Sola Fidae

[toaslan]

Yes, Church Militant, thanks; I think I’ll let John Martignoni do the honors.

 

[steve_b]

This is Greek to me. To put it in other words: Luther used a qualifier which in English means “alone” so that the text read “faith alone” instead of just “faith.” Just how you do this in German I don’t know–maybe you can give us the German text both including Luther’s original translation, and the corrected translation, omitting the qualification, which appeared in subsequent printings of his translation?

Not so. James was speaking to the same people St. Paul was addressing: all the followers of Christ and whoever has ears to hear.

unclear

Yes, sorry, “book of straw,” which you must understand is sacrilegious to Catholic sensibilities. Luther also referred to St. James as “Jamie.” By contrast, the Catholic Church accepts the entire New Testament as divinely inspired–no one part more or less inspired than another.

Hardly. The canon of scripture was set in stone by the Church officially by the end of the 4th Century (private opinions aside)–and that final decision was simply a reconfirmation of official lists drawn up previously. All of Christendom received the same bible–the modern Catholic set of books–as divinely inspired, until Martin Luther. Luther changed the canon of the Old Testament, and tried to do so with the New–and tried to “clarify” St. Paul–all to support his doctrinal novelties.

The Church accepted it, and that’s what matters. We look to see what the Pope, and/or, the Pope in Council with the Bishops, defines on a matter in order to know what Catholicism holds. Any one man’s opinion–such as Luther’s–is merely that. Further, we do not see that St. James is “emphasizing the law” (a way to label and dismiss his teaching as inferior); rather, we are reminded by James that to belong to Christ is to live the beautitudes taught by Christ.

Contrariwise. A good translator keeps his opinion out of the work: to make an honest job he needs to transfer from one language to another with precision and without bias. A bad translator alters the meaning according to his bias. The latter is what Luther did

Catholicism tends to be uninterested in the distinction made by Protestantism between salvation and justification. Anyway, to be clear: If I impute something to my neighbor, that thing still may or may not be true of him. E.g., I may say he is a miser, but he may be instead a secret philanthropist. Further, the language is “legal imputation,” even more hollow when speaking of the Father’s handling of us. To legally impute that a man is such and such is far less real and much more “legalistic” than for a man to BE such and such.

Our God is not a lawyer to legally impute anything to us. Instead He is a much more wonderful thing: He is our Father, whose life breathes in His children, who are thereby actually (far other and more than legally) transformed into new creations in Him.

Luther likedned Christians to dunghills covered with snow: we remain disgusting filthy wretches but when covered by faith in Christ, God the Father looks only upon Christ’s white purity and we slide by undercover. But the dung remains dung. The dung depends on the “imputation” of Christ’s righteousness to get by.

[snip for space]

.

Re: Luther

From project Wittenberg Luther admits he added “alone” to faith. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

in his commentary on Gal 5, he shows faith alone is not faith that is alone.Good works must be added or faith isn’t true. Bottom line then, faith “alone” isn’t true.

From Project Wittenberg, Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5 iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal5-01.html

In particular (all emphasis mine)

• VERSE 6. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.

Luther comments

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Since good works must be added to faith, or faith isn’t true and has no purpose, then his phrase faith alone isn’t true & it contradicts what he says above.

his converting faith working in love [Gal 5:6] to faith "alone" is also not true, and a contradiction, because faith is not alone.

It’s like another phrase we hear from the E Orthodox “first among equals”. If one is 1st all aren’t equal. if all are equal one can’t be 1st. It’s a nonsense phrase

 

[toaslan]

I don’t believe this expresses the difference between us exactly. I posted a portion of the Formula of Concord

I find a new dictionary is needed to read Lutheran official writings. I think that the will to obey & unite, so as to follow Christ’s will that we all be perfectly one even as He and His Father are one, needs to be stronger than the will to, well, not.

To distinguish it from salvation sola fide, I have tried to give the Catholic understanding that, instead, salvation is by grace– if salvation must be spoken of as by anything “alone.”

You and I are being divided by Babble, that is needing another dictionary: It’s another way in which Luther divided historical Christendom into two parts (the latter division being another fact understandably distasteful to the heirs of those who, according to the historical record, did the stepping across the dividing line).

Moved by grace…guided…strength for growth…we are required to do the good works

Rather: Remade/transformed into children of the Father, we are unequivocally able to live as such.

You don’t agree that the difference is in the reality of the transformation–hence the Catholic resorts to Luther’s dunghill to show that he taught that man’s filthiness persists regardless of whether or not man is covered. One may wish to modulate Luther, but for clarity we look to the founder. .

I denied nothing regarding Luther’s use of “dung”.

Why raise the quibble.

“Table Talk” isn’t always reliable because Luther did not write it; it was written by those who heard him.

Written by his first-person witnesses, and well in line both with Luther’s other unedifying use of bathroom speak, his tendency to indulge rage and invective; and his adherence to the notion that man is disgustingly filthy considered in and of himself.

It certainly isn’t far-fetched that he did say something to that effect, considering his penchant for hyperbole.

The noted Lutheran professor Dr. Gritz says Luther did say it, both sides accept it as such. So let it be stipulated.

I disagree that: “the expression does imply the Lutheran belief that we are, at once, saint and sinner…” Rather, the expression implies Luther’s belief that we are sinner whose only recourse is to be covered by the saintliness of another. That’s why the phrase is resorted to as a summary expression of Luther’s idea. It does say it all.

It does not express well our understanding that we are to grow in grace, and yes respond to that grace by striving

JonNC, it doesn’t express that much nicer idea at all! It expresses something quite different, and I don’t blame any Protestant for looking askance at it in all its glaring glory. What it provides is that lovely thing, clarity.

…our understanding that we are to grow in grace, and yes respond to that grace by striving

So, I see from this that you find good works are necessary.

But don’t we both know that the issue is not their necessity.

It is the character of that necessity, whether that necessity is per se or per accidens. Whether good works are proper, essential, of the very nature of salvation along with faith? Whether works are of the very stuff of faith?

The more Catholic speak is to echo Paul on the obedience of faith. It is obedient faith that saves. Such obedience generates from within the graced man, from his regenerated soul’s ability to actually correspond to God permeating him. His real divine correspondence is reflected in his loving life–in his good will taking effect.

Surely you acknowledge the sharpened difference between that and such ideas as “the saved is expected to do/measured by good works,” or “a man is proven/known saved by his works,” or “good as in imputed to be good,” or “filthy but considered righteous because of Christ,” or “faith is recognized/known by works,” or “works are natural and necessary extension of faith,” etc.

I think for study there is no better place to go, in the sense of being reliably Catholic and clearly, briskly articulate, than John Martignoni. I do agree that his Bible Christian Society is a valuable resource.

Thanks for shaking hands. Pax!

 

[toaslan]

Steve b,

Good research. Luther made a lot of tracks trying to resolve the apparent contradiction differently than what had been the constant teaching til him; all while still relegating works because of relegating man. (The works of filth are filthy.)

It’s like another phrase we hear from the E Orthodox “first among equals”. If one is 1st all aren’t equal. if all are equal one can’t be 1st. It’s a nonsense phrase

agree–it sounds good though.

 

[steve_b]

Steve b,

Good research. Luther made a lot of tracks trying to resolve the apparent contradiction differently than what had been the constant teaching til him; all while still relegating works because of relegating man. (The works of filth are filthy.)

agree–it sounds good though.

Re: Luther

What’s interesting,

“Faith alone” appears only once in scripture. In front of it is NOT by faith alone [Jas 2:24]

 

[JonNC]

Re: Luther

From project Wittenberg Luther admits he added “alone” to faith. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

in his commentary on Gal 5, he shows faith alone is not faith that is alone.Good works must be added or faith isn’t true. Bottom line then, faith “alone” isn’t true.

From Project Wittenberg, Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5 iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal5-01.html

In particular (all emphasis mine)

• VERSE 6. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.

Luther comments

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Since good works must be added to faith, or faith isn’t true and has no purpose, then his phrase faith alone isn’t true & it contradicts what he says above.

his converting faith working in love [Gal 5:6] to faith "alone" is also not true, and a contradiction, because faith is not alone.

It’s like another phrase we hear from the E Orthodox “first among equals”. If one is 1st all aren’t equal. if all are equal one can’t be 1st. It’s a nonsense phrase

Hi Steve,
I would contend regarding what you have said in the bolded, and with great respect to you, that it reveals what seems a lack of understanding of what *sola fide *means, or more specifically, what the sola mean in sola fide.

We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.”

So, when we say sola fide, we are saying that justification is by faith alone. We’ve never claimed that faith can be alone. You’ve quoted Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6, where he makes it quite clear.

What comes across, and I may be wrong, but it seems you are arguing against the phrase, “faith alone”, in the same manner that sometimes Lutherans argue against “faith and works”. ISTM that if the phrase bothers one, then leave it alone. St. Paul says it right when he speaks of justification by faith working through love.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Steve b,

Good research. Luther made a lot of tracks trying to resolve the apparent contradiction differently than what had been the constant teaching til him; all while still relegating works because of relegating man. (The works of filth are filthy.)

agree–it sounds good though.

It may be good research, though I’ve posted the quote here at CAF dozens of times. There is no contradiction here: we are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ, and that faith must be a faith that works through love. This is the constant teaching of Lutheranism, which has never, ever, relegated works, but instead recognizes what scripture teaches about our works, that they are worthless without grace.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve,
I would contend regarding what you have said in the bolded, and with great respect to you, that it reveals what seems a lack of understanding of what *sola fide *means, or more specifically, what the sola mean in sola fide.

So, when we say sola fide, we are saying that justification is by faith alone. We’ve never claimed that faith can be alone. You’ve quoted Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6, where he makes it quite clear.

Alone means alone. If faith is not alone, and it isn’t, then don’t say it is alone. It’s as simple as that.
J:

What comes across, and I may be wrong, but it seems you are arguing against the phrase, “faith alone”, in the same manner that sometimes Lutherans argue against “faith and works”. ISTM that if the phrase bothers one, then leave it alone. St. Paul says it right when he speaks of justification by faith working through love.

Jon

Is justification and salvation linked at the hip so to speak?

Can one be justified and not saved? Or saved yet not justified?

As James says, very clearly, Jas 2:24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

That’s not to say a person is not justified by faith, or that one is not justified by what he does, it’s that neither one is "alone"

They go together like peas and carrots

 

[JonNC]

=toaslan;10388484]I find a new dictionary is needed to read Lutheran official writings. I think that the will to obey & unite, so as to follow Christ’s will that we all be perfectly one even as He and His Father are one, needs to be stronger than the will to, well, not.

I’m sorry that you’re struggling with it.

To distinguish it from salvation sola fide, I have tried to give the Catholic understanding that, instead, salvation is by grace– if salvation must be spoken of as by anything “alone.”

Well, of course salvation is by grace. Who is disputing that?

You and I are being divided by Babble, that is needing another dictionary: It’s another way in which Luther divided historical Christendom into two parts (the latter division being another fact understandably distasteful to the heirs of those who, according to the historical record, did the stepping across the dividing line).

Gosh, I’ve understood you just fine. At least I think so.

Rather: Remade/transformed into children of the Father, we are unequivocally able to live as such.

With the help and guidance of the Spirit.

You don’t agree that the difference is in the reality of the transformation–hence the Catholic resorts to Luther’s dunghill to show that he taught that man’s filthiness persists regardless of whether or not man is covered. One may wish to modulate Luther, but for clarity we look to the founder. .

No one is righteous. No, not one. Forget the hyperbole for a minute, and understand what he means. He means this. He means what Paul says when he complains that he does not understand himself.

Why raise the quibble. Written by his first-person witnesses, and well in line both with Luther’s other unedifying use of bathroom speak, his tendency to indulge rage and invective; and his adherence to the notion that man is disgustingly filthy considered in and of himself. The noted Lutheran professor Dr. Gritz says Luther did say it, both sides accept it as such. So let it be stipulated.

Well, then fine. If you wish to rail against the man, be my guest. I could just as easily rail against Pope Leo X, but frankly I see no benefit from either, 500 years after they dies.

JonNC, it doesn’t express that much nicer idea at all! It expresses something quite different, and I don’t blame any Protestant for looking askance at it in all its glaring glory. What it provides is that lovely thing, clarity.

I don’t know what protestants think about it. I am telling you the meaning behind it. Take it or leave it, but I promise you that you will not find me claiming to know better what the Catholic Church teaches than a well-catechized Catholic.

So, I see from this that you find good works are necessary.

But don’t we both know that the issue is not their necessity.

It is the character of that necessity, whether that necessity is per se or per accidens. Whether good works are proper, essential, of the very nature of salvation along with faith? Whether works are of the very stuff of faith?

The more Catholic speak is to echo Paul on the obedience of faith. It is obedient faith that saves. Such obedience generates from within the graced man, from his regenerated soul’s ability to actually correspond to God permeating him. His real divine correspondence is reflected in his loving life–in his good will taking effect.

Surely you acknowledge the sharpened difference between that and such ideas as “the saved is expected to do/measured by good works,” or “a man is proven/known saved by his works,” or “good as in imputed to be good,” or “filthy but considered righteous because of Christ,” or “faith is recognized/known by works,” or “works are natural and necessary extension of faith,” etc.

I suggest, with all respect, that you take a moment to read what the confessions say, not to convince you against Catholicism. That’s not my intent. But just so you have some clarity of our teachings.

I think for study there is no better place to go, in the sense of being reliably Catholic and clearly, briskly articulate, than John Martignoni. I do agree that his Bible Christian Society is a valuable resource.

With all respect to John, I find myself better educated here by the likes of Guanophore and others. John’s place seems more apolegetics against the Reformed, some of which I agree with.

Thanks for shaking hands. Pax!

My pleasure. Peace also with you.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Not so. James was speaking to the same people St. Paul was addressing: all the followers of Christ and whoever has ears to hear.

I don’t think so. James is a decidely Hebrew letter, written to messianic Jews, not Gentiles.

James 1:1

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,

To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion:

Of course you are right that it was included in the inspired canon, and is of benefit to those Christians who are also not Jews of the Diaspora, but James assumes that his audience is comprised of Messianic Jews,

 

[toaslan]

I don’t think so. James is a decidely Hebrew letter, written to messianic Jews, not Gentiles.

Quanophore,
Maybe I was unclear. The Letter of James is written to me and to you, right here, right now: the Church teaches us today what it means always. It’s a given that each book/letter is flavored by its human context; the larger context is the timeless and perennial one directing it to all mankind fully thoughout time regardless of creed, regional origin etc. My focus was on the latter.

James assumes that his audience is comprised of Messianic Jews,

James wrote, so to speak, “doubly,” both from and to this point of view; and outside of time perennially to all the faithful and to all those of good will–the Divine Author took care of that, and the Catholic Church takes care of this care.

 

[Michael1966]

I recently listened to a debate between John Matingoni, and an independent Anglican over the issue of “sola Fidae”. In this debate John was supposed to be arguing for salvation invoking works, and the Anglican argued salvation was by faith alone. I thought the debate was silly because in the end neither of them were saying what the other was accusing them of. That is…John wasn’t saying salvation was by works alone, and the Anglican wasn’t saying faith alone equalled anarchy. In the end John conceded that to get into heaven required the mercy of God through Jesus Christ…exactly the position of the Anglican. So what’s the difference? It seems as though both parties are merely reacting to a false perception of the others position?

Hi Masoncameronmay

It seems all to common that a false polaristion creeps into debates. Perhaps the good thing about that is that it becomes clear that often both “extremes” have problems and we’re all left working our way through the nuances of more middling positions.

Sometimes I do worry a little that apologetic focuses on what people disagree about, rather than on giving equal importance to what people agree on. I suppose that’s the nature of debate though - it always takes a lot longer to disagree than agree,

 

[toaslan]

I’m sorry that you’re struggling with it.

Thanks for the sympathy, but my point was, when the words start meaning whatever one wants them to mean, we go into Humpty-Dumptyland–the dispute never can resolve.

Well, of course salvation is by grace. Who is disputing that?

I will put the same point another way:

Can you leave the word “alone” out of this five word affirmation: “We are saved by faith”?

If so, can you then affirm, “We are not saved by faith alone”?

If so, can you lastly mean the same thing by the same word “faith” as used in both affirmations?

Gosh, I’ve understood you just fine.

Then show me.

I don’t feel understood. I get the sense you are talking to somebody else, because my points seem useful to you only as springboards for what seems to be an intent to instruct on Lutheranism.

If you wish to rail against the man, be my guest.

That you call “railing” my restrained characterization of Luther’s potty figuratives; his bad-tempered tirades which he himself refers to as angry; his slanders of Catholicism which are glaring to a well-informed Catholic; well, I can only think you expect some kind of reverence and “understanding” for this sad man. Unlikely. To call his verbiage “colorful” or “earthy” is to employ euphemisms. Why should a Catholic employ euphemisms, make excuses for Martin Luther?

I could just as easily rail against Pope Leo X, but frankly I see no benefit from either, 500 years after they dies.

The little difference is that Pope Anybody did not found Catholicism; while Luther founded the Lutheran Church creating the protestant schism.

Pax Christi.

 

[steve_b]

Well, then fine. If you wish to rail against the man, be my guest. I could just as easily rail against Pope Leo X, but frankly I see no benefit from either, 500 years after they dies.

Actually Leo X was quite gracious given Luther’s nasty disposition.

For example

at the end of the following encyclical
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

Leo said

As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.
But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.
Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.
Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.
We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher

That’s a huge contrast in style and charity between Leo X and how Luther communicated. As one can see, There was genuine interest in seeing if there could be reconciliation.

 

[JonNC]

Actually Leo X was quite gracious given Luther’s nasty disposition.

For example

at the end of the following encyclical
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

Leo said

That’s a huge contrast in style and charity between Leo X and how Luther communicated. As one can see, There was genuine interest in seeing if there could be reconciliation.

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/cclib-1.html

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/nine5-pope.txt

Jon

 

[toaslan]

Actually Leo X was quite gracious given Luther’s nasty disposition.

For example

at the end of the following encyclical
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

Leo said

That’s a huge contrast in style and charity between Leo X and how Luther communicated. As one can see, There was genuine interest in seeing if there could be reconciliation.

Thanks for this. We see in the Pope’s official words a father welcoming home the prodigal child who injured him. But we can imagine another version of the story in which the Prodigal Son resents being referred to prodigal, denies the relationship, redefines it so as to put himself first or even above his father; tasking and reviling and with indecent language scorning his father; and in that version there is no joyful reunion, not because the father is not regardless of all still welcoming, but because the son’s heart hardens.

And Christ still prays to His Father that all His followers be perfectly one.

 

[toaslan]

JonNC, I reviewed the first of your two linked texts, which you gave in response to Steve b’s papal text.

I am glad to have the contrast: for me it delivers the crucial difference.

The Pope speaks as a kind father ready to forgive and forget.

Luther reviles the visible Church to its leader.

He repeatedly compliments the pope not as pope but as a really nice person, meanwhile leaving all actually relevant points aside. As if approving of a pope’s personal holiness while rejecting everything about him which actually makes him your interlocutor has any relevance.

As an aside, this is why the unholiness of some popes does not much trouble the Church: her head is not such because of any personal attributes but because of his office. It is only in his office he has power over Her; it is only in his office She follows him. All else is gravy: when we have holy popes, we are very happy; when we have personally sinful popes we wait it out.

The only time the pope trumps all is when he is acting “properly”, that is as pope per se. And that’s when he speaks definitively to the whole church as its head on matters of faith or morals.

Which is the very sense in which Luther scorns the pope. (see your own text.) He scorns him ex officio, while complimenting him on his personal life: how much more beside the point can one get?

So all his nice comments on how good a man the private pope is if only he were just a man, are so much disingenuous smoke.

Anyway, the light-years difference in decent, temperate, on-point wording is there.

That one would answer the truly on-point and kind papal plea with Luther’s antics is disheartening to me; how much more must it have been for the pope.

Pax

 

[toaslan]

It seems all to common that a false polaristion creeps into debates. Perhaps the good thing about that is that it becomes clear that often both “extremes” have problems and we’re all left working our way through the nuances of more middling positions.

Yes, and on the other hand, man learns by contrast. We state a position; we see we are not understood; we restate and then throw in an opposed position simply for clarity. .

As a photographer might do, bringing some object “forward” by darkening the background.

Since we can learn by contrast, we need it as a tool especially in blurry disagreements. I suppose the danger is in losing charity while bringing contrast in the search for truth.

Sometimes I do worry a little that apologetic focuses on what people disagree about, rather than on giving equal importance to what people agree on.

I would say that for a while Catholics didn’t tend to reason with non-Catholics in favor of Catholicism. We were busy with our hugely deep faith, and if others want to get in the sandbox with us they are always welcome. But it is a work of charity to bring truth–we have it, and it is our duty to try to communicate it–that is, Him. We can do so without words–and then there is the wordy way too. After all, man is by nature a thinking, social, reasoning being…

 

[JonNC]

JonNC, I reviewed the first of your two linked texts, which you gave in response to Steve b’s papal text.

I am glad to have the contrast: for me it delivers the crucial difference.

The Pope speaks as a kind father ready to forgive and forget.

Luther reviles the visible Church to its leader.

He repeatedly compliments the pope not as pope but as a really nice person, meanwhile leaving all actually relevant points aside. As if approving of a pope’s personal holiness while rejecting everything about him which actually makes him your interlocutor has any relevance.

As an aside, this is why the unholiness of some popes does not much trouble the Church: her head is not such because of any personal attributes but because of his office. It is only in his office he has power over Her; it is only in his office She follows him. All else is gravy: when we have holy popes, we are very happy; when we have personally sinful popes we wait it out.

The only time the pope trumps all is when he is acting “properly”, that is as pope per se. And that’s when he speaks definitively to the whole church as its head on matters of faith or morals.

Which is the very sense in which Luther scorns the pope. (see your own text.) He scorns him ex officio, while complimenting him on his personal life: how much more beside the point can one get?

So all his nice comments on how good a man the private pope is if only he were just a man, are so much disingenuous smoke.

Anyway, the light-years difference in decent, temperate, on-point wording is there.

That one would answer the truly on-point and kind papal plea with Luther’s antics is disheartening to me; how much more must it have been for the pope.

Pax

That this is what you would see in his letters, is simply remarkable.

Peace, my sibling in Christ.
Jon

 

[steve_b]

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/cclib-1.html

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/nine5-pope.txt

Jon

Re: those letters, when Luther is criticised, you see the Luther the Church was dealing with.

June 15, 1520 Leo issues Exsurge Domine condemning Luther’s errors

December 1520 Luther responds to Leo’s encyclical. Note: Luther calls the papacy the antichrist. Reading Exesurge one can see Luther was a difficult person to deal with. Prior to the encyclical, Johann Eck, as you know, debated Luther which ultimately after many efforts by the Church to negotiate with Luther, lead up to the encyclicals in1520 & 1521. Luther mentions antichrist 7 times in his response to Leo’s encyclical…which he burned BTW

here’s Luther’s response to Exsurge Domine http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/luther/againstexecrablebull.html

one can also see the response here
books.google.com/books?id=NFbHwGvbIO0C&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=where+Eck+is+the+apostle+there+one+should+find+the+kingdom+of+Antichrist&source=bl&ots=o_vWEQZk5C&sig=VDi7GLKVBAdsDODVr83QN75dm7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4gopUYnbEujOigKGiYHYDw&sqi=2&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=where%20Eck%20is%20the%20apostle%20there%20one%20should%20find%20the%20kingdom%20of%20Antichrist&f=false
starting with pg 153 from the book Here I Stand is Luther’s response to* Exsurge Domine* begin reading @ Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist

Which resulted in the pope’s response

January 3, 1521
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm

Luther claims the encyclical Exsurge Domine doesn’t use scripture to back up the condemnations. Well when he admits in his letter on translation, he added sola to faith in Romans because he thought it belonged there, that introduced error as a result, plus all his other errors, he has no leg to stand on. pardon the pun.