M
- Status
P
Pinoycat
Guest
The Catholic Bible is the complete and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is compose of 73 books, when Luther started to established the Protestant church he detached the 7 deuterocanical books in the New and Old Testament, in 18ce most protestant church agree to the Canon of the Church on the New Testament, but still they did not include the deuterocanonicals book in the Old Testament, that is why the protestant unofficial bible is only 66 books. The Bible we are using now is Canon by the Catholic Church, while protestant founders they just interpret it according to their fallible knowledge.Is it true that there are several other books of the Bible in the Catholic Bible? Why do Protestants claim the other books not included are not “spirit-breathed?” That’s what they told me. The books that were not included were not “God-breathed.”
I guess that is what I am wondering. The person who told me this had other ideas that seemed to go against Christ’s teachings. I was pretty much laughed out of that church. And forced out by nasty gossip and slander.
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.
I don’t believe he condemns the book at all, in the sense of canonicity. He strongly questions the authorship, that is true, as he says:
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;
Notice his reference to “the ancients”, with Eusebius in mind.
The reason I said he thought that Rome express him as superior to Paul, he says:
“That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest."
He wants James interpreted and considered in context with the rest of scripture, and I would say in particular with Paul. Hence, we are justified by grace alone through faith (Paul), but faith cannot be without works (James).
Well, Mack, you’re welcome to your opinion, but my understanding of the facts is that he, Luther, assembled the scholars that helped him translate. I know of no statement from him where he says he wants to not translate all of the books in the western Bible. Additionally, he also translated and included the Prayer of Manasseh. It would seem to me odd, for someone who wanted to exclude the D-C’s, to translate and include an additional book!
Same thing. He looks at the history of the Church, including Eusebius, and the questioning involved in the Antilagomena.
Have you looked at his prefaces, or just Catholic apolegetics about them (and I don’t mean this an attack, but a question)? If you have read them, you know that, for example, some of the harsher things he said about James only appears in his initial publication of the NT in 1522. If you’ve only read Catholic apolegetics about them, may I suggest James Swan’s work - just to balance the perspective, get both viewpoints.
tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a2
Sorry, I don’t see any slander, unless you want to include people like Eusebius, Jerome, and Cardinal Cajetan in that terminology.
Now all of this said, I wish Luther would have been even more direct and strident in his statement that the D-C’s: “… are useful and good to read.” I believe Lutherans in America have been remiss in simply using English language protestant translations that exclude the D-C’s. And while I understand his reluctance regarding them (because of the history of their disuted nature), I believe he should have been even more deferential to the historic Church’s (both east and west) consideration of them.
Jon
S
submariner2
Guest
Mack,
I am sure about what I have read. Before if they heard scripture at all it was Latin which most could not understand. Luthers translation was into German of course. Of course priests knew Latin. I suppose they could translate as they wanted but that kind of thing was rare I think. The general attitude was the laity did not need to read the bible.
Obviously Luther thought differently. He was right.
Rob
P
Pinoycat
Guest
But Luther acted as Judas escariot who betrayed the Church.
I would suggest, by his words and actions, that Pope Benedict XVI would disagree with this.
Jon
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Okay, what did you read? Are you really sure that there were no German translations before Luther’s? That question wasn’t addressed in your reply.
As far as the laity reading the bible, for centuries there were few bibles around for them to read, if they could read at all. That’s why they went to church, to hear the bible read to them. But you claim it was only in Latin.
=mackbrislawn;9411287]
Mack,
Why should he not reference what those (obviously not all) of the early Church thought and said? One of the things protestants are accused of is not considering the early Church. Lutheran do, and so did Luther. I would think that this should be greeted with praise (even faint).
Ok, so let’s consider this from the position of the post Vatican II era. If we look back and say that both sides were stubborn in their approach to this controversy, how can we now dialogue to reach common ground? Perhaps, in some ways, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification does this.
,
Of course, Mack. I just think, however, that it serves us well to really understand the facts, and make a determination from there.
I’m not convinced that it was a matter of what he liked or didn’t like. Whether or not one agrees with him, one must admit Luther was a scholar - knowedgeable and well educated.
ISTM his reasons were not unlike that of his contemporary, Cardinal Cajetan:
Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
Ok.
I see this differently. Luther is Christo-centric. His is a theology of the cross. He’s expressing this in the books he prefers. Mack, there are certain books I prefer. That doesn’t mean that the others are less scriptural. Expressing an opinion is not necessarily condemning others. Swan references Jaroslav Pelikan, the Lutheran turned Orthodox scholar:
From his own experience he could testify that often a Christian found one or another book of the canon difficult or useless to him at a particular time, only to discover later on that it was just what he needed in a time of trouble or temptation. Had such a person been permitted to re-edit the canon on the basis of his passing mood, he would have been deprived of the patience and comfort of the Scriptures when he needed them most. Within the received canon Luther made sharp distinctions, to the point of constructing a private miniature canon. But he was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.
I enourage you to read Swan’s piece, not to change your mind, but just to see the other view of Luther on the canon of scripture.
Jon
S
submariner2
Guest
mack,
I have heard that there may have been some German bibles. However, the German language for bibles read in church could only happen in the new protestant churches.
In fact I thought only after Vatican II are Catholic services in the US done in English. Before they were all in Latin. Am I wrong about that? You tell me.
Rob
S
submariner2
Guest
pinoy,
How so? He had no intent to betray his church at all.
Rob
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
I think this is a false assumption Rob has been laboring under–which explains some of his strange comments–that the readings in church were also in Latin! No, the readings were in English and the sermon in English prior to Vatican II. Now, I wasn’t in Germany in Luther’s time, but I can’t imagine that the readings weren’t in German and the sermon in German, especially since it is admitted that there were German bibles before Luther’s time. I don’t think the German language for bibles read in church could only happen in the new protestant churches.
Luther’s bible helped unify the German language. Luther’s bible into the vernacular wasn’t quite the innovative idea that Rob seems to think. There are many dialects in Europe today, but think how it was even more so back then. Keeping up with translations into the vernacular was quite a job.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
[/QUOTE]reference what those (obviously not all) of the early Church thought and said? One of the things protestants are accused of is not considering the early Church. Lutheran do, and so did Luther. I would think that this should be greeted with praise (even faint
You’re turning the question around to avoid answering!Why should Luther mention it at all except to make a point about the book of James by using the early Church?
Yes, not using word play will help find common ground.
I guess we all have a different opinion about what the facts mean.
Luther was a scholar, but were his reasons purely scholarly? Luther was also human, and a passionate one.
But why express his opinion? If not to sway the readers in some way? To guide them to his theology? Why not allow them to form their own opinions? Yes, you have certain books you prefer, and that is your personal preference. For yourself alone. Also, hopefully you do not read them first and then allow them to color the way you read the rest of scripture. That’s what I feel Luther did. And he wanted everyone to read them the way he did.
Is my question answered in Swan’s piece?
Because, Mack, its germane to discussions about the Epistle.You’re turning the question around to avoid answering!
I’d say so, though I appreciate the level of comity in our conversation.
I wouldn’t consider that an indictment. He was passionate about the Church and the faith, yes.
There are a number of occasions where he says things like this when referring to James:
*“… I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” *
It seems to me that, on both sides (just read through some of the posts on this thread), we see the issue of Luther’s view of the canon of scripture through the color of the glasses provided to us by either our communion, or the apologists who claim it. That’s not unexpected, but I think the reality of Luther on this point is somewhere between “glorious reformer” and “self-centered scoundrel”. As I have already said, I have come to the belief that Luther, while far more so than some Catholics believe, may not have been deferential enough to Tradition regarding the D-C’s.
Like I said, my friend, I don’t think he will change your mind, but at least you will get the other POV.
Jon
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Submarine,
As a product of the Latin Mass you are correct. The Mass was in Latin and the homilies in English or whatever language the people spoke at the Mass. In other words the Latin Mass/English preaching, the Latin Mass/Spanish preaching etc…
As an altar boy I knew all the responses in Latin and the congregation had the same responses to view. I knew what they all meant and what was being said, it was just in Latin.
Think about this. The world spoke Greek before it spoke Latin. The world spoke Latin and that was the way the world communicated. Luther posted his thesis in Latin. Calvin published his institutes of religion in Latin. The Church changed the Mass from Latin to English.
English is now the universal language. There is a good book/video “The Story of English”. I did not know if you knew this but English is the language of all pilots no matter what country they fly from and the language of all air traffice controllers. In other words flight is communicated in English.
With that understanding, knowing that Latin was the universal language and that English is the universal language, understand that the Church changed from Latin to English or Latin to the native language after a long time. The Church changes slowly…this always causes me to reflect on the notion that the Church went apostate since the Church does nothing in time with any rapidity. I always wonder over what and when. I never get a solid answer.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Perhaps so, Mack. I do agree with you that what is important is the here and now. How do we come to convergence on the canon of scripture that is not Church-dividing, and how would that be reflected in our mutual use of the canon? What “rule” is acceptable between us? Of course, folks with bigger degrees and fancier titles willhave to work that out.
Jon
- Status