The real Luther

[Panis_Angelicas]

Gotta hand it to you, Shibboleth, you can spin.

What a crock.

Hitler didn’t create Churchill, nor make him great. Nor did he contribute to making America great. To even suggest such a thing ruins your credibility.

But I suppose that one could turn and say that Luther made Calvin great and Henry VIII great and Knox great…great heretics.

By the way, suggesting that we ‘say something nice’ about someone who has perpetrated a great evil upon humanity should give us knot in our stomachs! It should make us kinda want to toss our cookies.

To claim that such a reaction is “hate” is bogus. Is it pop-psychology that comes up with this stuff? Or just the burning desire to defend someone whose actions are indefensible? Or, it just a good ol’ case of shoot the messenger?

Plain and simple: when someone loves Truth and goodness, and can clearly see error and evil, he should be repulsed by the error and evil. Does anyone hate Luther here? I doubt it. (How does one hate a dead man, anyway?)

But we hate what he did. He fractured the Body of Christ!

 

[Churchmouse]

The evil that men do lives after them.

And this by someone who would argue that integrity doesn’t impede infallibility. So, regardless of the evils committed by popes in the past, it’s okay, infallibility isn’t stalled by their evil deeds. Why not apply the same standards to Luther? If Luther was called by God to reform the church and, at the same time, was a heinously evil man, wouldn’t this be the same? Try looking at things from both sides of the fence. Maybe you should get yourself a copy of Papal Sins by Gary Willis or Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy by Peter De Rosa, both written by Catholics. Then we’ll talk about “evil men.”

Luther desecrated the Christian Scriptures, rejecting 11 writings from the canon --and succeeded in eliminating seven books permanently from all Protestant Bibles, but not the other four – though he declared that all 11 “were not Scripture.”

Luther wasn’t the only one who questioned these books. There were various views in the history of the church regarding various forms of canon, but there were two which held prominence: those who accepted the deuterocanonicals (i.e. Augustine, etc.) and those who didn’t (i.e. Jerome, etc.). Of those who didn’t, three were contemporaries of Luther (Pope Leo and Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan). As for James and others, true, Luther called it an “epistle of straw” but he didn’t reject it and used them, as Scripture, within his writings.

He introduced doctrines into Christianity that Christ and the Apostles didn’t teach: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide have been especially harmful.

Or it can be interpreted that he re-introduced doctrines which the church strayed from. We wouldn’t have quaint little forums like this one, if everyone felt that Luther was the one who introduced them.

[continued…]

 

[Churchmouse]

[part 2]

He splintered the Church that Christ founded, wounding it so severely that the Church still suffers to this very day. His anti-semitism was used by the Nazi’s as justification for their treatment of Jews.

Wrong again, and as I stated in a past post, this is purely conjecture. It would be the same as if I said Catholicism was responsible because Hitler was Catholic. Yes, true, Luther was anti-Jewish (as Shibboleth has stated) and the books I had encouraged you to read state that very clearly, but anti-Semitism ran rampart in this day and age, even within the Church. Why have everyone believe that the evil Luther carried a log is his eye when the Church of his day carried a lumber yard?

He approved plural wives because he “could find no Scriptural basis” for forbidding the practice.

In keeping with your misconceptions, here you have him again “approving” what you claim even though I mentioned this before. You’re misrepresenting Luther—there is a big difference in saying that smoking marijuana is a sin, but another trying to prove it from Scripture. In this same way, Luther didn’t “approve” having plural wives; he simply said that it couldn’t be proven from Scripture. Luther did compromise some things, especially to appease the political powers which had befriended him, but we don’t look upon Luther’s persona as an example of what we should be, we look to Christ. Nope, no “hero worship” here.

Shall I go on? You’re defending the indefensible and minimizing the damage that Luther wrought that will reverberate down though the centuries. It’s already been five centuries, and look at the state of splintered Christianity, in opposition to the will of Christ (John 17).

I don’t see you as the “Luther expert” and doubt if you ever will be, but some can interpret this as the stubbornness of Rome to be corrected. She was abusive and to say otherwise that would be indefensible. If she would’ve given ear to Luther attempts to dialogue than the Reformation could, possibly, have been averted. But no, she has declared herself infallible and, therefore, uncorrectable. If Christianity is “splintered” the blame goes squarely on her shoulders. Remember, Luther didn’t want to leave the Church. He only wished to dialogue, but was met instantaneously with opposition.

[continued…]

 

[Churchmouse]

The Church is facing its greatest foe in history – Islam – in a weakened condition, thanks to Luther. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. and the world because of splintered Christianity. Experts who study demographics predict that Europe will become Muslim. Gone will be the beauty and the art of Christendom. The beautiful cathedrals will become mosques.

*What??? * You mean the gates of hell will eventually prevail??? No, the church will always be even though the road is narrow and many choose the wider.

That’s Luther’s legacy.

Or, at least, “his" legacy according to you—selective commentary coming from one with an obvious chip on his shoulder.

Peace,
CM

 

[Shibboleth]

Panis Angelicas:

Gotta hand it to you, Shibboleth, you can spin.

I can squat and jump also.
Panis Angelicas:

What a crock.

What a response.
Panis Angelicas:

Hitler didn’t create Churchill, nor make him great. Nor did he contribute to making America great. To even suggest such a thing ruins your credibility.

Actually I ruined my credibility with credit cards in college, so get in line.

Churchill would disagree, as stated by his many speeches. He believed in the zeitgeist or time ghost if you will. Greatness resided in the people but it took a war to bring it out of them. Churchill said this many times and in many different ways.

I will agree with Henry David Thoreau’s view that the everyday man does things that rival the feats of Hercules, but war made man’s acts of bravery more salient.

The people choose to do the acts of bravery and that was not due to Hitler, but Hitler did set the arena for these acts of bravery to occur. They could have done the opposite but they the followed the responsible path.

“Price of greatness is responsibility.”
-Winston Churchill
Panis Angelicas:

But I suppose that one could turn and say that Luther made Calvin great and Henry VIII great and Knox great…great heretics.

Gotta hand it to you, you can spin.

By the way, suggesting that we ‘say something nice’ about someone who has perpetrated a great evil upon humanity should give us knot in our stomachs! It should make us kinda want to toss our cookies.

I am not saying for you or him to defend that which you call indefensible, I am asking for the “Hate the Sin love the Sinner” prefect. If someone loves the sinner they should be able to speak of the good or even the non-bad things that the person did without distaste. If they cannot then they have hate within them.

To claim that such a reaction is “hate” is bogus. Is it pop-psychology that comes up with this stuff?

No that would be Jesus.

Or, it just a good ol’ case of shoot the messenger?

At what point did I shoot the messenger. But it appears that…… I did not shoot the deputy

(How does one hate a dead man, anyway?)

You tell me.

But we hate what he did. He fractured the Body of Christ!

I didn’t realize that the body of Christ was so fragile that a single man could fracture it.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Shibboleth:

I can squat and jump also.

Great! Come to Mass with me, and I’ll show you how to stand, sit, and kneel!

Churchill would disagree, as stated by his many speeches. He believed in the zeitgeist or time ghost if you will. Greatness resided in the people but it took a war to bring it out of them. Churchill said this many times and in many different ways.

That still doesn’t mean that Hitler created greatness.

The people choose to do the acts of bravery and that was not due to Hitler, but Hitler did set the arena for these acts of bravery to occur.

So, the good thing about Hitler was that he set the arena for good people to annihilate his evil regime…hmmmm…

Gotta hand it to you, you can spin.

And I can stand, sit and kneel!

I am asking for the “Hate the Sin love the Sinner” prefect. If someone loves the sinner they should be able to speak of the good or even the non-bad things that the person did without distaste. If they cannot then they have hate within them.

This is your definition of hate. Mine is “hatred is wishing evil or harm upon someone.” It has nothing to do with being able to “say something nice” about the person. I would have a hard time saying something nice about an abortionist, but I wouldn’t wish him/her harm. (Oh, maybe I could say they drive nice cars…)

At what point did I shoot the messenger.

Um pointing your finger at others and accusing them of hate, and reading their viewpoints as being their “dark side.”

But it appears that…… I did not shoot the deputy

rotfl…oh great. Now I’ll have that song stuck in my head for days!!!

I didn’t realize that the body of Christ was so fragile that a single man could fracture it.

Ever hear of a guy named Judas?

 

[Katholikos]

Shibboleth:

Through his actions he created what we consider in America, “Our Greatest Generation.” Great leaders arose that may other wise have been quiet, men became heroes, and women showed their ability to be equals. Without Hitler this may never have happened.

And 405,399 young Americans would not have died. You have a strange way of thinking, Shibboleth. Stinkin’ thinkin’. The sound you hear is me retching. When I recover, I’ll pray for you.

 

[Katholikos]

Part 1

Luther gave the so-called “apocrypha” and the New Testament writings of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation exactly the same treatment in his German translation of the Bible in 1522. He removed them from their rightful placement among the Scriptures where they had remained from 382 to 1522 A.D., and placed them in a separate section at the back of his Bible with the pages unnumbered, accompanied by prefaces to explain why he did not consider them to be Scripture.

Therefore, please explain why the “apocrypha” are missing from Protestant Bibles, thus proving their rejection by Luther, but the four NT books are included.

---

QUOTE: The following is the translation from Luthers Works, vol. 35. pages 395-398. This is his preface to James and Jude. Now in green are some comments that Luther originally made that were in editions of his Bible prior to 1530. After 1530, the first comments in Green were removed. The second comments in green made by Luther were replaced by other comments that are in maroon in the editions after 1530. I do not give commentary, but I think that Luther speaks for himself: He does not consider James Scripture, even if the book was in his Bible. The Deuterocanonical books were also in his Bible. The four books that he considered not a part of the true canon, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation were never numbered with the other 23 books of the New Testament.
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow. In the first place it **is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works **2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to “save” the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses’ words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham’s works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham’s works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

(Continued)

 

[Katholikos]

Part 2

In the second place** its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15:27], "You shall bear witness to me.? All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, **even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it." (ibid).

**But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. **Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty” [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin. (Continued)

 

[Katholikos]

Part 3

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]; Love covers a multitude of sins" [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under he had of God” [1 Pet. 5:6] also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, **he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task ****in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. **He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the ancient Fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.

END QUOTE

matt1618.freeyellow.com/preface.html

 

[Katholikos]

Shibboleth,

Martin Luther drove a nice car.

(Thanks, Anna! )

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Churchmouse:

And this by someone who would argue that integrity doesn’t impede infallibility. So, regardless of the evils committed by popes in the past, it’s okay, infallibility isn’t stalled by their evil deeds. Why not apply the same standards to Luther?

No pope has ever taught heresy. That’s what it all boils down to in the final analysis.

If Luther was called by God to reform the church…

And who among us believes that?

Then we’ll talk about “evil men.”

The sins of the popes may have sent them straight to hell for all we know. But amazingly, their sins did not change the Teachings and Doctrines handed down to them from the Apostles. That’s what it means when we say integrity doesn’t impede infallibility. Luther’s pride caused him to think that he was more correct than ~ not only the Church of his day ~ but the Councils in the 4th century which canonized the Scriptures. He was full of himself! And we all know that “pride goeth before the fall…”
So, he fell away, and formed his own church.

Luther wasn’t the only one who questioned these books. (i.e. Jerome, etc.). Of those who didn’t, three were contemporaries of Luther (Pope Leo and Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan).

Really? And what churches did they found? It’s ok to question something…not ok to disobey it. They may have questioned, but did assent to the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church, remaining within the bark of Peter rather than drowning themselves in their own errors.

As for James and others, true, Luther called it an “epistle of straw” but he didn’t reject it and used them, as Scripture, within his writings.

Better read Katholikos’ posts above!

Or it can be interpreted that he re-introduced doctrines which the church strayed from.

Like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? Don’t think so. That’s why we leave the interpretting to the Authority Christ established.

We wouldn’t have quaint little forums like this one, if everyone felt that Luther was the one who introduced them.

And we wouldn’t have quaint little posters like you!! :tiphat:

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

[part 2]
Why have everyone believe that the evil Luther carried a log is his eye when the Church of his day carried a lumber yard?

You seem to hold much disdain for Christ’s Bride.

You’re misrepresenting Luther

And you’re not? His words and deeds are a part of history, which you either deny or don’t want to admit.

here is a big difference in saying that smoking marijuana is a sin, but another trying to prove it from Scripture. In this same way, Luther didn’t “approve” having plural wives; he simply said that it couldn’t be proven from Scripture.

I think he was instrumental in advising ~ as a spiritual advisor ~ someone to commit adultery by taking a second wife. That amounts to approval!

Nope, no “hero worship” here.

some can interpret this as the stubbornness of Rome to be corrected.

Rome taught no heresies. She needed no correction. Some men within her ranks should have been corrected, for sure, but the Church is not guilty. She’s the spotless Bride of Christ.

She was abusive and to say otherwise that would be indefensible.

OTHERWISE!!!

If she would’ve given ear to Luther

pardon?!!!

attempts to dialogue than the Reformation could, possibly, have been averted.

In your own words, this is purely conjecture! Do you even believe your own words?

But no, she has declared herself infallible and, therefore, uncorrectable. If Christianity is “splintered” the blame goes squarely on her shoulders.

So…Christ couldn’t see ahead to the 16th century when He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in all Truth…

Remember, Luther didn’t want to leave the Church. He only wished to dialogue, but was met instantaneously with opposition.

Yes, I can picture Luther now, nailing an olive branch to the door!!! Man, you can lay it on *thick! *But I do enjoy reading (most of) your posts.

 

[Shibboleth]

Panis Angelicas:

Great! Come to Mass with me, and I’ll show you how to stand, sit, and kneel!

Thank you, perhaps in the future I will take you up on that.

That still doesn’t mean that Hitler created greatness.

No, that title obviously goes to the screenwriters for the movie, “A Weekend at Bernie’s”

So, the good thing about Hitler was that he set the arena for good people to annihilate his evil regime

I didn’t quite say that but whatever… I was asked to say nice things about a person that I consider may have been the most insidious man to walk the earth. I didn’t have much to work with, look back at my comments again and the long quote by Churchill to understand my point.

This is your definition of hate. Mine is “hatred is wishing evil or harm upon someone.” It has nothing to do with being able to “say something nice” about the person. I would have a hard time saying something nice about an abortionist, but I wouldn’t wish him/her harm.

I wish no harm on cauliflower, but I can certainly say I hate it and I have nothing nice to say about it.

(Oh, maybe I could say they drive nice cars…)

Well, lets hope that they can drive them through the eye of a needle.

Um pointing your finger at others and accusing them of hate, and reading their viewpoints as being their “dark side.”

It was a joke that did not transfer well over the medium of the Internet; my point was that although we disagree on most everything, I still love him. I do think that he holds animosity towards Luther to the point of hate, but I have given him a chance to prove otherwise.

Ever hear of a guy named Judas?

Yes I have, from my understanding he was not the only person that was responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.

 

[Shibboleth]

Katholikos:

And 405,399 young Americans would not have died.

You asked me to say something good about Hitler, I did what I could… A man with even a limited amount of intelligence can understand that I was not condoning his other actions. Hitler, Mengele, and Himmler were a trifecta of evil acts that has no equal.

You made a promise to me that if I wrote something good about Hitler you would do the same for Luther. If you do not want to keep good on your promise just let me know. You could even use some of my post statements about Hitler to add wit.

You have a strange way of thinking, Shibboleth.

You have no idea.

Stinkin’ thinkin’.

That’s sure a witty ditty. You’re sure a sly guy. Maybe since we cannot agree, you and me, can go down by the sea and share some tea – but not too much or else I will have to go…. Well maybe I will just let that one be.

The sound you hear is me retching. When I recover, I’ll pray for you.

You have been doing that for a while and from what I can tell you have yet to recover.

 

[Shibboleth]

Katholikos:

Shibboleth,

Martin Luther drove a nice car.

Now I understand what has been happening. You are talking about Marty Luther that lives on 127 Sycamore Drive. Yes he has done very well for himself.

A most peculiar man that one. He has a habit of throwing inkwells at people and ripping sections out of books. He is always rambling on about “Olson’s Standard Book of British Birds, The Expurgated Version” – the one without the gannet.

The Martin Luther that we are talking about lived long before the advent of internal combustion engines.

Look if you don’t want to keep good on your promise just let me know.

 

[Melchior]

Katholikos:

The evil that men do lives after them. Luther desecrated the Christian Scriptures, rejecting 11 writings from the canon --and succeeded in eliminating seven books permanently from all Protestant Bibles, but not the other four – though he declared that all 11 “were not Scripture.” He introduced doctrines into Christianity that Christ and the Apostles didn’t teach: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide have been especially harmful. He splintered the Church that Christ founded, wounding it so severely that the Church still suffers to this very day. His anti-semitism was used by the Nazi’s as justification for their treatment of Jews…

The Church is facing its greatest foe in history – Islam – in a weakened condition, thanks to Luther. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. and the world because of splintered Christianity. Experts who study demographics predict that Europe will become Muslim. Gone will be the beauty and the art of Christendom. The beautiful cathedrals will become mosques.

The Nazi’s were not Nazi’s because of Luther. Your statement is not only historically innacurate it is ridiculous. Hitler hated all Christian Churches because they came out of Judaism. He was a practicing occultist. Further, St. John Chrysostom has said some equally harsh things top say about the Jews centuries before Luther as did many other Fathers. You better use the same standard on them. If not you are showing your real hand. How about criticizing the Church corruption that spawned Luther?

Also, he only left out the deutero-Canonicals. The name duetero-canonical itself will give you a clue as to why he did it. It does not make it right but even honest cahtolics understand the different status of these books. At least Luther wante dthe common man to have access to the scriptures. Even if he did leave some books out 90% is better than the 0% they were getting.

And what of Islam in the Orthodox east? More non-Catholic Christians have given their lives for the Gospel in Islamic countries than Catholics in this century and the last. You belittle the sufferings of those across the world today who are suffering under Islamic opppression. Again the Reformation was and is a Catholic problem. The conditions at the time of the reformation have plenty of blame to go around. That is what an honest assesment and a bit of historcial study will show you.

Plural wives? You really should read some primary sources. I don’t judge Catholicism based on the sexually immoral behavior that produced several children out of wedlock of certain medievel popes. You should be as charitable.

Cursing the darkness selectively will not win anyone over. But I am not sure that is you concern anyway. After what has happened in Catholicism in recent years you would think a bit of humility would be in order. Those who live in glass houses and all that.

Mel

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mel,

Even if he did leave some books out 90% is better than the 0% they were getting.

I agree that the above assertions about Luther were quite polemical, and some even quite ridiculous. However, so too is the above assertion of yours.

Martin Luther himself admitted:

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” (Commentary on St. John, ch. 16)

The Church had translated the Bible into the venacular languages of the world centuries prior to Martin Luther. In fact there were approx. 18 editions of the Bible in German before Luther’s translation. The Church has been constant in it’s teaching that “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” (St. Jerome)

St. John Chrysostom (344/354 -407 AD)

This is what has ruined everything, your thinking that the reading of scripture is for monks only, when you need it more than they do. Those who are placed in the world, and who receive wounds every day have the most need of medicine. So, far worse even than not reading the scriptures is the idea that they are superfluous. Such things were invented by the devil." (St. John’s Second Homily on Matthew )

**Pope St. Gregory I (died 604 AD) **

“The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage—and yet you neglect to read them eagerly. Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys.” (Letters, 5, 46)

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 AD)

“The person who thirsts for God eagerly studies and meditates on the inspired Word, knowing that there, he is certain to find the One for whom he thirsts.”

St. Bonaventure (1221-1274 AD) - In his day, there where no public schools and only the wealthy could afford private tutors. Therefore, most people could not read or write. St. Bonaventure had composed a copy of “Biblia Pauperum” which means the “Bible of the poor.” It contained a collection of** pictures illustrating the important events of the Old Testament. It also contained parallel scenes in the New Testament and it showed how the Old Testament prefigured and was fulfilled in the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.**

St. Teresa of Avila (1515 -1582 AD)

all the harm that comes to the world comes from its not knowing the truths of Scripture in clarity and truth… To me it seemed I had always believed this, and that all the faithful believed it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The publisher of the Cologne Bible [1480] writes:

All Christians should read the Bible with piety and reverence, praying the Holy Ghost, who is the inspirer of the Scriptures, to enable them to understand . . . The learned should make use of the Latin translation of St. Jerome; but the unlearned and simple folk, whether laymen or clergy . . . should read the German translations now supplied, and thus arm themselves against the enemy of our salvation.

Koberger Vulgate of 1477 stated:

The Holy Scriptures excel all the learning of the world . . . All believers should watch zealously and exert themselves unremittingly to understand the contents of these most useful and exalted writings, and to retain them in the memory. Holy Scripture is that beautiful garden of Paradise in which the leaves of the commandments grow green, the branches of evangelical counsel sprout . . .

The translators of the King James Version, in their ‘Preface,’ refer to previous translations:

Much about that time [1360], even our King Richard the Second’s days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . . . So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up . . . but hath been . . . put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.

 

[Melchior]

itsjustdave1988:

Mel,
I agree that the above assertions about Luther were quite polemical, and some even quite ridiculous. However, so too is the above assertion of yours.

Martin Luther himself admitted:

The Church had translated the Bible into the venacular languages of the world centuries prior to Martin Luther. In fact there were approx. 18 editions of the Bible in German before Luther’s translation. The Church has been constant in it’s teaching that “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” (St. Jerome)

St. John Chrysostom (344/354 -407 AD)

Pope St. Gregory I (died 604 AD) **
St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 AD)
St. Bonaventure (1221-1274 AD) - In his day, there where no public schools and only the wealthy could afford private tutors. Therefore, most people could not read or write. St. Bonaventure had composed a copy of “Biblia Pauperum” which means the “Bible of the poor.” It contained a collection of pictures illustrating the important events of the Old Testament. It also contained parallel scenes in the New Testament and it showed how the Old Testament prefigured and was fulfilled in the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.**

St. Teresa of Avila (1515 -1582 AD)

We don’t disagree. I was just referring to the practices of the Church at the time of Luther. I did not mean to make it sound as if it was a problem throughout Catholic history. But it was problem in Luther’s day.

Thanks for pointing that out. I had no intention of indicting the Church throughout time.

Mel