Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[AliciaCL]

Exactly. But some people would claim that that is an alteration. It depends on how you read the earlier source material (Scripture and pre-Nicene theology). I agree with your reading, of course, but it’s not self-evident. Hence, saying “we don’t alter our doctrines but you do” is not very convincing without further alteration. What can be said is that Catholics don’t admit to altering their doctrines, while any reasonable account of the ancient heritage of Protestants is going to involve at least one self-conscious repudiation of some pretty important aspects of that heritage (at the Reformation and in many cases later on as well). If a Protestant is convinced that Catholicism really has altered, all this proves is that you are less honest. But it does leave open the possibility (for those of us not convinced that you have radically altered doctrine) that you have some kind of doctrinal continuity that we don’t. That’s powerful enough without souping it up by over-the-top rhetoric that can’t be defended.

Edwin

Edwin, you lost me there at the end. What doctrines do you believe have have been altered in Catholicism? Luther’s initial criticism of selling indulgences was a good thing. But, his going off course about other unrelated doctrinal points didn’t have a justification. I seriously don’t know what you mean by Catholics claiming doctrinal continuity is “souping it up” and consitutes indefensible “over-the-top” rhetoric. Discussing Luther is not a slam against you or other individuals who are Protestants today.

 

[ICA04]

lol Protestants don’t honer men with sainthood, that’s a Catholic thing.

Saints are all who are among the saved.

To claim to know a person’s eternal faith is a sin.

You don’t know as much about Protestants as you think you do. Anglicans have saints just as Catholics do and have the communion of saints as part of thier doctrine as well.

 

[ICA04]

lol

To claim to know a person’s eternal faith is a sin.

So are you claiming that for all those at the Council of Trent?

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, you lost me there at the end. What doctrines do you believe have have been altered in Catholicism?

Sorry for my convoluted prose. What I said was that I was not convinced that doctrine *had *been radically altered, but that did imply that I think there’s been something that can be called alteration. It all depends on what counts as “alteration.” I tend to take a fairly strict definition, by which we’ve all altered doctrine and this is inevitable as doctrine develops. I understand that conservative/orthodox Catholics make a much sharper distinction between change and development.

I seriously don’t know what you mean by Catholics claiming doctrinal continuity is “souping it up” and consitutes indefensible “over-the-top” rhetoric.

Again, I was unclear. I was saying that Catholics can make a good case for doctrinal continuity without “souping it up.” When Catholics say things like “we believe exactly what we did in the first century but you have invented a new religion” they are “souping it up.” A claim like that requires so many qualifications on both ends (the alleged perfect continuity on one hand and the alleged radical innovation on the other) that it’s useless in a rational discussion. Saying “we can show a kind of continuity that you lack” is clearly defensible, on the other hand. But it’s not as exciting.

Edwin

 

[Ginger2]

Part 1

An Open Letter on Translating

By Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546

Do you by any chance, realize you omitted a portion of Luther’s letter?

I assume you copied and pasted and didn’t know. Apparently your source cannot be trusted.
Cathh(name removed by moderator):

"I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in

either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me

that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there." And these

knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same

time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -

if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. (emphasis mine)

Then you omit a huge portion of Luther’s explanation, thereby distorting the meaning.

Here is a portion of what you omitted condensed for space but still in context:

"I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our
language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word
“not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer
brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no
money, but only (allein) grain”; … There are a
vast number of such everyday cases…

   In all these phrases, **this is a German usage, even though it is
   not the Latin or Greek usage.** It is the nature of the German
   tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be
   clearer and more complete.  .... 

   We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
   speak German - as these asses do.  Rather we must ask the mother
   in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
   market about this.  ......Then they
   will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
   them.

    .... So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: "Ut quid perditio
   haec?" and in Mark 14: "Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?"
   Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate
   it: "Why has this loss of salve occurred?"  But what kind of
   German is this?  What German says "loss of salve occurred"?  And
   if he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is
   lost and must be looked for and found again;  .....

But a German would say “Ut quid, etc…” as “Why this
waste?” or “Why this extravagance?” … - these are good German, in which one can understand
that Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done
wrong. That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used
it better." - Martin Luther

So you can see, Luther did not change the meaning of this Scripture.
Further proof to support this is in that Protestant Bibles written in English do not have the word “alone” or “only”. If Luther had indeed added to the Scriptures or created a new doctrine based on this verse, then the word “alone” would be found in English translations of Protestant Bibles - it is not.

 

[Cathhsmom]

How would you know? Catholics wisely reverse false doctrines of anti-popes, but have a bad habit of burning all works of anti-popes so no one can ever prove what they did or did not declare.

That’s just it. The teachings of the “anti-popses” are not the teachings of the true popes. We follow the true popes. We are saying that those popes, good and bad, that were the true popes never taught contrary to faith and morals.

 

[Ginger2]

So are you claiming that for all those at the Council of Trent?

Claiming what? ICA04 is the one who said the Council of Trent condemned Luther to hell.

Are you claiming that stating a sin is a sin, is a sin?

If you take the name of the Lord in vain and I tell you that is a sin, do I sin by telling you?

On the contrary, we have a responsibility to correct error otherwise we are guilty, too.

Claiming you can condemn someone to hell or that you know their eternal fate is a sin.

Or do you think the pope or a Catholic council has power to condemn one to hell and the next to salvation?

Ginger

 

[AliciaCL]

Edwin, very good. I understand. You sound like you are actually quite close to Catholicism. I think we can both agree that at the time of the Reformation, “Protestants” adopted a truncated kind of Catholicism, jettisoning some doctrines and retaining others. The part about “inventing” probably refers to sola scriptura. It is difficult for people on either side not to get worked up when discussing the Reformation. It is/was a deep split. We both think we’re right.

The things I point to to show the error of sola scriptura are: 1) it isn’t in the bible 2) the bible was compiled by the RCC and no Reforming Church ever re-evaluated what books should go into the cannon; they accepted, inadvertently perhaps - but they accepted the authority of the RCC to determine which scriptures were inspired by God and should be put into the cannon. 3) the bible itself has at least 3 places where it indicates it is incomplete. On the road to Emmaus, Christ revealed how the OT scriptures were fufilled but it isn’t enumerated; Christ taught the apostles for 40 days after Resurrection, details of which were not recorded, and somewhere (Paul??) it says that all the books in the world couldn’t fill the revelations that Christ made to his disciples. 4) it doesn’t make sense to rely totally on scripture because it wasn’t compiled until the 3rd century. Isnt’ that like reading the newspaper accounts starting 300 yrs. after the real event to get the real story? I think you have to concede oral teachings were recorded IN the bible FROM oral tradition. Just like someone writes an autobiography: they don’t get every single detail but they record the basics. It’s no reason to discount other details that came from oral tradition. Think of a family at X-Mas telling a story from childhood. Often a brother or sister has no memory of the story but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. There’s no logical reason to discount oral tradition. No real reason to rely on the bible alone other than a certain person said so.

 

[Ginger2]

That’s just it. The teachings of the “anti-popses” are not the teachings of the true popes. We follow the true popes. We are saying that those popes, good and bad, that were the true popes never taught contrary to faith and morals.

lol

And what about the people who die before the anti-pope is exposed. They go to their graves believing whatever lies he has told them, because the RC stresses Catholics must obey the pope.

"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought … calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. …God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, …” (St. Catherine)

Ginger

 

[jake23]

LOL - whatever mate. You obviously don’t want to go into a debate which you can’t push over on the vulgus, and therefore I’m not going to waste more time on you. Think what you will - and see if I care. I should know the “talking to a stubborn mule”-feeling. I’ve been having it in 90% of the debates in here - having to deal with circular reasonings, non-sequiturs, and other obnoxious fallacies from day one.

You only want to take a debate from the Greek text in plenum where you can impress the vulgus? Fine by me. But it’s not going to be on my expense. You have a nice day, and quit wasting my time, 'aight?

what a manipulater! do you hear yourself? Like I said you live in a country where until just recently you where forced to pay tax to the Lutheran church! you practice your 500 hundred year old religion because that is what is practiced in your country, not because it was the truth, but beacuse it is the religion embraced by your corrupt country! You are a waste of my time! good luck!

 

[jake23]

what kind of name is Ginger? a name made up for a stripper? get an education on the matter Gingie!

 

[Ockham]

Same with me. I mentioned the book not to avoid giving my views, but just because I wasn’t sure I wanted to start a new thread right now. It annoys me when people give me reading suggestions instead of original posts, and I apologize for doing that–I just wasn’t sure when I was going to get around to expounding my position and thought that you might be interested in seeing my source in the work of a Catholic scholar.

Edwin

No worries, Mate. I always appreciate a good book recommendation and wish I had time to read them all. It’s one thing to sneak a few minutes during the day for a chatroom, but another to find an hour or two for a good book. I wasn’t trying to put you on the spot with the new thread suggestion, just curious to know your thoughts on the topic.

This thread is like family members bickering over some trivial incident decades ago after too much egg nog. We all need to discard the distractions and have one big group hug. I don’t care how corny that sounds.

Catholics need to get over Luther’s actions.
Protestants need to get over the protest.
We all need to focus on Christ, not our grievances against one another.

 

[AliciaCL]

Hey, Jake. Take it easy. Disagreement does not justify rudeness. Disagree, nicely.

 

[Contarini]

Claiming what? ICA04 is the one who said the Council of Trent condemned Luther to hell.

ICA04 is wrong. The Council of Trent wisely did not name names. It is always possible to claim that none of the anathemas actually apply to real life Protestants (possible in principle, I mean–I’m not claiming that such an argument would work).

Edwin

 

[Ginger2]

It is always possible to claim that none of the anathemas actually apply to real life Protestants
Edwin

Maybe I didn’t get enough sleep last night, but if Trent wasn’t referring to Protestants, who do you think they were talking about?

Ginger

 

[josie_L]

You can state it, but to persuade people of it you will have to make actual arguments.

The ones who are countering the OP have yet to issue a cogent argument, they rely more on emotion and ecumenism in order to bypass the truth. As for those like myself who see Luther as wicked (in word and deed) we have indeed expressed actual arguments to persuade people of our premise.

Of course Luther came up with new theological ideas. So did a lot of people in the history of the Church. The problem was that Luther identified his ideas with the Gospel. We are in agreement on that. It’s unnecessary to trash Luther’s character to discredit this claim–why not debate the ideas themselves?

And why should I concern myself with other people when we are talking of Luther, as for the necessity of mentioning Luther’s character to discredit him (“prophets” of God should be holy, no) , again, it is a valid argument to make (I do have other reasons for rejecting Luther), in fact, as valid as mentioning Muhammad’s character in relation to Islam and its truthfulness.

Because deeply flawed people can come up with good ideas, and holy people can come up with very bad ones. And because it’s unnecessary–there are plenty of reasons to question aspects of Luther’s theology, and these reasons come from a fair analysis of the theology itself in its historical context and in the light of later theological and exegetical developments. It’s much shorter and simpler and easier to rack up some shocking things Luther said and did and sling them around. But as in most things, the short and easy path is not the best one. It just leads to a lot of mudslinging and everyone gets dirty. And in the end, as this thread has shown, you have to support your double standard (arguing that Luther’s flaws count while those of Catholic bishops or theologians don’t) by coming back to the claim that Luther’s theology was an unwarranted innovation. Why not just start there and skip the detour into personalities?

We are not talking of good or bad ideas, but Truth. God stated in the Bible that we should be aware of false teachers and prophets. The question is how does one realize that which is false? There is more than one way of seeing the falsity of any given teacher preaching the Word of God. This OP expresses one way of many as to why we Catholics reject Luther.

I don’t. I put a lot more weight in Jerome and other patristic and medieval theologians when I say that I’m not convinced that the deuterocanonical books are of the same weight as the undisputed books of the OT. And of course no one follows Luther on James.

But you cannot dispute the fact that up until Luther all 73 books made up what we call the Bible. Again, by what authority did Luther have to rid himself of 7 books?

On what points do I follow Luther’s interpretation of the Bible? What do you actually know about my interpretation of the Bible, anyway?

Edwin, at that point I was writing to a general audience, even though I used your post as a reference point,

As with a lot of these cheap shots, you (would-be Internet apologists generally) are trying to have it both ways. **One frequently sees on this forums the claim that Protestants are hopelessly divided and disagree with the Reformers on many issues. And yet somehow we’re also supposedly following Luther in lock step. **Which is it? It can’t be both.

There are no cheap shots by would-be internet apologists, it has clearly been stated by myself, confusedTim, Kalt and others why we are stating this argument. Reread the posts, it is delineated for all to see. And you are reading way more than the posts suggest, this is and has been about Luther from beginning to end.

This is comparing apples and oranges. I take the point that an influential theologian like Augustine or Aquinas or Luther has exercised a lot more power in one sense than the average pope, maybe (in those three cases) than any single pope. But at the same time, no one claims that Luther is infallible. No one says “it must be true because Luther said it.” No one says “God wouldn’t let Luther make a theological mistake when defining doctrine.” No one calls Luther the vicar of Christ or says that salvation depends on personal communion with him (as opposed to profession of the Gospel Luther professed and membership in the Church that professes that Gospel, which some strict Lutherans would say). Luther stands or falls on the merits of his ideas. So if you want to criticize him, that’s where you should go.

See post #45 for my response.

I don’t see any signs that you have any interest in who he was as a whole. All you and others like you do is pick out certain things he said and did out of context. So don’t give me that.

I will give you that and then some. Do not think for a second that what he did can be hidden away from the rest of the world as it has been for the last several centuries.

Also, Luther was not anti-Semitic. He was religiously anti-Jewish, like most Catholics (and many Protestants) until the mid-20th century. The horrible things he said were directed toward Jews as a religious community who rejected Christ.

How ingenious!

But that’s irrelevant if you are talking about Luther’s character. You can’t judge someone’s character by the effects of their actions (very good people can do things that have horrible consequences, and vice versa). You’re switching targets because your initial position is clearly untenable.

Again, my initial position is not untenable.

Edwin

You know Contarini sometimes you can overthink things too much.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, very good. I understand. You sound like you are actually quite close to Catholicism. I think we can both agree that at the time of the Reformation, “Protestants” adopted a truncated kind of Catholicism, jettisoning some doctrines and retaining others.

I’m not sure that’s the best way to talk about it, but it’s not an unreasonable one.

The part about “inventing” probably refers to sola scriptura.

I think that’s not the best place to start if you want to make that case: sola fide is much more clearly a new idea (at least in the sense of forensic imputation).

It is/was a deep split. We both think we’re right.

Well, I don’t. Obviously I think the opinions I currently hold are right (any sane person does), though I’m not very sure about many of them; but I certainly am not committed to the proposition that the Protestants were generally right or that Anglicanism was generally “right” then or now.

The things I point to to show the error of sola scriptura are: 1) it isn’t in the bible

“Sola scriptura” is a bad term, IMHO. Actually the Reformers didn’t use it. The argument you give only works against a radical view of sola scriptura that few serious Protestant theologians would defend.

1. the bible was compiled by the RCC and no Reforming Church ever re-evaluated what books should go into the cannon;

That’s obviously false. The Reformed tradition rejected the deuterocanonical books outright, and the Lutherans and Anglicans opted for the position held by some scholars throughout church history that they should not be used to prove doctrine.

Also, the term “RCC” is anachronistic before the Reformation. Protestants naturally believe ourselves to be in continuity with the Holy Catholic Church of the first 1500 years (except for those radical fundamentalists who hold to a “Trail of Blood” theory).

1. the bible itself has at least 3 places where it indicates it is incomplete. On the road to Emmaus, Christ revealed how the OT scriptures were fufilled but it isn’t enumerated;

Weak argument, since this is something on which the rest of the NT frequently speaks.

Christ taught the apostles for 40 days after Resurrection, details of which were not recorded, and somewhere (Paul??)

John

it says that all the books in the world couldn’t fill the revelations that Christ made to his disciples.

These arguments don’t work because the classic Protestant position does not claim that Scripture contains everything Jesus taught. It claims that Scripture contains what we need to develop correct Christian doctrine and faithful Christian practice. This may be a false claim, but I don’t see that these statements show this. Most of the points on which Catholics and Protestants generally differ (with a few exceptions like prayer for the dead) are not points on which the Catholic position can reasonably be said to be based on explicit oral tradition. Rather, they are points on which Protestants object to the course of Catholic doctrinal development, and Catholics claim that the living transmission of the Word of God in the Church is a work of the Holy Spirit and thus can be trusted.

1. it doesn’t make sense to rely totally on scripture

No one relies “totally” on Scripture. Some ultra-conservative Protestants claim to do so, but this is not the mainstream, historic Protestant claim. Ecumenical discussion would be much easier if we didn’t keep assuming that folks on the other side were idiots.

because it wasn’t compiled until the 3rd century.

Depends on what you mean by “compiled.” The documents were written in the first century, or perhaps in a few cases in the early second century. The development and definition of the canon took until the fourth century, in fact. But you can certainly find the NT books being cited as Scripture in the second century (or even the first if you think 2 Peter is actually by Peter). Irenaeus gives what I’d consider canonical status to the four Gospels.

The history of the canon is a powerful argument for Catholicism, but Catholics on the Internet regularly mess it up by overstating it. Your following analogy is an unfortunate example of this:

 

[Contarini]

Isnt’ that like reading the newspaper accounts starting 300 yrs. after the real event to get the real story?

Not at all. It’s like reading a contemporary anthology of journalism from several centuries ago. It’s not even quite like that, because there wasn’t as much later editing as this analogy implies.

No one disputes that the documents were all written within roughly a century of the death of Jesus-- conservative scholars would say that most of them were written within 50 years, and some of them within 20-30 years.

The fact that the canon took so long to develop is very significant, because it shows that early Christians looked first and foremost to the “rule of faith” of apostolic tradition. They appealed to the NT documents, but those documents were part of a much bigger package.

The problem is that as time goes on we no longer have the same direct access to apostolic tradition. It’s one thing to make an argument for oral tradition in the second century. It’s quite another to make it in the fourth century, let alone the sixteenth or the 21st. Hence the hardening of the canon and the development of a doctrine of Scriptural sufficiency, which you can find in some of the fourth century Fathers (I’m talking about material, not formal sufficiency, of course) alongside other statements asserting the continuing authority of oral tradition.

I think you have to concede oral teachings were recorded IN the bible FROM oral tradition.

Of course. The question is not whether oral tradition preceded Scripture, but whether we *now *have reliable access to apostolic tradition apart from Scripture and how this might work.

Just like someone writes an autobiography: they don’t get every single detail but they record the basics. It’s no reason to discount other details that came from oral tradition. Think of a family at X-Mas telling a story from childhood. Often a brother or sister has no memory of the story but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. There’s no logical reason to discount oral tradition. No real reason to rely on the bible alone other than a certain person said so.

But most of the specifics of Catholic teaching pretty clearly developed later. I think your line of argument works for some things–prayer for the dead, maybe Eucharistic sacrifice. Not so well for other things like the Marian doctrines or papal infallibility, which one can clearly show to have developed over time. Not so well either for the detailed definitions of doctrines like transubstantiation (or the Trinity, for that matter). For these you need a doctrine of development.

The problem with a lot of Catholic apologetics is that it uses a “bait-and-switch.” You make a general argument for oral tradition and then apply it to things that are clearly later developments. This is possible because “tradition” has come to be used in a more dynamic sense in Catholicism, for the activity of handing down the faith. All well and good, but not the same thing as the kind of literal oral tradition you are describing.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And why should I concern myself with other people when we are talking of Luther,

Because otherwise you are guilty of hypocrisy for continuing to trust some sinners while reviling others.

as for the necessity of mentioning Luther’s character to discredit him (“prophets” of God should be holy, no) ,

When you find someone on this thread who thinks Luther was a prophet, you may use this argument against them.

again, it is a valid argument to make (I do have other reasons for rejecting Luther), in fact, as valid as mentioning Muhammad’s character in relation to Islam and its truthfulness.

Not quite as valid, because Islam really does rest on the belief that Muhammad was a prophet. Protestantism does not rest on any claim about Luther’s character or mission. However, I don’t think arguments against Islam based on Muhammad’s character are a very good idea either. I will mention this to Muslims as a reason why I do not find the Islamic case a priori convincing. But I would never use it as part of a polemic to discredit Islam.

We are not talking of good or bad ideas, but Truth.

Are you suggesting that false ideas can be good, or true ones bad? I’m not sure how that might work.

God stated in the Bible that we should be aware of false teachers and prophets. The question is how does one realize that which is false?

Hopefully you examine the intrinsic merits of their teachings.

But you cannot dispute the fact that up until Luther all 73 books made up what we call the Bible. Again, by what authority did Luther have to rid himself of 7 books?

He didn’t. Lutherans never rejected the deuterocanonicals outright.

Edwin, at that point I was writing to a general audience, even though I used your post as a reference point,

IF you think such a general argument works, you have no idea just how theologically diverse Protestantism is. Perhaps you should read posts by your fellow Catholics about the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism. Convincing Protestants that Luther was the devil incarnate is not going to make them become Catholic–it will just make them become more radical in their Protestantism. Lots of fundamentalists and other free-church Protestants don’t like Luther already–largely because they find him too Catholic!

You’re degrading yourself and discrediting your Church for nothing.

I will give you that and then some. Do not think for a second that what he did can be hidden away from the rest of the world as it has been for the last several centuries.

From whom do you imagine that this has been hidden away? Luther’s faults have never been a secret. It’s true that most Protestants don’t know about them, because they don’t know much about church history at all.

How ingenious!

I take no credit. This is right out of Catholic writers talking about the *Catholic *tradition of anti-Judaism and how it is different from racial anti-Semitism. This tradition of anti-Judaism is what Luther was repeating. It’s not a problem unique to one particular Christian group. So if you think Luther was anti-Semitic, you have to say that Catholicism was anti-Semitic for centuries.

You know Contarini sometimes you can overthink things too much.

That’s one of those things people never say except when they can’t come up with a logical argument. Don’t you think it’s a bit pathetic to accuse your opponent of thinking too much? I’d be much more worried if you thought I was thinking too little.

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

As prophet means teacher, it is possible to force the title on Luther