L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Even St. Paul excommunicated people who would not follow the truth, and instructed people not to have fellowship with them. It’s all throughout the New Testament, but specifically in 1 Corinthians.
- Status
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
I found this interesting. Last semester I took a Reformation class. We talked how Luther was the first to translate the Bible into German and that whether we agree with what he was protesting or not the teacher said “we owe Luther a lot because he dispursed the Bible to everyone and translated it.”
All sounded good to me, it was what I had been taught since grade school. In fact I still would have believed this statement up until yesterday when I read this"
All sounded good to me, it was what I had been taught since grade school. In fact I still would have believed this statement up until yesterday when I read this"
-Why Do Catholics Do that? - Kevin Johnson
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Luther boldly quotes our Lord Jesus Christ as his “opponant”. If one opposes our Lord Jesus Christ then one opposes and sets himself apart from Christ’s Church.
Luther
The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live."
NAB MAT 19:16
“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
NAB DEU 30:15 The Choice before Israel.
"Here then, I have today set before you life and prosperity, death and doom. If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin on you today, loving him, and walking in his ways, and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees, you will live …
NAB LUK 10:25
"Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?" Jesus answered him: "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He replied:
"You shall love the Lord your God
**with all your heart, **
**with all your soul, **
**with all your strength, **
**and with all your mind; **
and your neighbor as yourself."
Jesus said, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.”
NAB DEU 6:1
"These then are the commandments, the statutes and decrees which the LORD, your God, has ordered that you be taught to observe in the land into which you are crossing for conquest, so that you and your son and your grandson may fear the LORD, your God, and keep, throughout the days of your lives, all his statutes and commandments which I enjoin on you, and thus have long life. Hear then, Israel, and be careful to observe them, that you may grow and prosper the more in keeping with the promise of the LORD, the God of your fathers, to give you a land flowing with milk and honey." The great commandment. Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength. Take to heart these words which I enjoin on you today. Drill them into your children. Speak of them at home and abroad, whether you are busy or at rest. Bind them at your wrist as a sign and let them be as a pendant on your forehead.
Luther
The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live."
NAB MAT 19:16
“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
NAB DEU 30:15 The Choice before Israel.
"Here then, I have today set before you life and prosperity, death and doom. If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin on you today, loving him, and walking in his ways, and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees, you will live …
NAB LUK 10:25
"Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?" Jesus answered him: "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He replied:
"You shall love the Lord your God
**with all your heart, **
**with all your soul, **
**with all your strength, **
**and with all your mind; **
and your neighbor as yourself."
Jesus said, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.”
NAB DEU 6:1
"These then are the commandments, the statutes and decrees which the LORD, your God, has ordered that you be taught to observe in the land into which you are crossing for conquest, so that you and your son and your grandson may fear the LORD, your God, and keep, throughout the days of your lives, all his statutes and commandments which I enjoin on you, and thus have long life. Hear then, Israel, and be careful to observe them, that you may grow and prosper the more in keeping with the promise of the LORD, the God of your fathers, to give you a land flowing with milk and honey." The great commandment. Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength. Take to heart these words which I enjoin on you today. Drill them into your children. Speak of them at home and abroad, whether you are busy or at rest. Bind them at your wrist as a sign and let them be as a pendant on your forehead.
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
The Church didn’t turn away from them they turned from it. They chose to live in a way that they shouldn’t. They chose to continue to even after they were told not to. They seperated themselves from the Church. The Church is just telling them they have.
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
Why do Catholics do what? Sorry unclear.
I think what is meant about Luther is that he introduced the German translation of the Bible when people were most literate and hungary for knowledge, thus quick spread of the translation.
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Hello all,
Are we in agreement that the printing press came out at the same exact time that Luther decided to spread his version of the Gospel? Before the printing press no one could have printed bibles for the masses. All bibles were duplicated by the maticulous job of doing it by hand.
Are we all in agreement on this?
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Why do Catholics do that is the name of the book he quoted from.
This is true, but the Church formally excommunicates people, as did St. Paul, to allow them to see the gravity of their error.
J
jimmy
Guest
Luther changed the faith. He rejected several things that were elemental to the faith. He went so far as rejecting the New Testament books, James, 2Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. He was in heresy.
Second, unity is not with Martin Luther, it is with the bishops. Christ set the bishops as the leaders of the Church. Consequently it is our job to remain in union with them.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
We are universal in one faith. If you go around and change doctrines to reflect your personal interpretation rather than submit to the proper authority within the Church; you are by definition no longer part of that universal faith.
Let me ask you this. Can Sola Scriptura be proven from Scripture Alone? No? Then Luther left the Church.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
There were already vernacular German translations of the Bible when Luther was around that were approved by Rome (14 of them). What Rome was displeased with was his heretical addition to Sacred Scripture by adding “alone” to “faith”.
C
Contarini
Guest
Steven Merten:
In Germany vernacular Bibles existed before Luther, and the Church was fine with it–I don’t know how commonly used they were.
In England from the early 15th century on the Archbishop of Canterbury forbade laypeople to read the Bible in English or even to talk about theology in English.
Nowhere that I know of in the early 16th century was the Bible read in the vernacular as part of the liturgy (I’d be happy to be corrected on this point).
So no, I don’t agree that the Reformation made no difference in terms of the availability of the Bible. But it’s certainly true that Luther was not the first person to make the Bible available in German.
Edwin
No, we are not in agreement. The printing press (moveable type) had been in existence for some decades before Luther. And even before the printing press there were people who were interested in distributing Bibles to the masses–at the very least in having the Bible read in the vernacular to the masses.
In Germany vernacular Bibles existed before Luther, and the Church was fine with it–I don’t know how commonly used they were.
In England from the early 15th century on the Archbishop of Canterbury forbade laypeople to read the Bible in English or even to talk about theology in English.
Nowhere that I know of in the early 16th century was the Bible read in the vernacular as part of the liturgy (I’d be happy to be corrected on this point).
So no, I don’t agree that the Reformation made no difference in terms of the availability of the Bible. But it’s certainly true that Luther was not the first person to make the Bible available in German.
Edwin
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
You were taught wrong. In Luther’s time, there were already 14 approved German translations of Sacred Scripture approved by Rome. Were you also taught that Luther by his own prerogative put a lot of the books in the appendix?
C
Contarini
Guest
Semper Fi:
Edwin
Originally, the main thing he got in trouble for was his attack on the penitential system (starting with indulgences), and eventually on the whole sacramental system. As far as I can tell, justification by faith wasn’t a big issue for the Church until years into the controversy. After all, justification by faith is, in itself, perfectly orthodox. It was only years after Luther had been yelling at the top of his voice that justification by faith was the big deal and undermined “papist” dogma that the Catholic Church came to agree with him.
Edwin
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
I dont recall having a discussion on that. Like I said I didn’t even give it a second thought because the idea that Luther translated and gave the Bible to the Germans was something that I had been fed since the 7th grade.
Luckily the RCIA process has motivated me to start reading the history of the Church and the real history of the Reformation that I wasnt taught in school.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
The Council of Trent only anathematized one version of justification by faith, which happened to be Luther’s version of “faith alone”. Catholics can agree with the Calvinist version. I don’t think the Church came to agree with Luther, because his interpretation of that was specifically condemned at Trent.
Would you agree that there were already vernacular German translations of Sacred Scripture approved by Rome, and that the advent of the printing press is what made vernacular translations more popular, not some ecclesiastical authority that had previously banned vernacular translations (as is asserted by the majority of Protestants I talk to)?
C
Contarini
Guest
Semper Fi:
*I would not say that the Calvinist view of justification is compatible with Trent, though it is certainly more compatible than many people on both sides think, and in certain respects it is indeed closer to Catholicism than the Lutheran view. However, Calvinists believe in perseverance of the saints, and this has a huge effect on their doctrine of justification. For Calvinists, saving faith is the result of regeneration. In one sense, this brings Calvinism closer to the more Augustinian forms of Catholicism. But on the other hand, this saving faith involves confidence that one is among the elect, which is anathema for Catholics.
The Wesleyan view of justification (which could be crudely summarized as the Calvinist view minus predestination) is quite close to Catholicism, in my opinion. I consider myself a Wesleyan in theology (though I push the Wesleyan tradition as far toward Catholicism as it will go), and the only point where I really disagree with Catholicism on justification is on the question of whether saving faith (faith that works through love) is the same thing as unformed faith plus love, or (as Protestants have historically claimed) something qualitatively different from unformed faith.
Edwin
Sorry for misleading you. I was being ironic in using the word “agree.” My point was that early opponents of Luther didn’t single out his teaching on justification as heretical, but eventually (particularly at/after Trent) this came to be seen as a major heresy. In that sense the Catholic Church came to “agree” with Luther on the centrality of that issue, whereas initially they tended to focus rather on his attack on traditional sacramental theology. The book that really pushed him over the edge from the Catholic Church’s point of view was the *Babylonian Captivity.
*I would not say that the Calvinist view of justification is compatible with Trent, though it is certainly more compatible than many people on both sides think, and in certain respects it is indeed closer to Catholicism than the Lutheran view. However, Calvinists believe in perseverance of the saints, and this has a huge effect on their doctrine of justification. For Calvinists, saving faith is the result of regeneration. In one sense, this brings Calvinism closer to the more Augustinian forms of Catholicism. But on the other hand, this saving faith involves confidence that one is among the elect, which is anathema for Catholics.
The Wesleyan view of justification (which could be crudely summarized as the Calvinist view minus predestination) is quite close to Catholicism, in my opinion. I consider myself a Wesleyan in theology (though I push the Wesleyan tradition as far toward Catholicism as it will go), and the only point where I really disagree with Catholicism on justification is on the question of whether saving faith (faith that works through love) is the same thing as unformed faith plus love, or (as Protestants have historically claimed) something qualitatively different from unformed faith.
I don’t know the details on how much approval they had from Rome–the medieval Church wasn’t as centralized as post-Tridentine Catholicism. But they certainly were not condemned as far as I know, and I would not be surprised to hear that they were approved.
No, that’s exactly what I don’t agree with. Of course the printing press had a huge impact. But even before the printing press there had been an increasing push for vernacular translations in the later Middle Ages, as more and more people learned to read and write the vernacular. The Catholic Church responded in different ways to this. In Germany the response was either favorable or neutral, but in England and at one point (13th century) in France there were condemnations of vernacular translations. Yes, these were aimed at “heretical” translations (in the case of the Albigenses these were real heretics; in the case of the Lollards Protestants would not regard them as heretical, obviously). But the point is that the Church had a tendency to restrict lay access to the Scriptures whenever there was a threat from heretical translations/interpretations. From a Protestant perspective, this was a horrible mistake. The proper response to bad interpretation of Scripture is good interpretation of Scripture, not restricted access to Scripture.
Edwin
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Edwin, my premise is that there were already “good” (i.e. approved) versions of Scripture in the vernacular, which can be backed up by historical sources. I would also argue that the medieval church was more centralized then than it is today… i.e. papal states & the holy roman empire.
J
jimmy
Guest
That makes no sense at all. It doesn’t matter whether he said one day, I am leaving the Church. What matters is that he rejected the faith. You automatically seperated himself from the Church. He declared heresy, he did not have to say I am no longer a member of the Church; that was a natural consequence.
C
Contarini
Guest
Semper Fi:
Edwin
I’m not disputing that, though as I said I’m not sure how official the approval was.
No, those are two of the reasons the medieval Church was less centralized. The Pope spent a lot of time and energy ruling central Italy, trying to organize alliances of Italian states against the rapacious European nations that were trying to invade, etc. And the HRE was a major force against centralization, because it and the Papacy were always at odds with each other. It took decades to call the Council of Trent because of their bickering. And other European nations also blocked papal initiatives. France didn’t implement the Council of Trent for years. We all know about the Spanish monarchs and their royal Inquisition which they badgered the Pope into authorizing, and which then went around arresting people (like Archbishop Carranza) the Pope thought were orthodox.
Edwin
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The meaning of “leaving the Church” is dependent on what is meant by, or is compatible with, being in it.
So if credal orthodoxy as understood by the Papacy in Luther’s time is essential to being in the Church, Luther did “leave the Church”.If some other understanding of “being in the Church” is valid instead, or as well, for that time, the early 1520s, then he did not.
And this leaves out the question of what the Church ought to be - and of how morals and Church authority are to be related, or can legitimately be related.
- Does a corrupt Papacy have the moral authority to reject its critics ?
- Does its corruption take away its moral authority, or is this exercise of authority safeguarded by being not so much that of the Papacy as that of Christ ?
- Under what circumstances, if any, is it morally right or necessary to reject ecclesiastical authority, and to what degree ?
- Is Acts 5.29 - “We must obey God, rather than men” - valid as a reply only to authorities outside the Church or the Papacy: or is this something the Church and the Popes may also need to hear at times ?
- If Church authority is exercised in a way which deforms the Church’s character - how is one to react ?
- Or is the Pope right in his judgements (such as excommunication), precisely because he is functioning as Pope ?
ISTM that he ceased to be RC in order not to leave the Church - that he did not recognise what the CC of 1520 had become as the Church: IOW, he did not see the CC as indefectibly the Church, so felt obliged to chose between being Christian & being Catholic. It could be argued that if he had been a worldlier man, he might have been able to stay Catholic. ##
- Status