J
Jon_Hus
Guest
I think you are confusing me (Jon Hus) with JonNC. We are not the same. JonNC is much nicer than I am.
- Status
I do not recall quoting Pope Benedict in this thread! But I am willing to quote the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
Can you join me in that?
Jon
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Yeah that blog author with all his fancy quotes… Doesn’t he realize that only Roman Catholics read history correctly?
J
Janet1983
Guest
Vatican.va is a page I frequent very often. Trying to get something older than the writings of Leo PP. XIII (Gioacchino Pecci), 20.II.1878 - 20.VII.1903 seems to be rather difficult.
Papalencyclicals.net even goes further back than that… they go back to Pope Honorious III Aug. 31, 1216 - Mar 18, 1227, but here the number of documents listed is very slim and some are only available in Latin.
Concerning the other link I can’t seem to find my way around at all…
Another question… What do you think this here means? I found it at the beginning of the Summa in the Catholic Encyclopedia and it seems to give some authority to the text:
"Because the doctor of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle: As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat – 1 Corinthians 3:1-2), we purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion, in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners. We have considered that students in this doctrine have not seldom been hampered by what they have found written by other authors, partly on account of the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and arguments, partly also because those things that are needful for them to know are not taught according to the order of the subject matter, but according as the plan of the book might require, or the occasion of the argument offer, partly, too, because frequent repetition brought weariness and confusion to the minds of readers.
Endeavouring to avoid these and other like faults, we shall try, by God’s help, to set forth whatever is included in this sacred doctrine as briefly and clearly as the matter itself may allow."
IMHO that the church does not teach everything written in the Summa anymore does not mean, that she did not do it back then. If I remember right there has been a change towards the topic of homosexual behavior in the catechism a couple of years ago. It was at least like that in Germany.
Correction: The text was changed in 1997 in Latin and 2003 in German.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Of course, we most certainly are justified by grace alone (I do believe the holy father mentioned this in his Homily). And I didn’t suggest you did quote the Holy Father, I used him as an example of what it is that was done with the fathers you claim I reject. I don’t reject the fathers, but I don’t accept a sentance (or less) of text as being proof they agree we are justified “without all works, of all laws”.
More over our coversation has really strayed now… We’re talking about Luther changing the bible. The best argument presented that he “didn’t” was that he in fact did alter the bible. But because the person making the argument agree’s with Luthers position, he assumes that Luther is correct in that he was “only making it more clear”.
It’s my assertion that Paul did not need to be made more clear. His text didn’t need to be altered and most especially that it should not have been altered. I think we can agree, that is is far from ideal to both profess the bible alone, and alter the bible at the same time.
At the very least good protistant translations (incomplete though) have finally come forward and are in wide usage. Unfortunetly there are also a host of popular not so good ones. Yet another aspect of this conversation which demonstrates Christ Jesus’s wisdom in founding one living, authoritative Church.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Try typing in a search by the name of the Pope, or if you happen to know the name of the document that is likely to get it to you far more quickly. You should be able to filter by document type (bull/encyclical/etc).
C
crazzeto
Guest
Nope, see my explanation.
J
Janet1983
Guest
I tried to search for titles and the names of popes, but the years that I was interested in mostly gave me this here:
“No files matching your search criteria were found.”
M
Matariel
Guest
This was not a condemnation of all Protestants. This was specifically about Luther, and is historically verifiable.
Don’t confuse the issue at hand.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
You could draw the conclusion. I wouldn’t. Indulgences were abused in some areas by variuos priests, Tetzel was the culprit in Luther’s area that got him hot. But Luther and the other ‘reformers’ didn’t stop with indulgences. It was an issue to get their foot in the door so to speak.
My reference to real estate is more related to guys like Henry VIII plundering the Church’s property, lands, monastaries, etc. in order to ransack the vast wealth therein for their own power-mongering greedy purposes. Protestants sometimes (not all mind you) tend to focus more on the indulgences-corruption angle on the Catholic end while minimizing the greediness and corrupt ambitions of Protestant princes and monarchs wanting to expand their political dominion and financial state. The rise of nation-states played a tremendous role in the Reformation, the desire to remove the Church from various strata of the culture so that the secular could reign things in. Real estate was at the heart of much of it.
My reference to real estate is more related to guys like Henry VIII plundering the Church’s property, lands, monastaries, etc. in order to ransack the vast wealth therein for their own power-mongering greedy purposes. Protestants sometimes (not all mind you) tend to focus more on the indulgences-corruption angle on the Catholic end while minimizing the greediness and corrupt ambitions of Protestant princes and monarchs wanting to expand their political dominion and financial state. The rise of nation-states played a tremendous role in the Reformation, the desire to remove the Church from various strata of the culture so that the secular could reign things in. Real estate was at the heart of much of it.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Okay: As for Luther, seems the OP and all who agree are judge, jury and excommunicators.
I’m happy we agree in the first sentence, but I have no clue what you are talking about with the rest. I never claimed that the pope said anything of the sort.
Yes, we have strayed, as the original OP was about pride. If you consider a translation an alteration, then you are correct. He altered it.
Then I ask the question again. If Lutherans require an “alteration” in Romans 3:28, why does that “alteration” not appear in any English translation?
To my knowledge, no English translation, including 1611 KJV, has ever used “alone” in Romans 3:28. On the second part, you are probably right.
Antioch?
Just kidding. I know which one you mean.
Jon
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
M
Matariel
Guest
By their fruits you will know them.
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
Question: why are you clouding the issue by bringing the Donation of Constantine and other real estate deals into this discussion?
S
Spun
Guest
If I understand him correctly, Gurney is right, practically speaking, the Reformation was about real estate; or at least as much so as it was about theology.
For hundreds of years the church and state had been locked in combat over their specific rights when it came to people and places in Western Europe. Sometimes the Church got the upper hand and sometimes the State did.
The Reformation was clearly seen by many secular rulers as an opportunity to cut the Gordian Knot and to appropriate to themselves many of the rights and prerogatives enjoyed by the church under the old order.
The real irony is that while the Catholic Counter-Reformation had remarkable ecclesiastical and theological success against the advances of the Reformation, the “people and places” end of things was never to be the same. The Reformation, combined with earlier successes in Catholic France, sounded the deathknell for the church as a significant political power.
And, irony upon irony, the Church is vastly better for the fact.
For hundreds of years the church and state had been locked in combat over their specific rights when it came to people and places in Western Europe. Sometimes the Church got the upper hand and sometimes the State did.
The Reformation was clearly seen by many secular rulers as an opportunity to cut the Gordian Knot and to appropriate to themselves many of the rights and prerogatives enjoyed by the church under the old order.
The real irony is that while the Catholic Counter-Reformation had remarkable ecclesiastical and theological success against the advances of the Reformation, the “people and places” end of things was never to be the same. The Reformation, combined with earlier successes in Catholic France, sounded the deathknell for the church as a significant political power.
And, irony upon irony, the Church is vastly better for the fact.
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
Spun,
I think I read somewhere that the Roman Catholic Church owned 50+% of the land in Germany at the dawn of the 16th century. Regardless of the percent, it was the largest land owner in the country. Land = wealth = power. On top of all the other wealth the church had and controlled, it’s hardly a surprize that there was bitterness. This thread has yet to factor in simony, bishops holding several sees, bishops withholding the sacraments as punishment for “misbehavior” church imposed taxes and absentee bishops.
Selling indulgences as a fundraiser to remodel St. Peters is one side of the the coin, the fact that part of the proceeds from the sale of same went to pay off debt owed by bishops who bought their office is strangly left out of the discussion.
You Spun are a rare breed on this forum as you deal in fact sans the emotion. I appreciate that.
Jon
I think I read somewhere that the Roman Catholic Church owned 50+% of the land in Germany at the dawn of the 16th century. Regardless of the percent, it was the largest land owner in the country. Land = wealth = power. On top of all the other wealth the church had and controlled, it’s hardly a surprize that there was bitterness. This thread has yet to factor in simony, bishops holding several sees, bishops withholding the sacraments as punishment for “misbehavior” church imposed taxes and absentee bishops.
Selling indulgences as a fundraiser to remodel St. Peters is one side of the the coin, the fact that part of the proceeds from the sale of same went to pay off debt owed by bishops who bought their office is strangly left out of the discussion.
You Spun are a rare breed on this forum as you deal in fact sans the emotion. I appreciate that.
Jon
C
crazzeto
Guest
Again, I never claimed you did. I’m using this as an example of what you’re going with the EFC’s. I post a homily written by the holy fathers. Already, because that homily has a senteance “…in that sense, Luther was right…” some protistants in this very thread are saying
“see, the pope is saying Luther was right”, when in fact that’s not what the Holy Father was saying.
That’s what you’re doing to the EFC’s. You’re posting less than a sentance out of a handful of works to try and prove they agreed with Luther. If you want a responce, please post something in full context, particularly since you were going on so much about context your self re: Luther.
Your own posts, prove your comments incorrect. Luther didn’t just translate, he mis-translated purposfully, your posting proves why he did this. In fact your entire posting was contained in the source I was using, and I was about to post it.
Luther him self acknowleges, “alone” wasn’t there. Luther him self states, he added it to make his own theology more clear in the bible. These idea’s of his, are an innovation in the faith, not shared by any truely Orthodox Christian faith.
Luther used it as a device, to push his own theology. But even from the start we see disagreement with in the reformation with regard to what Luther was doing. The other reformers for instance, disagreed with Luthers stance on James, Hebrews, Jude & Apocolypes. Because of this, the books are retained in your tradition. The same reformers, most certainly felt equally uneasy with the addition of any words to any Epistles or Gosples. With the certain exception of the doxology to the Lords Prayer in Matthew, which was not added for reasons of theology, but rather due to copy error in that Gosple, and it never got caught until it became as doctrinal as anything can get in the Protestant faith tradition.
See above, btw no English king was ever Lutheran.
Antioch?
Just kidding. I know which one you mean.
Jon
C
crazzeto
Guest
More of Luthers reasoning process:
German language, if mention is made of two things, of which one is asserted and the other excluded, we use the word Solum (alone) with the word (not or no), as when we say: 1 The peasant brings only corn (allein korn) and no money.’ So also: ‘I have really no money now, but only corn.’ ‘I have only eaten, and not yet drunk.’ ’ Have you only written, and not read it over ?’ and so on in innumerable expressions of daily life. Although in all these sentences the Latin or Greek language does not do so, nevertheless, the German does (use Solum), and it is customary (in German) to add the word (alone), in order that the word (not or no)** may be more powerful and clear**. For although I also say: ‘The peasant brings corn and no money,’ nevertheless, the word (no money) is not as powerful and clear, as when I say ’ The peasant brings only corn, and no money.’ "*3
Here is the authors discourse on alleyn:
And one last point, do German bibles still use Luthers translation? Or have they also decided, perhaps Luther was a little rash, in deciding Paul needed to be made “more powerful and clear”.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Lastly, just to emphisise once again regarding context, I do believe you brought Saint John Chrysostom in your previous response? And you suggested he supported Luther’s position of justification, with out all works of all laws, based upon less than a sentance where “faith alone” appears. It is quite strange then, that the same saint also wrote:
From his fourth homily on Genesis:
"Therefore, I ask, let us not become careless about keeping the commandments, but let us control our thoughts, First, then, let us try to win over our neighbor with love [brotherly affection] [cf. Rom 12:9f] and according to the blessed Paul, ‘outdo one another in showing honor’ [Rom 12:10]. For this is, indeed, what holds together and preserves our life; and in this we are distinguished from the animals and the beasts, that we can, if we will, keep the appropriate order in us, and show great concord with our fellow men, and restrain our thoughts, and crush anger, that untamed beast, and always have before it the struggle of the awesome judgement. For it is not fitting for us to simply spend the time without purpose; but every day and hour we should have before our eyes the judgement of the Lord, and also those things which can give great assurance, and those things which emphasize punishment. And thus recalling these things in our minds, let us overcome our base passions. Let us restrain the temptations of our flesh and ‘put to death,’ in the words of blessed Paul, ‘What is earthly in you’ [Col 3:5] that we may be able to receive the ‘fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, etc.’ [Gal 5:22]. For the grace of God makes us more sturdy than a diamond and in every way invincible, if we would will it. Let this be the difference between a Christian and the ungodly person: that he [the Christian] wishes to bring forth the fruit of the Spirit. Let us not pride ourselves in name only, nor be conceited on account of external appearance. But even if we would possess the things, we should not be greatly conceited, but rather should we humble ourselves even more. Scripture says: ‘when you have done all, say we are unworthy servants’ [Lk 17:10]. If we would think thus and be concerned about our own salvation, we will be able to benefit ourselves and also rescue from the future hell those who have us for their teachers, so that when we accomplish with strictness this course of life, we may be deemed worthy of God’s love for mankind in the future age. [69]
From his fourth homily on Genesis:
"Therefore, I ask, let us not become careless about keeping the commandments, but let us control our thoughts, First, then, let us try to win over our neighbor with love [brotherly affection] [cf. Rom 12:9f] and according to the blessed Paul, ‘outdo one another in showing honor’ [Rom 12:10]. For this is, indeed, what holds together and preserves our life; and in this we are distinguished from the animals and the beasts, that we can, if we will, keep the appropriate order in us, and show great concord with our fellow men, and restrain our thoughts, and crush anger, that untamed beast, and always have before it the struggle of the awesome judgement. For it is not fitting for us to simply spend the time without purpose; but every day and hour we should have before our eyes the judgement of the Lord, and also those things which can give great assurance, and those things which emphasize punishment. And thus recalling these things in our minds, let us overcome our base passions. Let us restrain the temptations of our flesh and ‘put to death,’ in the words of blessed Paul, ‘What is earthly in you’ [Col 3:5] that we may be able to receive the ‘fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, etc.’ [Gal 5:22]. For the grace of God makes us more sturdy than a diamond and in every way invincible, if we would will it. Let this be the difference between a Christian and the ungodly person: that he [the Christian] wishes to bring forth the fruit of the Spirit. Let us not pride ourselves in name only, nor be conceited on account of external appearance. But even if we would possess the things, we should not be greatly conceited, but rather should we humble ourselves even more. Scripture says: ‘when you have done all, say we are unworthy servants’ [Lk 17:10]. If we would think thus and be concerned about our own salvation, we will be able to benefit ourselves and also rescue from the future hell those who have us for their teachers, so that when we accomplish with strictness this course of life, we may be deemed worthy of God’s love for mankind in the future age. [69]
- Status