The reformation was based on PRIDE

[erikd]

And this IowaJay, is the reason why I mentioned to erikd to let go of this thread or wear egg on his/her face. Historic facts are inconvenient to this individual. The difference between me and you IowaJay is you have the willingness to post your primary sources.

I on the other hand consider it a waste of time since the other party is not listening.

I’m listening, Jon, would you like me to just keep repeating the same thing over and over even though I’ve already written it? I’m just trying to keep from being redundant. By the way, perhaps you, as a student of history and not historically ignorant can answer my question which I’ve been asking from the beginning of this thread: Which part of the OP is historically incorrect? Can you cite some sources to prove your answer? I’m earnestly asking the question with charity in my heart as I want to know where the Church erred in publishing this Doctrinal Catechism. My request is for information and it is sincere. We are now over 200 posts and noone has proven the OP incorrect, from a historical standpoint. Perhaps a student of history, such as yourself, can do this, I’m asking with sincerity and charity in my heart.

 

[Spun]

You sound fairly certain, I assume you have some evidence? After all, you just accused a Catholic Priest and two Catholic Bishops of blatantly lying. By the way, since you claimed that not much psychological evidence exists, did you not see the Catholic Encyclopedia quotes regarding Luther’s state of mind?

Not lying so much as fabrication, but I suppose it amounts to the same difference, so yes, I guess I am. I do, of course, take into consideration that Keenan wrote a long, long time ago when standards were different and when ‘ecumenism’ wore a very different face.

That said, until you show some evidence for his claim, it’s the only conclusion we are left with.

I read what the CE said and it said nothing about him starting the Reformation because he was jealous of the Dominicans.

 

[erikd]

Not lying so much as fabrication, but I suppose it amounts to the same difference, so yes, I guess I am. I do, of course, take into consideration that Keenan wrote a long, long time ago when standards were different and when ‘ecumenism’ wore a very different face.

That said, until you show some evidence for his claim, it’s the only conclusion we are left with.

I read what the CE said and I’ll say this about the CE: sometimes it’s very good and sometimes not so much, we need to be careful when we read it. At any rate, it said nothing about him starting the reformation because he was jealous of the Dominicans.

Wow! Just out of curiosity, do you, as a Catholic, trust anything Catholic?

 

[Spun]

Wow! Just out of curiosity, do you, as a Catholic, trust anything Catholic?

Of course I do. I just don’t trust everything.

 

[Spun]

I could learn to trust you if you’d just substantiate the claim that Luther started the Reformation because the Dominicans got the indulgence rather than the Augustinians.

 

[JonNC]

=erikd;6375151]This, of course, led to the false understanding of works not being necessary for salvation, which is contrary to the entire second chapter of the Book of James, which was not canonical according to Martin Luther.

The tales of your old polemicist aside, here is what Lutherans beleive about faith and works.

1. That good works certainly and without doubt follow true faith, if it is not a dead, but a living faith, as fruits of a good tree.

7] 2. We believe, teach, and confess also that good works should be entirely excluded, just as well in the question concerning salvation as in the article of justification before God, as the apostle testifies with clear words, when he writes as follows: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, Rom. 4:6ff And again: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast, Eph. 2:8-9.

8] 3. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.

9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.

10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

11] 6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

12] 7. Yet this is not to be understood otherwise than as the Lord Christ and His apostles themselves declare, namely, regarding the liberated spirit, that it does not do this from fear of punishment, like a servant, but from love of righteousness, like children, Rom. 8:15.

13] 8. Although this voluntariness [liberty of spirit] in the elect children of God is not perfect, but burdened with great weakness, as St. Paul complains concerning himself, Rom. 7:14-25; Gal. 5:17;

14] 9. Nevertheless, for the sake of the Lord Christ, the Lord does not impute this weakness to His elect, as it is written: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8:1.

15] 10. We believe, teach, and confess also that not works maintain faith and salvation in us, but the Spirit of God alone, through faith, of whose presence and indwelling good works are evidences.

And yes, there were several different versions of the German Luther Bible, some of them did not include the deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament and some did not include the antilegomena of the New Testament.

Publication date, please. The 1534 one - the one that Luther published - has it. So does mine, from 1984. Now, if there is a version published without the D-C’s after Luther, one cannot honestly claim that Luther removed books from the Bible.

While I understand that some Lectionaries used by the Lutheran Church may include the deuterocanonicals, they are not included in all, making it not the standard. These Books have been in the Christian Canon since 382 AD and should be in all Christian Bibles, not a few select ones.

While I might agree with you - and Luther did - here is a pre-Trent Catholic view:
Cardinal Cajetan

“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, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. 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. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

If you are to be intellectually honest, you must, must condemn St. Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan as loudly and clearly for their view of the canon as you do Luther. The parallel between these three in their views is striking, and to condemn only Luther seems to me to be intellectually untenable at best.

Jon

 

[erikd]

The tales of your old polemicist aside, here is what Lutherans beleive about faith and works.

Publication date, please. The 1534 one - the one that Luther published - has it. So does mine, from 1984. Now, if there is a version published without the D-C’s after Luther, one cannot honestly claim that Luther removed books from the Bible.

While I might agree with you - and Luther did - here is a pre-Trent Catholic view:
Cardinal Cajetan

If you are to be intellectually honest, you must, must condemn St. Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan as loudly and clearly for their view of the canon as you do Luther. The parallel between these three in their views is striking, and to condemn only Luther seems to me to be intellectually untenable at best.

Jon

Jon, I love hearing from you because you always have legitimate arguments to produce, and you produce them with charity, as I always strive to do though without as much success as you. To answer your question, I will always disagree (condemn is a strong word) with anyone who stands against the findings of 5 councils, especially when it comes to the canonization of Biblical writings. As you know, when a Church leader such as Pope Damasus proclaims, through the Council of Rome that 73 Books are canonical (though the Council of Rome only listed 71 because Baruch and Lamentations were a part of the Book of Jeremiah) that speaks volumes to the followers. By proclaiming a Book to be canonical, one proclaims that this Book is the authentic Word of God. By saying a Book is an “epistle of straw” one proclaims just the opposite.

St. Jerome did disagree with the stance of the Council, but he abided by the Council’s decision. Not only did he abide by the decision, he also admonished those who claimed he was wrong to do so. In his Vulgata version of the Bible, the first ever complete Christian Bible, all of the Books were included, even the ones he disagreed about. There was no special section where those Books could be hidden (apocrypha means that which is hidden) they were placed among their rightful place in the Holy Writ. St Jerome also did not put his commentary in the Vulgata claiming that anything was an epistle of straw, or that anything did not belong within the Bible that became synonomous with him.

Martin Luther, on the other hand, left his vows to God, married a Catholic nun, making her brake her own vows to God, and began his own brand of religion which stood in opposition to the Church he was sworn into. St. Jerome remained a good Catholic, writing many letters defending the Catholic faith. I would say the difference is substantial.

 

[JonNC]

=erikd;6377990]Jon, I love hearing from you because you always have legitimate arguments to produce, and you produce them with charity, as I always strive to do though without as much success as you. To answer your question, I will always disagree (condemn is a strong word) with anyone who stands against the findings of 5 councils, especially when it comes to the canonization of Biblical writings. As you know, when a Church leader such as Pope Damasus proclaims, through the Council of Rome that 73 Books are canonical (though the Council of Rome only listed 71 because Baruch and Lamentations were a part of the Book of Jeremiah) that speaks volumes to the followers.

First, Ericd, thank you for your kind words.

No one is arguing the point that the western Church recognized 73 books. In fact, that is precisely why Luther translated the entire western Bible. The dispute, as I see it, is two-fold.

1. Did Luther remove the D-C books in his translation?
   The answer is undeniably no. The 1534 Bible has 74 books.
2. Did Luther, before Trent, have the right as a theologian to question the canonicity of
   said D-C book? And as an extension, the authorship of James.
   The answer is an complete undeniable yes, as did every other Catholic from
   St. Jerome on. You can’t have two standards, one for Cajetan, one for Luther.

By proclaiming a Book to be canonical, one proclaims that this Book is the authentic Word of God. By saying a Book is an “epistle of straw” one proclaims just the opposite.

Not true, because you are not quoting Luther properly here. He said it was a book of straw when compared to other Epistles. But he also recognizes its canonicity, even though that was questioned by, as Luther says, the ancients. Even though he (like many
others) questioned James’ authorship, he included it as canonical.

St. Jerome did disagree with the stance of the Council, but he abided by the Council’s decision. Not only did he abide by the decision, he also admonished those who claimed he was wrong to do so. In his Vulgata version of the Bible, the first ever complete Christian Bible, all of the Books were included, even the ones he disagreed about. There was no special section where those Books could be hidden (apocrypha means that which is hidden) they were placed among their rightful place in the Holy Writ. St Jerome also did not put his commentary in the Vulgata claiming that anything was an epistle of straw,…

Hidden right in the middle? Did the councils dogmatically define the order in which to OT books were to appear? Why is there something wrong with prefaces expressing points of view, when it was allowed. Again, you are setting up a double standard.

…or that anything did not belong within the Bible that became synonomous with him.

Polemics. Eric, I know you are smart enough to understand sarcasm and hyperbole. And I know you have some understnading of the style of polemics of Luther’s day.

Martin Luther, on the other hand, left his vows to God, married a Catholic nun, making her brake her own vows to God,…

This is a complete change of subject, a diversion away from the discussion, nevermind that it ignores the fact that Luther had been excommunicated.

and began his own brand of religion which stood in opposition to the Church he was sworn into.

Polemics, not to mention it is another diversion. I could argue he was upholding historic Catholic teachings against the abuses of indulgences by men like Tetzel and Pope Leo X.

St. Jerome remained a good Catholic, writing many letters defending the Catholic faith. I would say the difference is substantial

Not in terms of their view of canon, but certainly in the standard of judgement you wish to set up for them regarding their view of the canon.

Jon

 

[Matariel]

Oh, I thought you meant the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is not as tough on Luther than the source you quoted above. I’ve read teachings of the current Pope who has put Luther in a very positive light including his infamous statement of faith alone. If I’m not mistaken, it seemed that the Pope was agreeing in some small way with Luther’s faith alone theology.

You were mistaken; the Pope has stated that there was men at fault on both sides, both the Catholics and the Protestants. But he never endorsed the errant “faith alone” view of salvation which is foreign to the Bible and the apostolic faith of the Catholic Church.

 

[Matariel]

Matariel,

First of all, let me apologize if I have offended you, it really wasn’t my intention.

Okay, apology accepted.

My tone with you has really been no different than your tone in this thread. You have been terse, dismissive and direct as well.

What? I only got “terse and dismissive” when you began attacking me personally, instead of attacking my points and offering counter-points.

But that doesn’t excuse me, so again, I beg your pardon.

Accepted.

That said, I feel like I need to point something out: As a Catholic and a History scholar I am often struck by the poor education in history my co-religionists often display.

I was raised Protestant and was filled with all kinds of stories about “those bad Catholics”. I’ve heard my share of both sides of the Catholic-Protestant debate, I can assure you. Studying history and Scripture, in fact, was what led me to embrace Catholicism.

They seem content to regurgitate what they have digested second or even third hand.

A Lutheran corrected me, and offered proof. I accepted it, and reformed my position on that statement I had made about the Deuterocanon.

At some point, and in some translations the Deutero-Canonicals have been omitted. I don’t know why this is, I could guess but it doesn’t really matter because what is at question here is whether Luther “removed” those books.

You are right, it was not Luther, although, like St. Jerome (although St. Jerome changed his position once the Synod of Rome declared them to be canonical) and others he accorded them a lesser status.

I don’t know why, in your research, you never cam across the fact that Luther included them. It is copiously attested.

Sometimes I make mistakes. The copy of the Luther Bible I used did not have the Deuterocanon, for whatever reason.

It also needs to be remembered that our own church did not categorically and finally define the canon until after Luther was dead and that before that discussion and debate among scholars was permitted.

Not quite. The Church affirmed the 73-book canon at the Synod of Rome, then was reaffirmed at the Synod of Carthage, the Council of Florence and then finally the Council of Trent. So the Church already long accepted all of these Deuterocanonical books.

 

[Spun]

Not quite. The Church affirmed the 73-book canon at the Synod of Rome, then was reaffirmed at the Synod of Carthage, the Council of Florence and then finally the Council of Trent. So the Church already long accepted all of these Deuterocanonical books.

When you say, “The Church”, do you mean the whole church? That Rome and Carthage were ecumenical councils is very much disputed. As has been pointed out in this thread, a great many Catholic scholars, princes of the church among them, felt quite free to dispute the canonicity of the deutero-canonicals. Florence didn’t stop them either since they continued to do so well into the Reformation period.

That said, it is clear that the 73 book canon we use today represented the majority opinion since apostolic times. My point was that it was not really until Trent that scholars were told that there could be no dissent from this majority opinion.

 

[guanophore]

If you are to be intellectually honest, you must, must condemn St. Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan as loudly and clearly for their view of the canon as you do Luther. The parallel between these three in their views is striking, and to condemn only Luther seems to me to be intellectually untenable at best.

Jon

The difference is that St. Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan submitted to the rule of the authority appointed by Christ. Despite their personal views, they accepted the canon as it was defined in the 4th century.

 

[KathleenGee]

Reviewing the threads going so many pages back, I am rather taken back by the inter Catholic tone…not good.

On the side line, the documents of the Spanish Inquisition were finally made open in around year 2003. It put into perspective what had happened during those years, and it was the Catholic clergy who exonerated and removed charges from many accused.

It was the laity who put to death 6,000 people. I have been in several dioceses where the priests tell the laity to refrain and they refuse to hear. And one must also understand the history of Spain…

It is best to admit that there was error on both sides…but the ongoing fracturing of Christianity over the Sacred Word of God is such a scandal and affliction that I believe it is the Great Apostasy.

 

[JonNC]

The difference is that St. Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan submitted to the rule of the authority appointed by Christ. Despite their personal views, they accepted the canon as it was defined in the 4th century.

I don’t know if they accepted it anymore than Luther did. It must also be understood that Luther, at the time he published even the NT inI think 1522, had already been excommunicated, and therefore had no responsibility to submit to the Bishop of Rome (whether or not he is or was the sole, exclusive rule of authority appointed by Christ is a debate 500 years older than the Reformation). And I think if one considers it levelheadedly for a moment, one might find it interesting that, despite his positions on the canon, despite his obvious feelings concerning all that happened, he still felt it necessary and appropriate to take the time and effort to translate and include all 73 books plus one.

Jon

 

[Shin]

“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us.”

St. Jerome

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know if they accepted it anymore than Luther did.

Had they not, they would have been excommunicated.

It must also be understood that Luther, at the time he published even the NT inI think 1522, had already been excommunicated, and therefore had no responsibility to submit to the Bishop of Rome (whether or not he is or was the sole, exclusive rule of authority appointed by Christ is a debate 500 years older than the Reformation).

No, being excommunicated is a last resort to get the attention of a rebellious subject of the Roman Pontiff. All of us have been placed under the care of St. Peter. He was given the duty to feed and care for the sheep. There is only one shepherd, and one flock. The successor of Peter is not less responsible for those who rebel against him.

And I think if one considers it levelheadedly for a moment, one might find it interesting that,  despite his positions on the canon,  despite his obvious feelings concerning all that happened, he still felt it necessary and appropriate to take the time and effort to translate and include all 73 books plus one.

I have no questions about Luthers zeal and passion for the faith. He clearly was a man seized by the desire for holiness. His method of going about getting it was off the mark.

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;6382130]Had they not, they would have been excommunicated.

Ha Ha. Perhaps.

I have no questions about Luthers zeal and passion for the faith. He clearly was a man seized by the desire for holiness. His method of going about getting it was off the mark.

This is certainly a more measured and reasonable statement than others on this thread.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Sorry, I missed the recognition of tone and its amelioration…

Kathleen…I am praying always for the restoration of one heart and one mind among Christianity…