The reformation was based on PRIDE

[Spun]

Who’s being the executioner? Are any of the quotes I gave you in post #1 inaccurate? I believe that post #1 presents history in an accurate format. If you feel compelled to challenge the historical facts, please do so. Calling someone an executioner without giving accurate reason seems to be just bomb throwing.

I’ll take the challenge.

Prove then, that item one in Keenan’s screed is accurate and true, that Luther’s “pride was mortified, because the commission to preach that Indulgence was given to the order of St. Dominic, and not to his own.”

Just prove this and I’ll give the rest of it my credence. Until then it just looks like venom to me.

 

[erikd]

Is this from his Rev Keenan’s 1851 catechism? If so, do you hold to all that is taught in it?
If not why not?

I also question why you have to go back approx 150 years to a time when Catholics and Protestants openly wrote falsehoods about each other and before the time of understandings. Is this catechism in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church today?

Fr.Mark

Hi Fr. Mark, I appreciate hearing from you as I have nothing but the utmost respect for Catholic clergy. The answer is yes, this came from Fr. Keenan’s Catechism copyright 1876 which included an imprimatur from + JOHN, CARDINAL McCLOSKEY, Archbishop of New York. Much has been said of this Catechism, though much has also been mis-interpreted. The biggest issue this Catechism brought out is the infallibility of the Pope, as it pertains to the man rather then his office. As you well know, the Pope himself is not infallible, though he speaks infallibly when he speaks “ex-cathedra” under all the provisions required by the first Vatican Council which adjourned just six years before this Catechism was published. While this Catechism is over 100 years old, the teachings, as they pertain to the Scriptural defense of our beautiful faith has, as you well know, remained the same for the past 2000 years. As far as why I went back 150 years to point out the errors of proestantism, the answer is that one can go back 500 years to the beginning of protestantism or to the latest books published today, and one will find the same scriptural verses defending the same teachings which the Church has held for nearly 2000 years.

God Bless you Father Mark for all you do.

 

[erikd]

This is hogwash, it begins badly and descends from there. Keenan concludes that Luther made the choices he made for reasons other than those he gave for doing so. The idea that Luther was angry because the Augustinians didn’t get the indulgence to preach is just ridiculous.

This is a terrible piece of slander against someone who can’t be present to defend himself.

In everything, we should be honest with what people have said and written, seeing them in the context of all their works and against the background of the person’s age and culture. This is not honest; it presumes to read Luther’s mind from a distance of three hundred years for no reason other than polemical hay making and it’s disgusting.

There is plenty in Luther to take issue with, we really should not descend to the fabrication of lies.

These are pretty strong feelings and accusations. Can you tell me specifically which of the items you take issue and present evidence of why it is a lie? It seems that everything I quoted can be historically traced, and therefore relatively easy to disprove, should it prove to be false. Let me know where Fr. Keenan gave us a false representation of history.

 

[erikd]

I’ll take the challenge.

Prove then, that item one in Keenan’s screed is accurate and true, that Luther’s “pride was mortified, because the commission to preach that Indulgence was given to the order of St. Dominic, and not to his own.”

Just prove this and I’ll give the rest of it my credence. Until then it just looks like venom to me.

Since you’re Catholic I assume that the Catholic encyclopedia will be sufficient:

“John Tetzel, a Dominican monk with an impressive personality, a gift of popular oratory, and the repute of a successful indulgence preacher, was chosen by the archbishop as general-subcommissary.”

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

 

[Spun]

Since you’re Catholic I assume that the Catholic encyclopedia will be sufficient:

“John Tetzel, a Dominican monk with an impressive personality, a gift of popular oratory, and the repute of a successful indulgence preacher, was chosen by the archbishop as general-subcommissary.”

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

Yes, I am aware that the Dominican Tetzel was given the job of preaching the indulgence in Saxony.

What I am looking for is substantiation for the claim that Luther was angry because the Dominicans “got the account” and his own Augustinians did not.

 

[JonNC]

These are pretty strong feelings and accusations. Can you tell me specifically which of the items you take issue and present evidence of why it is a lie? It seems that everything I quoted can be historically traced, and therefore relatively easy to disprove, should it prove to be false. Let me know where Fr. Keenan gave us a false representation of history.

Q. What induced Luther to attack the ancient Catholic faith and invent a new creed?
A. Pride and jealousy. Pride Leo having granted an Indulgence,** Luther’s pride was mortified, because the commission to preach that Indulgence was given to the order of St. Dominic, and not to his own**.

Where did Luther make statements saying this was how he felt? If you have no quote, then Spun’s charge is correct. It is an attempt to read Luther’s mind, and determine unstated motives from a great distance of time.

From Luther’s Small Catechism

The Eighth Commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?

“We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This is hogwash, it begins badly and descends from there. Keenan concludes that Luther made the choices he made for reasons other than those he gave for doing so. The idea that Luther was angry because the Augustinians didn’t get the indulgence to preach is just ridiculous.

This is a terrible piece of slander against someone who can’t be present to defend himself.

In everything, we should be honest with what people have said and written, seeing them in the context of all their works and against the background of the person’s age and culture. This is not honest; it presumes to read Luther’s mind from a distance of three hundred years for no reason other than polemical hay making and it’s disgusting.

There is plenty in Luther to take issue with, we really should not descend to the fabrication of lies.

Thank you so much for this.

Jon

 

[erikd]

Yes, I am aware that the Dominican Tetzel was given the job of preaching the indulgence in Saxony.

What I am looking for is substantiation for the claim that Luther was angry because the Dominicans “got the account” and his own Augustinians did not.

Martin Luther took vows to obey the Church and uphold Her teachings and doctrines. He also vowed to view the Sacred Scriptures as sacred.

After taking those vows, he challenged the Church, vowed to listen to Church authorities regarding his 95 theses, and then broke that promise, eliminated seven Books from the Old Testament, claimed that seven other Books in the New Testament were not worthy of canonicity, and added words to the Bible to suit his own brand of theology. If you find enough consistency within Luther’s life to disprove the claim you are asking about, then you should present it. Otherwise, please understand the chaotic life of this founder of the reformation movement (which was really a movement of defection) which through chaos and a lack of understanding brought people into confusion and away from the Church which you and I both follow.

 

[Spun]

Martin Luther took vows to obey the Church and uphold Her teachings and doctrines. He also vowed to view the Sacred Scriptures as sacred.

After taking those vows, he challenged the Church, vowed to listen to Church authorities regarding his 95 theses, and then broke that promise, eliminated seven Books from the Old Testament, claimed that seven other Books in the New Testament were not worthy of canonicity, and added words to the Bible to suit his own brand of theology. If you find enough consistency within Luther’s life to disprove the claim you are asking about, then you should present it. Otherwise, please understand the chaotic life of this founder of the reformation movement (which was really a movement of defection) which through chaos and a lack of understanding brought people into confusion and away from the Church which you and I both follow.

Ok, but how does Keenan know that his “pride was mortified” because the Dominicans got the indulgence rather than his own order?

 

[ChestnutTree]

I think the reformation happened because it was God’s will.

Hank

 

[JonNC]

eliminated seven Books from the Old Testament, claimed that seven other Books in the New Testament were not worthy of canonicity, and added words to the Bible to suit his own brand of theology.

Off topic, but your thread.

Luther’s translation included all the 73 books of the typical western Bible of his time, plus the Prayer of Manassas. He did not remove or eliminate any books.

His position on the canonicity of the D-C books was shared by many, including St. Jerome and Luther contemporary, Cr. Cajetan. In addition, it was premitted by the Church to do so.

Your charge that Luther added words to suit his brand of theology is, again, implying motives that Luther did not state. If your charge were true, then English Bibles would have “alone” in Romans 3:28. To my knowledge, none do. The use of “allein” in German was necessary for translation into German. It was not necessary for English.

Jon

 

[Spun]

It also needs to be noted that in Luther’s Bibel, all the Deutero-Canonicals are present and accounted for, so, while he may have had doubts about their canonicity (doubts he shared with a lot of Catholic scholars, btw), he certainly didn’t “eliminate them”.

 

[erikd]

Off topic, but your thread.

Luther’s translation included all the 73 books of the typical western Bible of his time, plus the Prayer of Manassas. He did not remove or eliminate any books.

How many Books does the Lutheran Bible include today?

His position on the canonicity of the D-C books was shared by many, including St. Jerome and Luther contemporary, Cr. Cajetan. In addition, it was premitted by the Church to do so.

The difference is that St. Jerome actually admonished people for questioning the teachings of the magisterium. Whom did Martin Luther credit with the authority to challenge the canonicity and to proclaim it loudly within his versions of the Bible? Also, since we’re comparing, can you show me a Catholic Bible with a statement of non-canonicity for fourteen of the Books within the Bible?

Your charge that Luther added words to suit his brand of theology is, again, implying motives that Luther did not state. If your charge were true, then English Bibles would have “alone” in Romans 3:28. To my knowledge, none do. The use of “allein” in German was necessary for translation into German. It was not necessary for English.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It is well known that Luther in his German translation of the Bible falsified Romans 3:28, by interpolating the word “alone” (by faith alone), and to his critics gave the famous answer: “Dr. Martin Luther wants it that way, and says, ‘Papist and *** are the same thing: sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas’.”

newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

 

[erikd]

It also needs to be noted that in Luther’s Bibel, all the Deutero-Canonicals are present and accounted for, so, while he may have had doubts about their canonicity (doubts he shared with a lot of Catholic scholars, btw), he certainly didn’t “eliminate them”.

I’ll ask the same question I asked JonNC: How many Books in the Lutheran Bible today? Or, to phrase it more correctly, how many are considered canonical and worthy of being read in Church?

 

[Spun]

I’ll ask the same question I asked JonNC: How many Books in the Lutheran Bible today? Or, to phrase it more correctly, how many are considered canonical and worthy of being read in Church?

But that’s not really the question. You said that he eliminated seven books from the Old Testament. That’s not accurate.

Anyway, how do you or your source know that Luther’s “pride was mortified” because the Dominicans got the indulgence rather than the Augustinians?

 

[Dokimas]

I think the reformation happened because it was God’s will.

Hank

FWEIW, me too.

 

[TriuneUnity]

How many Books does the Lutheran Bible include today?

You’re changing the topic. You made the claim that Luther removed the deuterocanonicals from his translation of the Bible. That claim is false. The “Lutheran” Bible doesn’t exist. However, Luther’s German translation of the Bible does. It includes the deuterocanonicals.

The difference is that St. Jerome actually admonished people for questioning the teachings of the magisterium. Whom did Martin Luther credit with the authority to challenge the canonicity and to proclaim it loudly within his versions of the Bible? Also, since we’re comparing, can you show me a Catholic Bible with a statement of non-canonicity for fourteen of the Books within the Bible?

Luther challenged the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals, yet included them in his translation. Jerome challenged the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals, yet included them in his translation. The fact that Jerome admonished people for questioning the magisterium is irrelevent as to whether Luther “removed” books from the Bible, which was your charge.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It is well known that Luther in his German translation of the Bible falsified Romans 3:28, by interpolating the word “alone” (by faith alone), and to his critics gave the famous answer: “Dr. Martin Luther wants it that way, and says, ‘Papist and *** are the same thing: sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas’.”

newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223. (Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.)

 

[Spun]

Look, I am not really interested in defending Luther, but I am even less interested in maligning him by means of dishonesty.

There is no way you can substantiate Keenan’s claim, Erik because there is no way he could have done so. It’s conjecture driven by polemic and, frankly, it undercuts and underlines the whole OP making it, well, worthy only of distrust.

 

[erikd]

But that’s not really the question. You said that he eliminated seven books from the Old Testament. That’s not accurate.

How many Books in the Lutheran Bible are considered canonical and worthy of reading in Church?

Anyway, how do you or your source know that Luther’s “pride was mortified” because the Dominicans got the indulgence rather than the Augustinians?

You’ll have to ask Fr. Keenan, but my theory is that due to the events that followed this event which led to Martin Luther calling the Pope an antichrist in the Smalkaldic Articles (1537) leads one to believe that his pride was hurt with any action which he perceived as against him. I’m really surprised that a Catholic is challenging Catholic teaching. As a Catholic, you should know that this writing has an imprimatur.

 

[Spun]

How many Books in the Lutheran Bible are considered canonical and worthy of reading in Church?

Answering that would not speak to the claim you made that Luther eliminated the OT Deuteros from the Bible so I am not going to answer it as it serves no purpose for our discussion.

You’ll have to ask Fr. Keenan, but my theory is that due to the events that followed this event which led to Martin Luther calling the Pope an antichrist in the Smalkaldic Articles (1537) leads one to believe that his pride was hurt with any action which he perceived as against him. I’m really surprised that a Catholic is challenging Catholic teaching. As a Catholic, you should know that this writing has an imprimatur.

Fr. Keenan isn’t here. You are and you cited him so you get to substantiate him.

His having an Imprimatur does not mean that we cannot question him or doubt his conclusions.

As for your “theory” well, if that’s all it is, maybe we can move on now.