The key to showing the error of Protestantism

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;14367471]He had no right to do what he did.

then neither did Jerome, and neither did Cajetan, and Erasmus. You can’t honestly hold one standard for Luther and another for others.

No more than your current pastor does today.

In fact, everything that Luther did (which got him in trouble), you would object to if your pastor did.

Luther was not in the Catholic Church when he wrote is translation.

It’s quite apropos, Jon. It speaks to whether we’re talking about “liberty” in the context of free will.

Then answer my question. Did Jerome have to go to confession for the grave sin of having opinions about the canon? Did Cardinal Cajetan have to go to confession for this grave sin?
Yours is a hyperbolic absurdity at best.

Perhaps you can offer some quotes as to what you’re referencing with Jerome, Erasmus and Cajetan?

I encourage you to seek out Fr. Jared Wicks, S.J., William Webster, and some others. The positions are well known and not a matter of historic question.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

then neither did Jerome, and neither did Cajetan, and Erasmus. You can’t honestly hold one standard for Luther and another for others.

They deferred to the authority of the CC.

Luther defied the authority of the CC.

That is as big a difference as your teenage son saying, “I hate that you’ve grounded me!” and staying in…and saying, “I refuse to submit to your authority to ground me” and leaving your home when told he can’t.

 

[PRmerger]

Luther was not in the Catholic Church when he wrote is translation.

Irrelevant.

He had no more authority to write a translation than you or I do.

Then answer my question. Did Jerome have to go to confession for the grave sin of having opinions about the canon? Did Cardinal Cajetan have to go to confession for this grave sin?

I never offer an opinion as to whether someone must go to confession.

 

[PRmerger]

I encourage you to seek out Fr. Jared Wicks, S.J., William Webster, and some others. The positions are well known and not a matter of historic question.

Jon

The “position” that the deuterocanon is not theopneustos?

Is that what you mean?

 

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;14367585]That quote is not to your purpose. Not to mention, it has no citation and is taken out of context.

Check out William Webster. Check out Fr. Jared Wicks, S.J.
The quote is to my purpose, that being that Catholics prior to Trent were allowed to question and dispute the canonicity of books. This is not

Be that as it may, you have failed to show any comparison between Luther moving canonical books of the Bible into the “Apocrypha” (IOW, not inspired God Breathed Scripture,) and what Cajetan says, which is no more than what Bible Scholars today have been saying, both in Catholic and Protestant bibles. But no one today is moving books OUT of the canon and INTO the Apocrypha. And even in the past, Luther is the sole example of such presumption.

The issue is not Luther moving the books, because that movement merely presents his opinion about the books. Cajetan’s view and Luther’s about the canon are similar.

It is well known that St. Jerome did doubt the canonicity of some of those books of the Bible,

Well, I’m happy we finally got that out of the way.

but entirely deferred to Catholic teaching when Carthage and the Pope ratified their canonicity. Something Luther defiantly refused to do after 1000 years of Church reception

Then your argument is not that Luther had opinions about the books, or even that he was allowed to, but that he refused to defer to Rome regarding the canon. I can agree with that, to the extent that Catholics were required to pre-Trent. In fact, I think it is a valid criticism, but it is one you have to be willing to make against Cajetan, as well.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The “position” that the deuterocanon is not theopneustos?

Is that what you mean?

The position that Cajetan did not think the deuterocanon was canon:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha,…"

He places them amongst the Apocrypha, just like Luther did. Just like Luther did!!!
And yet, both of them thought they should be read.
(Cajetan - “Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose.”
Luther - “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”)
Neither excludes them from the Bible. Lutherans and Catholics both read from them in the lectionary. In the Christmas eve mass we read from Baruch in my Anglican parish.

I’m not even arguing that Cajetan and Luther were right in their opinions of the DC books. I am only arguing that they were both permitted their opinions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;14367746]Irrelevant.
He had no more authority to write a translation than you or I do.

What is irrelevant is the question of authority regarding his opinion of the canon in this discussion. We can talk about authority all we want, however, if you like. Such as, which of the 7 truly ecumenical councils give the pope universal jurisdiction? It is a question of authority, but not directly germane.

I never offer an opinion as to whether someone must go to confession.

Are you then offering your opinion as to whether the CC holds ones pre-Trent liberty to an opinion of the canon as a sin equal to adultery?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

They deferred to the authority of the CC.

Luther defied the authority of the CC.

That is as big a difference as your teenage son saying, “I hate that you’ve grounded me!” and staying in…and saying, “I refuse to submit to your authority to ground me” and leaving your home when told he can’t.

Perhaps, but it is a different topic. Luther was already excommunicated. He was not excommunicated because of his opinion of the canon.
It is more like someone who has thrown their 18 year old son out of the house, and then tries to ground him.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Church Militant;14359393]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.

I’m sure he knew this. I’m sure he knew the situation. I think we also know that the level of hostility and tension was well beyond Luther considering, "what might the pope think’?

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.

Luther never denied that there were vernacular translations. Luther’s complaint was that they were not good German. Luther speaks to this in his Open Letter on Translating.

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads 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 vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. 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 allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

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 language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I am to follow these donkeys, they will lay the original before me literally and translate it thus: “Aus dem uberfluss des hertzen redet der mund” [out of the excessiveness of the heart the mouth speaks]. Tell me, is that speaking German? What German could understand something like that? What is “the excessiveness of the heart”? No German can say that; unless, perhaps, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too generous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be correct. “Excessiveness of the heart” is no more German than "excessiveness of the house, “excessiveness of the stove” or “excessiveness of the bench.” But the mother in the home and the common man say this: “Wes das hertz vol ist, des gehet der mund über” [What fills the heart overflows the mouth]. That is speaking good German of the kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always successfully. The literal Latin is a great obstacle to speaking good German.

There is more, but one sees the point.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

It was Pope Benedict who said ‘For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true’, and he explained why in the linked article.

And he managed to SAY it without shouting.

Heh. But not for lack of enthusiasm, I’m sure.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps, but it is a different topic. Luther was already excommunicated. He was not excommunicated because of his opinion of the canon.
It is more like someone who has thrown their 18 year old son out of the house, and then tries to ground him.

Jon

Not sure why you keep going back to his excommunication, as if that gave him, ironically, permission to do anything he prayerfully discerned was correct.

That would be like some of Jesus’ disciples going around proclaiming that Christians profess Mary to be a goddess, and when censured by an apostle, declaring, “Hey, I’m not a member of your group anymore, so…”

 

[inocente]

He had no more authority to write a translation than you or I do.

As Luther was legally dead when he made the translation, I think any court would rule all contracts and vows he may have made null and void.

In any event, Pope Benedict has quoted from the translation, which would seem to authorize it posthumously.

Although I’m a little confused as to why it matters.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

Then your argument is not that Luther had opinions about the books, or even that he was allowed to, but that he refused to defer to Rome regarding the canon. I can agree with that, to the extent that Catholics were required to pre-Trent. In fact, I think it is a valid criticism, but it is one you have to be willing to make against Cajetan, as well.

I’m glad we can agree on something!

But where we part ways is that Cajetan had opinions, but in no way defied the Church.

Your view appears to be that Luther was just a good Catholic with allowable opinions. I think we both know that is overly simplistic and disingenuous.

 

[PRmerger]

Your view appears to be that Luther was just a good Catholic with allowable opinions. I think we both know that is overly simplistic and disingenuous.

Yep.

And I think we all know that were any good Lutheran cleric to do what Luther did to the CC, the Lutheran communion would object.

 

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;14368697]I’m glad we can agree on something!

I think we probably agree on a whole lot more than this.

But where we part ways is that Cajetan had opinions, but in no way defied the Church.

Your view appears to be that Luther was just a good Catholic with allowable opinions. I think we both know that is overly simplistic and disingenuous.

Well, the whole conversation, over an internet forum, is simplistic. There are great details in the history of that era we simple can’t and won’t cover.

My view is that, very clearly, at during the time prior to Trent, Catholics had the Christian liberty to have and state their opinions about the canon. This is historically undeniable. To the extent that both Cardinal Cajetan and Father Martin exercised that liberty, they had the privilege to do so.
If we want to extend that conversation into, did Luther have the authority to translate, we can, but it is a different, though related, conversation.
If we want to extend that conversation into whether or not both of them were right in their similar opinions, again, we can, but it is a different, though related, conversation.

Additionally, my view on the subject is that Luther is clear in his prefaces as to why he held those opinions regarding the seven DC books. He does not state that he held those opinions because of the doctrines contained therein. So, unless someone has documentation that he did state such a reason (even at Leipzig he doesn’t say that), we must out of charity, and respect for the 8th commandment, assume he is being honest.
And again, if we want to extend that conversation into, was he correct in his honest assessment, we can, but it is a different, though related, conversation.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

My view is that, very clearly, at during the time prior to Trent, Catholics had the Christian liberty to have and state their opinions about the canon. This is historically undeniable. To the extent that both Cardinal Cajetan and Father Martin exercised that liberty, they had the privilege to do so.

No one is denying that they had permission to do so.

Where Fr. Luther got it wrong, treacherously wrong, was to defy the authority when she spoke.

 

[JonNC]

Yep.

And I think we all know that were any good Lutheran cleric to do what Luther did to the CC, the Lutheran communion would object.

You can keep repeating this, but your timeline is incorrect. If a **former **Lutheran cleric questioned the Lutheran view of something, any Lutheran objection would be irrelevant.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

You can keep repeating this, but your timeline is incorrect. If a **former **Lutheran cleric questioned the Lutheran view of something, any Lutheran objection would be irrelevant.

Jon

And, again, if a FORMER follower of Christ goes around professing that Mary is a goddess, he would be rebuked.

And you would agree with that.

 

[JonNC]

No one is denying that they had permission to do so.

Where Fr. Luther got it wrong, treacherously wrong, was to defy the authority when she spoke.

It has been, over my years here at CAF, constantly denied that he could do so. But I’m happy you agree that the privilege existed.

Now, please tell me if I understand you correctly:

1. Fr. Martin got it wrong because he endeavored to translate without permission. Yes?
2. Fr. Martin got it wrong because he changed the order of the books in the Bible to reflect his view regarding the DC’s. Yes?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

It has been, over my years here at CAF, constantly denied that he could do so. But I’m happy you agree that the privilege existed.

Now, please tell me if I understand you correctly:

1. Fr. Martin got it wrong because he endeavored to translate without permission. Yes?
2. Fr. Martin got it wrong because he changed the order of the books in the Bible to reflect his view regarding the DC’s. Yes?

Jon

I would first like you to acknowledge my (at least 4 posts) that parallel a disciple of Christ leaving and then professing that Mary is a goddess.

What say you to that?