The key to showing the error of Protestantism

[pablope]

W

No more than others who held similar views. The fact is that prior to Trent Catholics had the liberty to hold views about the canon. See Cajetan, and numerous others.

Jon

But Cajetan and others had different motives than that of Luther, is it not?

I do not think Cajeran and others ever held that the Councils could err.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

The Canon and the Council
Refuting the Argument that Canon was not established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible.

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

 

[pablope]

he

No truly ecumenical council set a canon, which is why there are variations in the Eastern sees.

.

So you are saying that the efforts of Pope Damasus to convene Carthage, and the efforts of Augustine and the bishops who met with him debated and discussed, and settled on a canon later submitted to the pope for sending to the other churches…was a complete waste of time and effort since what they did at Carthage could be in error and was not an ecumenical council…

 

[steido01]

But Cajetan and others had different motives than that of Luther, is it not?

I do not think Cajeran and others ever held that the Councils could err.

Well, you’re kind of arguing against your own question here. Either the good Cardinal agreed that Councils could err, or he didn’t think Councils were binding, because he came to the same conclusion as Luther.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

The only thing dishonest here is Michuta’s unfounded assertion of total hypothetical as unquestionable fact. You don’t know how Luther, or other Catholics, would have responded had the issue been settled earlier. It may not have even been a point of contention! Heck, it isn’t to some Lutherans.

 

[pablope]

Well, you’re kind of arguing against your own question here. Either the good Cardinal agreed that Councils could err, or he didn’t think Councils were binding, because he came to the same conclusion as Luther.

I have never seen a statement from Cajetan that he ever held that councils could err.

The only thing dishonest here is Michuta’s unfounded assertion of total hypothetical as unquestionable fact.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;14358274]

I have never seen a statement from Cajetan that he ever held that councils could err.

Then obviously he didn’t think the canon infallibly defined

But Luther knew it was settled:

Settled in what way? He included them.

Well…does the Bible in your parish contain the DC’s?

Mine does. Luther’s did. All should.

 

[PRmerger]

Mine does. Luther’s did. All should.

Not sure what you mean by: as Luther’s did.

Did he have/make/create his own Bible, and it was different from the one the CC endorsed?

 

[JonNC]

Not sure what you mean by: as Luther’s did.

Did he have/make/create his own Bible, and it was different from the one the CC endorsed?

Luther’s translation included all of the DC’s

 

[PRmerger]

Luther’s translation included all of the DC’s

Luther’s translation.

Who authorized him to make a translation? (And to put the DCs in the back)

 

[pablope]

QUOTE=JonNC;14358361]

=pablope;14358274]
Then obviously he didn’t think the canon infallibly defined

Again, I have not seen a statement from Cajetan if he held the view that councils could err.

Though he may not have though the canon infallibly defined…he know a line he would not cross…being a cardinal himself…in expressing his views…though in the most famous quote supplied of Cajetan on his view of the canon…he actually agrees with Augustine and Carthage on the canon.

Settled in what way? He included them.

Though he included them, he still thought otherwise on their inclusion in the canon.

Again reposting this quote:

his is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), **but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it. **

Mine does. Luther’s did. All should.

Good for you and your parish. Still waiting for other Lutherans to weigh in.

 

[JonNC]

Luther’s translation.

Who authorized him to make a translation? (And to put the DCs in the back)

Who said he couldn’t (and put the DCs in the middle ) ?

 

[PRmerger]

Who said he couldn’t (and put the DCs in the middle ) ?

No priest has the authority to create his own Bible.

And there is no doubt that this is what he did. There are over 57,000 references to “Luther’s Bible” on Google (not to mention, your own reference).

He wasn’t even a bishop, right?

Can you imagine any pastor in your church deciding that he should make his own Bible, and determine what goes where?

 

[JonNC]

No priest has the authority to create his own Bible.

And there is no doubt that this is what he did. There are over 57,000 references to “Luther’s Bible” on Google (not to mention, your own reference).

He wasn’t even a bishop, right?

Can you imagine any pastor in your church deciding that he should make his own Bible, and determine what goes where?

He didn’t create the Bible, he translated it. We refer to the ESV, and other translations all the time.

When Rome excommunicated him, they also excommunicated their authority over him

 

[PRmerger]

He didn’t create the Bible, he translated it. We refer to the ESV, and others.

He translated it, and made some changes.

Unauthorized.

No more unauthorized than a pastor in a church doing the same thing today.

 

[cominghome1966]

When Rome excommunicated him, they also excommunicated their authority over him

Is this true? It seems counterintuitive to me. He was still baptized, after all.

 

[Church_Militant]

He didn’t create the Bible, he translated it. We refer to the ESV, and other translations all the time.

When Rome excommunicated him, they also excommunicated their authority over him

Jon that’s not true, since all such actions are restorative and an effort to call the person back via repentance to right living and correct doctrine. It in no way relinquishes authority and I don’t think you can provide either scripture or church teaching to support your position.

Luther might has taken it that way even though as a Catholic priest he would have known better, so again there is no excuse for that misinterpretation.

So what if Luther mistranslated his version of the Bible.

The fact is that Catholic vernacular translations of scripture were already in existence a very long time before he was even born. There’s a lot of documentation for this fact, I assure you.

 

[steido01]

He translated it, and made some changes.

Pause.

What “changes” did Luther make to the Bible that aren’t part of the natural process of translation and that the Catholic Church would disagree with? Name. One.

Hint: before giving an uninformed answer, be sure to read about how Luther’s translation was plagiarized by the very individuals who said it was ‘bad.’ See also Pope Benedict’s General Audience from 11/19/2008.

 

[PRmerger]

Pause.

What “changes” did Luther make to the Bible that aren’t part of the natural process of translation and that the Catholic Church would disagree with? Name. One.

Hint: before giving an uninformed answer, be sure to read about how Luther’s translation was plagiarized by the very individuals who said it was ‘bad.’ See also Pope Benedict’s General Audience from 11/19/2008.

Bye, steido.

Wish we could dialogue, but I don’t do snark.

 

[steido01]

Bye, steido.

Wish we could dialogue, but I don’t do snark.

Snark? I didn’t post some flippant meme or gif. But ok.

It’s disappointing that you don’t want to converse.

This is a pattern I’ve noticed becoming more common, not just on the Internet, but in life. (Especially during this last election!) When faced with a substantive opposing view, folks seem inclined to make some unsubstantiated claim and summarily declare a conversation ‘over,’ rather than educate themselves and actually engage in discussion over real sources – primary texts and processes. We all lose so much when we’re too afraid of questioning our suppositions.

I sincerely hope you’ll reconsider.

 

[PRmerger]

He didn’t create the Bible, he translated it. We refer to the ESV, and other translations all the time.

Imagine if your pastor decided to re-do the Bible your congregation uses.

Would you be ok with that?

When Rome excommunicated him, they also excommunicated their authority over him

Let’s say someone was a member of the early Church, followed the apostles around, had that indelible mark placed on his soul, and then cut off all communion with these apostles.

Do you not think still that the apostles had authority over him and his beliefs? Were he to profess, “I’m a Christian and I am going to worship Mary”, would it not be correct for the apostles to say: you are not permitted to profess to be a Christian and worship Mary?

 

[steido01]

Open for anyone.

What “changes” did Luther make to the Bible that aren’t part of the natural process of translation and that the Catholic Church in his day would disagree with?