Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[kalt]

That is outright false. I’ve proven this, yet you keep making that false claim.

Just because you want to believe something, doesn’t make it true.

Criticize Luther for his flaws and errors, while keeping in mind all your saints are guilty of flaws and errors as well,

but don’t make up stories that are not true. Truth should be important to us. That is why I can’t understand this insistence in spreading falsehoods about our foes.

I think you don’t want to accept the truth about Luther.

Again, Luther changed the Bible and doctrine. Under what authority did he act?

 

[kalt]

Indulgences are abuse.

Selling indulgences is abuse.

 

[kalt]

Thanks I’ll look at it when I get a chance.

Catholics say Luther added the word only to the Bible, thus creating the false doctrine of faith alone as Catholics describe it. That’s not true. I’ve given much evidence to this in the past, but the main point would be that if Luther did indeed change the meaning by adding the word “alone” in the German translation, then it would appear in English too. Since English translations of Protestant Bible don’t have the word “alone” or “only” in that verse it demonstrates Luther did not change the Bible by adding a word that didn’t belong. Instead he translated so the verse could be properly understood in the German. The word was proper in German but word not be in English, Greek or Latin.

You can search for the complete explanation by doing a search for my name and the keys words.

lol, they’re not!!! I could have taken time to translate it into proper English, but I didn’t. It is a direct word for word translation and that is why it doesn’t make sense. That’s is why Luther used the word “only” also!!!

Ginger

You refuse to admit that Luther decided that some of the books were NOT inspired, and so called them apocryphal.

That IS changing the Bible.

No one has seen fit to answer the question on what authority Luther changed the Bible and doctrine. Instead you claim that he didn’t do those two things.

Refusing to accept the truth doesn’t change the truth.

 

[JonNC]

You refuse to admit that Luther decided that some of the books were NOT inspired, and so called them apocryphal.

That IS changing the Bible.

No one has seen fit to answer the question on what authority Luther changed the Bible and doctrine. Instead you claim that he didn’t do those two things.

Refusing to accept the truth doesn’t change the truth.

Kalt,
Just couple of questions:

1. The Catholic Bible lacks books found in the Orthodox Bible. Who changed the canon?
2. The Catholic Church declared papal infallibility, when speaking ex cathedra, without benefit of a full ecumenical council (including the East). As the Orthodox deny this and other statements about the pope since the schism, who changed doctrine?

Just curious,
Jon

 

[allhers]

Thanks I’ll look at it when I get a chance.

Catholics say Luther added the word only to the Bible, thus creating the false doctrine of faith alone as Catholics describe it. That’s not true. I’ve given much evidence to this in the past, but the main point would be that if Luther did indeed change the meaning by adding the word “alone” in the German translation, then it would appear in English too. Since English translations of Protestant Bible don’t have the word “alone” or “only” in that verse it demonstrates Luther did not change the Bible by adding a word that didn’t belong. Instead he translated so the verse could be properly understood in the German. The word was proper in German but word not be in English, Greek or Latin.

You can search for the complete explanation by doing a search for my name and the keys words.

lol, they’re not!!! I could have taken time to translate it into proper English, but I didn’t. It is a direct word for word translation and that is why it doesn’t make sense. That’s is why Luther used the word “only” also!!!

Ginger

Well, since I am a big advocate of stating that if you want the truth to go to the source of the truth, and since I gave you the Vatican web site (this site we are on is excellent also, just go to the home page at www.catholic.com and they have a search engine with a wealth of information.)

So, I went to a Lutheran site and found this:
That site says that Luther did indeed insert the word “alone”. It’s very difficult to read but it is there. They don’t let you copy and paste from there or I would have put that part up here, so, you’ll have to go and read it yourself. (It’s very difficult to read.)
collections.lstc.edu/gruber/luthers_bible/1522.php

One other thing, I have read this and other things written by Luther and quite frankly, the man sounds like a raging lunatic to me. He goes from saying that he didn’t do that on purpose (say faith “alone”, to that he did indeed do it on purpose and jumps around everywhere in between.) If you read it all, it sounds like he never even prayed a Mass, (if you read the whole thing where toward the end when he was answering to the part about being asked about saints), well, he denies that we are to ask their intercession and yet we do at every Mass/I guess he “forgot” that too. Pretty strange for someone who had been a Catholic Priest if you ask me. He didn’t mind going to Rome to be taught, but then he says the most sick things about those who taught him/he sounds like a narsissist (someone who thinks its all about him and wants to take all the credit.)

Now, I was taught by very devout parents and Sisters and Priests and went to Catholic Schools for 12 years and I can tell you that we did read some of Luther’s writings then. It isn’t that we Catholics have never been exposed to anything that he has said you know, mostly, he just sounds to me like a very sick individual. If you read this you’ll see what I mean.

An Open Letter on Translating By Dr. Martin Luther
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

 

[allhers]

I like the way the Priest on EWTN said it today in his homily at today’s Mass:
“When you fight against the Church, you’ll lose, you are fighting against HIS Church and HE is protecting HER”!! He says that if you want to take that up, that you’ll have an awesome battle on your hands as you are fighting against GOD Himself!!.

 

[Ginger2]

I think you don’t want to accept the truth about Luther.

Again, Luther changed the Bible and doctrine. Under what authority did he act?

Maybe you are referring to something I don’t know about.

First prove that Luther changed a Biblical doctrine. Then I will research it and see if what you claim is true, fair enough?

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Well, since I am a big advocate of stating that if you want the truth … I went to a Lutheran site and found this:
That site says that Luther did indeed insert the word “alone”. …

… we did read some of Luther’s writings then.

See post #346

Cathh(name removed by moderator) demonstrated why Catholics don’t know what they are talking about concerning ML by posting Luther’s letter, but omitting a huge segment - Cathh(name removed by moderator) obviously got her info from a bias Catholic source.

Here is the omitted portion, condensed for space but still in context:
Luther:

"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.

It appears Catholics are so determined to smear Luther that they don’t seem to care whether or not the info is accurate - all that is important is that it be negative.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

You refuse to admit that Luther decided that some of the books were NOT inspired, and so called them apocryphal.

That IS changing the Bible.

No one has seen fit to answer the question on what authority Luther changed the Bible and doctrine. Instead you claim that he didn’t do those two things.

Refusing to accept the truth doesn’t change the truth.

Have you even been following this thread?

The Catholic argument is done so poorly here it almost makes me want to argue for your side. I could do much better, in that I wouldn’t keep making the same claims after they have been addressed. Running this thread is circles is a waste of time.

I’ve proven Luther didn’t remove books.

Then I proved he didn’t change the place of those books in the canon, but kept it exactly as they were found and categorized in the Vulgate.

Then I proved even the Catholic church acknowledges the Protestant canaon has always been accepted byt the Catholic canon was disputed from the beginning and continued to be disputed hundreds of years after Hippo and that the Catholic Church never even set an official canon until Trent.

Then I proved Luther didn’t change the meaning of Romans by adding a word.

Yet here we are x number of posts later with Catholics making the same baseless claims

 

[ralphinal]

Kalt,
Just couple of questions:

1. The Catholic Bible lacks books found in the Orthodox Bible. Who changed the canon?
2. The Catholic Church declared papal infallibility, when speaking ex cathedra, without benefit of a full ecumenical council (including the East). As the Orthodox deny this and other statements about the pope since the schism, who changed doctrine?

Just curious,
Jon

I do not know enough of the first to answer. As two the second, there are two possible answers. First, in leaving the Church, the EO chose not to participate. In other words, the Councils were still valid. Second possiblity, the EO were invited and did not attend. Either way, it is not the Church’s problem.

 

[TertiumQuid]

So, I went to a Lutheran site and found this:
That site says that Luther did indeed insert the word “alone”. It’s very difficult to read but it is there. They don’t let you copy and paste from there or I would have put that part up here, so, you’ll have to go and read it yourself. (It’s very difficult to read.)
collections.lstc.edu/gruber/luthers_bible/1522.php

Luther approached the work of a translator honestly. If Luther was attempting to radically distort the New Testament, his alleged doctored work failed in many ways. Luther did not add the word “alone” to Galatians 2:16, nor did he remove “alone” from James 2. Even in his revision of the Latin Vulgate, Luther left the Latin of Romans 3:28 as it was.

If Luther was attempting to introduce a radical mistranslation into church history he likewise failed. Luther mentions others before him translated Romans 3:28 as he did (for example, Ambrose and Augustine). The Roman Catholic writer Joseph Fitzmyer verified Luther’s claim, and also presented quite an extensive list of those previous to Luther doing likewise. Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.” It is entirely possible Luther’s understanding of “faith alone” differs from those before him, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the thrust of Romans 3:28 implies “alone.” Others previous to Luther may have differed in theological interpretation, yet saw the thrust of the words implied “alone.” Hence, as a translator, Luther holds company with others, and cannot be charged with a mistranslation. If he’s guilty of such a charge, so are many before him.

But the entire Catholic crusade against Luther on this issue is entirely unjustified when evaluated by their own paradigms. To my knowledge, there was not any official dogmatic statement prohibiting Luther from either translating the Bible, or translating Romans 3:28 as he did. There was not an infallible interpretation of Romans 3 during Luther’s translation work. Until such dogmatic declarations, those throughout church history previous to such cannot be held anathema for their positions or interpretations of Biblical passages. Further, there wasn’t a defined Roman position on Justification previous to Luther. That is, Catholics cannot even indict Luther’s understanding of justification, because previous to Trent, there was not “one” Catholic understanding of justification. Therefore, Catholics who criticize Luther for not having “authority” to translate as he did forget their own Church allowed Luther to do so without him posthumously falling under an anathema.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

It appears Catholics are so determined to smear Luther that they don’t seem to care whether or not the info is accurate - all that is important is that it be negative.

In regard to Luther’s Open Letter on Translating, this is inded the case. Catholics typically stop short with this letter. They typically cease reading a short distance after Luther blasts away at his Papal critics: "If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.’ " I can understand this to an extent. If my religious paradigms are being attacked, I might be tempted to say, “OK, I’ve had enough of this.”

But one must consider the other side of the coin, so to speak. One can almost feel Luther’s anger towards his Papal critics. They discredited him as a doctor of theology, a degree he earned in a rather quick period of time, and his academic abilities were above most. Indeed, he had done the work necessary to be taken seriously. His critics criticized his German translation while at the same time stealing it for their own translation- this infuriated him, and rightly so.

Luther actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[ICA04]

Friend,

You under-estimate Catholic apologetics. They can harmonize anything…just my 2 cents.

And I don’t disagree with that. The fact that they CAN harmonize just about everything is what scares the hell out of me and should as well other Christians.

 

[bobregan]

Kalt (and other Catholics on this thread) asks a very simple yet very, very important question that no Protestant has yet to answer, and quite frankly, every Protestant I ask dodges:

By whose authority does Luther (or any Protestant denomination founded by men) have to interpret Scripture differently from the Catholic Church? By whose authority did Luther (or any Protestant) have to found a church in Christ’s name?

I’m Catholic, can I differ with the Church’s teachings and doctrines, leave the Catholic Church, start my own church, and state that I have the real, true teaching of Jesus Christ in my Church? And that Jesus would allow me to do this? He would approve of this, give me His authority to do so?

The answer of course, is no.

Once again, where did Luther get the authority to do what he did?

 

[josie_L]

Have you even been following this thread?

The Catholic argument is done so poorly here it almost makes me want to argue for your side. I could do much better, in that I wouldn’t keep making the same claims after they have been addressed. Running this thread is circles is a waste of time.

I’ve proven Luther didn’t remove books.

Then I proved he didn’t change the place of those books in the canon, but kept it exactly as they were found and categorized in the Vulgate.

Then I proved even the Catholic church acknowledges the Protestant canaon has always been accepted byt the Catholic canon was disputed from the beginning and continued to be disputed hundreds of years after Hippo and that the Catholic Church never even set an official canon until Trent.

Then I proved Luther didn’t change the meaning of Romans by adding a word.

Yet here we are x number of posts later with Catholics making the same baseless claims

Actually Ginger, since I was debating the subject of the deuterocanonical books in another thread what you say is not exactly true. The deuteros were reaffirmed many times throughtout the Catholic Church’s history in many councils beginning with the Council of Rome as being divinely inspired. Individually there were those who did not agree that they were sacred books, but has I said to SyCarl, this is not a consensus.

“Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly **reaffirmed **the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it **reaffirmed **what had been believed since the time of Christ.”

There is more information which I can post but I will give you the article instead at:

www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm

 

[TertiumQuid]

The deuteros were reaffirmed many times throughtout the Catholic Church’s history in many councils beginning with the Council of Rome as being divinely inspired.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to grant hypothetically that the Roman Catholic Church infallibly decreed the contents of the Bible. That is, in 1546 at the Council of Trent, the question of canonicity was put forth before the Council, and they issued a dogmatic pronouncement of which books were “canon.” Once the Council declares something, all discussion is over! No longer can anyone question the canon.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia has pointed out, “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”

Let us remember that throughout Church history, many Christians did not hold things like the apocrypha (Deutero-canonicals) to be sacred Scripture. In the 16th Century Catholic men like Erasmus, Luther, and the great Catholic scholar Cajetan expressed doubts on some of the New Testament books as well. These men all share one thing in common. They formed their opinions on the canon previous to the council of Trent. The liberty these men had was simply the liberty as allowed by the Roman Catholic Church. If the New Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther, and a host of others previous to them had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. In the case of Luther, Cajetan, and Erasmus, theirs was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible, and published it.

Catholic apologist robert Sungenis has stated:

…it is true that only at the council of Trent did the canon finally become infallible and irreformable, and that is because Trent made it crystal clear it was doing so. The Council of Florence did not use the key words in its formulation that Trent finally used. Granted, Catholics during the time of Florence had to give their assent to what Florence decreed, but this did not mean, for sake of conscience, that a Catholic could not contest what Florence said about the canon. This is why even Cardinal Cajetan contested Florence’s canon list. So yes, Luther could contest the canon prior to Trent and do so quite legitimately. But this would only force the Church to make the final decision, and it did so in 1563, after which Luther would have been bound to obey it. If not, he would have been excommunicated, just as he was in 1520.

I suggest Catholics follow the criterion put forth by the Roman Catholic Church: Catholic theologians are granted the freedom to hold opinions on matters not settled dogmatically. If they do, well, I’ll at least respect them for being consistent Roman Catholics. If they still maintain criticism of Luther’s views on the canon perhaps they can explain on what basis they do so, for it is certainly not being consistent with the criterion put forth by the Roman Catholic Church and her infallible pronouncements.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Kalt (and other Catholics on this thread) asks a very simple yet very, very important question that no Protestant has yet to answer, and quite frankly, every Protestant I ask dodges:By whose authority does Luther (or any Protestant denomination founded by men) have to interpret Scripture differently from the Catholic Church? By whose authority did Luther (or any Protestant) have to found a church in Christ’s name?

I’m going to assume your paradigm is correct for the sake of argument. That is, Protestants don’t have any authority to interpret Bible verses differently than the God ordained infallible Roman Catholic Church.

But, if I recall, the Roman Catholic Church allows her theologians the freedom to interpret Scripture not infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic Church.

If you can produce infallibly defined verses that Luther interpreted differently, then you could say, “Luther interpreted Scripture differently from the Catholic Church.” If you can’t, you’re being inconsistent with the actual parameters set up by your religious worldview.

 

[scooter469]

I agree. Enough is enough. For some, Luther is a saint; for Catholics, Luther has been cursed to hell at Trent. It isn’t going to change now or ever for that matter. Why keep beating the issue? Either Luther is a hero in your opinion or he isn’t. This is a very polarized issue that can be argued about endlessly, but the question is Why?

Sounds about right.

 

[Ginger2]

For the sake of argument, I’m going to grant hypothetically that the Roman Catholic Church infallibly decreed the contents of the Bible. That is, in 1546 at the Council of Trent, the question of canonicity was put forth before the Council, and they issued a dogmatic pronouncement of which books were “canon.” Once the Council declares something, all discussion is over! No longer can anyone question the canon.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia has pointed out, “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”

Let us remember that throughout Church history, many Christians did not hold things like the apocrypha (Deutero-canonicals) to be sacred Scripture. In the 16th Century Catholic men like Erasmus, Luther, and the great Catholic scholar Cajetan expressed doubts on some of the New Testament books as well. These men all share one thing in common. They formed their opinions on the canon previous to the council of Trent. The liberty these men had was simply the liberty as allowed by the Roman Catholic Church. If the New Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther, and a host of others previous to them had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. In the case of Luther, Cajetan, and Erasmus, theirs was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible, and published it.

Catholic apologist robert Sungenis has stated:

…it is true that only at the council of Trent did the canon finally become infallible and irreformable, and that is because Trent made it crystal clear it was doing so. The Council of Florence did not use the key words in its formulation that Trent finally used. Granted, Catholics during the time of Florence had to give their assent to what Florence decreed, but this did not mean, for sake of conscience, that a Catholic could not contest what Florence said about the canon. This is why even Cardinal Cajetan contested Florence’s canon list. So yes, Luther could contest the canon prior to Trent and do so quite legitimately. But this would only force the Church to make the final decision, and it did so in 1563, after which Luther would have been bound to obey it. If not, he would have been excommunicated, just as he was in 1520.

I suggest Catholics follow the criterion put forth by the Roman Catholic Church: Catholic theologians are granted the freedom to hold opinions on matters not settled dogmatically. If they do, well, I’ll at least respect them for being consistent Roman Catholics. If they still maintain criticism of Luther’s views on the canon perhaps they can explain on what basis they do so, for it is certainly not being consistent with the criterion put forth by the Roman Catholic Church and her infallible pronouncements.

James Swan

That is a very well thought out point.

I like it.

 

[w_stewart]

Kalt,
Just couple of questions:

1. The Catholic Bible lacks books found in the Orthodox Bible. Who changed the canon?

The Catholic Church determined what books were to be included in the Bible and the number was 72. I guess you already have an idea who changed the canon.

1. The Catholic Church declared papal infallibility, when speaking ex cathedra, without benefit of a full ecumenical council (including the East). As the Orthodox deny this and other statements about the pope since the schism, who changed doctrine?

Just curious,
Jon

Nothing is changed so it is irrelevant to ask who changed what.