included what we know as the Old Testament with the exception of the books mentioned above. I believe their canon was based on the Masorete tradition.

You should ask whoever tells you that those books were not “spirit breath”, exactly how they reached that conclusion, or who did, and how did they arrive to it.

I don’t remember reading anything in the New Testament about the Septuagint being a bad translation and/or not “spirit breathed”. In fact, when Paul said that all Scripture is God-Breathed, he was, more likely than not, referring to the Scriptures included in the Septuagint.

And is it okay if a Protestant chooses the Catholic Bible over the Protestant one? A lot of people I know wouldn’t like it if I started reading the Catholic Bible. But I want to know for myself what is true.

You are fine using a Catholic Bible. I’d personally recommend the Ignatius Press Holy Bible - RSV (Revised Standard Version), 2nd Catholic Edition. Or you can go Douay-Rheims and have fun with King James Version only friends . All in good sport and charity please .

If you worry about what other people might think of the translation that you are using, then you are not using your bible the “right” way .

God Bless you and guide you.

 

[PatrickSanDiego]

This I have about Luther. Do you have support for what you say about Luther?

socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/05/martin-luthers-regrets-as-to-relative.html

1. Luther says: “As soon as our Gospel began . . . decency . . . and modesty were done away with, and everybody wished to be perfectly free to do whatever he liked.” [Walch. V. 114]
2. “We deserve that our Evangelicals (the followers of the new Gospel) should now be seven times worse than they were before. Because after having learnt the Gospel, we steal, tell lies, deceive, eat and drink (to excess), and practice all manner of vices.” [Walch. III. 2727]
3. “After one Devil (Popery) has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have come down upon us, as is the case with Princes, Lords, Nobles, Citizens and Peasants.” [Walch. III. 2727]

. . . ]

1. “I think it must needs be the case, that those who follow the Gospel . . . should be worse after (receiving) the Gospel than they had been before, not on account of the Gospel, but on account of the people who so abuse the Gospel.” [Walch. XIII. 2193]
2. “The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow.” [Walch. XII. 2120]
3. “People are now possessed with seven Devils, whereas formerly they were possessed with one Devil; the Devil now enters into the people in crowds, so that men are now more avaricious, unmerciful, impure, insolent . . . than formerly under the Pope.” [Walch. XIII. 19]
4. "After the dominion and power of the Pope has ceased . . . the people, while despising the true doctrine, are now changed into mere irrational animals and beasts;

[p. 55]

the number of holy and pious teachers becomes constantly less." [Walch. I. 615]

. . . ]

1. . . . about seven months before his death, Luther wrote to his wife, “Away from this Sodom (Wittenberg) . . . I will wander about, and sooner beg my bread than allow my poor old last days to be martyred and upset with the disorder of Wittenberg.” [July 1545. de Wette. V. 753]
2. . . . “See how foolishly the people everywhere behave towards the Gospel, so that I scarcely know whether I ought to continue preaching or not.” [Walch. XI, 3052]
3. . . . “If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel.” [Walch. VI. 920]
4. In 1538, . . . Luther dwells on the same thought: “Who would have begun to preach, if we had known beforehand that so much unhappiness, tumult, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have been the result?” [Walch. VIII. 564]
5. . . . “I confess, that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests.” [Walch. IX. 1311]

Thank you for posting this CopticChristian.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

1. “We deserve that our Evangelicals (the followers of the new Gospel) should now be seven times worse than they were before. Because after having learnt the Gospel, we steal, tell lies, deceive, eat and drink (to excess), and practice all manner of vices.” [Walch. III. 2727]

I will only address this one, as I don’t have time for the rest. It is indeed amazing what can be done by Catholic apologists with Luther citations from O’Connor and O’Hare. By the reference we are guided to Luther’s Commentaries on the ‘fifth Book of Moses, ix. 25.’ There is not the most distant intimation that Luther was pointing to his own churches, or to the new converts; but to the state of utter depravity to which priests and people, nobles and commoners,—nominal Christians of all ranks,—had fallen. The actual quote reads as follows (in something resembling context, which I note is most often left out by those of an apologetic bent. It makes it easier for the quote to say what you want it to say).

“Moses is thus a fine teacher; he has well expounded the first commandment, and led the people to a knowledge of themselves, and humbled the proud and arrogant spirits, besides which he upbraided them with all kinds of vices, so that they had merited anything but the promised land. If we do not abide by our beloved Gospel, we deserve to see those who profess it, our Gospellers, become seven times worse than they were before. For, after having become acquainted with the Gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, we eat, drink, and are drunken, and practise all sorts of iniquity. As one devil has been driven out of us, seven others, more wicked, have entered in; as may be seen at the present time with princes, noblemen, lords, citizens, and peasants, how they act, without shame and in spite of God and His threatenings.”

He applies the term here unseretEvangelischen (our Gospellers) to mean those who profess to believe the gospel - whether Protestant or Catholic - but only outwardly profess faith but do not truly believe, as evidenced by their actions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Some Protestant churches use the same bible and some individuals do too…

When the bible was compiled at the Council of Nicea the seven books (Apocrypha) were included. They were also assumed to be inspired by God. Then came Martin Luther. He decided that they were not inspired by God (I guess Luther’s opinion was infallible). He gave some reasons which as I recall were inaccurate. He also tried to remove several books from the New Testament (including James and Revelation). Some of the NT books put an emphasis on works which were opposed to Luther’s beliefs.

My knowledge on this issue is of course incomplete. Some others will probably do a better job. Also it would be fair to hear someone from the Protestant side as they probably have an excellent argument.

The reason was I believe that the Old Testament books he removed were not part of the Jewish canon. But the problem here is the canon he was taking a look at was after the First Century. Also he overlooked the fact that the Old Testament list of books that the Church used in making the Bible is based on the Septuagint (or LXX) which is the Greek Jewish Canon in use in the First Century. This is evidenced by Jesus quoting passages in scripture which came from books present in the LXX but not in the canon Luther used. Also the fact that the Church grew outside of Jerusalem where the Greek LXX was used.

 

[pablope]

I will definitely check into to see whether it’s true and what it might mean.

Originally Posted by pablope
So…it is limited to Church practices, and not doctrine?

 

[pablope]

Hi Pablope,

And why would Damasus need to change Jerome’s opinion? *

 

[hockeyfan]

This video has tons of factual errors, most notably their continuing reference to the Council of Jamnia, which never existed. You can do searches here at CAF on the topic (there have been many discussions), or simply read the Wikipedia article.

Though I personally don’t go with the Council of Jamnia, it is a theory brought upon by some Protestant scholars.

 

[Lincoln7]

CopticChristian,
I see lots of out of context Luther quotes have been posted… I hope Mr. Swan from Beggars all won’t mind me linking to the articles where every single one of these has been actually analysed, contextualised and discussed… I’m surprised that catholic apologists are still quoting these…

Here is a sort of introductory page - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/p/luther-exposing-myth.html

To quote Da Carson - a verse (quote in this case) without a context, is a pre text, for a proof text.

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

You won’t get an answer to this…because it doesn’t exist.

Indeed Iggy

 

[Lincoln7]

Pablope,

Anyway…has the liberty to discuss the DCs stopped today? I do not think so.

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. - Trent, sesion 4 - history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
They can’t be questioned by Catholics now.

Sure…but how vehement were their opinions compared to Luther’s? And do you also cite the that they did not publish their own bibles compared to Luther’s?

And do you cite what they did with their opinions? Did they take it as far as what Luther did or initiate…to oppose the Pope?

Tell you what…Catherine’s reforms also involved the Papacy. So which is more attuned with God’s…how come Catherine was able to effect the reforms without the need for disobedience and the splitting of the Church?

I’m unsure of your argument on Luther opposing the papacy? As a Protestant naturally it is seen as a later development, and unfounded by scripture or tradition. Luther had no intention of splitting the church, his Gospel was that of scripture, Rome would not accept it, so they excommunicated him…

Let me ask you then…how did those missionaries who went to the undiscovered world convert the new peoples they encountered? With the Bible?

Have you read any of the accounts of the nineteenth century evangelical missionaries in India, China etc? Honset question. They immersed themselves in local culture and preached the Gospel… They showed love. They they began in many places to translate the text of scripture. See Amy Carmichael for example.

In fact I will stop here as yes you’re right this is not the correct thread, I already have a SS going: “authority in Catholicism and Protestantism” feel free to reply/join there.

Lincs.

 

[TertiumQuid]

This I have about Luther. Do you have support for what you say about Luther?

socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/05/martin-luthers-regrets-as-to-relative.html

[Walch. V. 114] [Walch. III. 2727] [Walch. III. 2727] [Walch. XIII. 2193] [Walch. XII. 2120] [Walch. XIII. 19] [p. 55] [Walch. I. 615] [July 1545. de Wette. V. 753] [Walch. XI, 3052] [Walch. VI. 920] [Walch. VIII. 564] [Walch. IX. 1311]

Keep in mind, the author of the webpage you’ve cited probably didn’t (and couldn’t) actually read Walch or deWette.

I have the desire to see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do we love our neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is that the out-of-context citations from German / Latin books that were probably never read by the person who posted them on the Internet is an inferior and sub-Christian methodolgy. If we bear false witness against our neighbor, even one who has been dead for many years, we are not loving him.