The reformation was based on PRIDE

[Jon_Hus]

Jan Hus was executed by the CIVIL authorities for being a heretic. At that time, civil governments worked in conjunction with Church authorities. In this case, because Jan Hus would not recant his beliefs of the Eucharist (which were contrary to Church teachings which he swore to uphold as a Catholic Priest) the Church found him to be guilty of heresy. The corresponding punishment, as upheld by the government of Germany, was death. This was not the punishment of the Church but of the government. The Church did not put him to death, the civil authorities did. Martin Luther had a similar price on his head, but was able to avoid the German authorities as he went into hiding for the rest of his life. Again, the Church had nothing to do with the death sentence, the civil authorities did. Hope that clarifies things.

Oooookaaayyyyyy.

 

[crazzeto]

Ah, judge, jury and executioner. And non-catholic Christians are sometimes called anti* and haters by some on this board. I say, if the shoe fits, wear it.

I can’t attest to each point, but if you start looking at the writings of Luther pride and arrogence bare out, for instance:

“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God and must be a child of Hell.”

and

“I will not allow it to be judged by anybody, not even by any of the Angels. For, since I am certain of it, I intend, by means of it, to be your judge and also, that of the Angles; so whoever does not accept my teaching can-not be saved”.

All from Luthers own Statements concerning His Teachings and its Results

all statements taken from Luther’s German and Latin works.

books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_slider_thumb#v=onepage&q=not%20even%20the%20angles&f=false

 

[erikd]

I can’t attest to each point, but if you start looking at the writings of Luther pride and arrogence bare out, for instance:

“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God and must be a child of Hell.”

and

“I will not allow it to be judged by anybody, not even by any of the Angels. For, since I am certain of it, I intend, by means of it, to be your judge and also, that of the Angles; so whoever does not accept my teaching can-not be saved”.

All from Luthers own Statements concerning His Teachings and its Results

all statements taken from Luther’s German and Latin works.

books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_slider_thumb#v=onepage&q=not%20even%20the%20angles&f=false

Wow!!! Seems like the topic of this thread (the reformation was based on PRIDE) is making more and more sense.

 

[JonNC]

I can’t attest to each point, but if you start looking at the writings of Luther pride and arrogence bare out, for instance:

“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God and must be a child of Hell.”

and

“I will not allow it to be judged by anybody, not even by any of the Angels. For, since I am certain of it, I intend, by means of it, to be your judge and also, that of the Angles; so whoever does not accept my teaching can-not be saved”.

All from Luthers own Statements concerning His Teachings and its Results

all statements taken from Luther’s German and Latin works.

books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_slider_thumb#v=onepage&q=not%20even%20the%20angles&f=false

Hyperbole was one of Luther’s writing styles. It seems it has always been misunderstood
by some apologists, intentionally twisted by the anti-Lutherans, but rarely a problem for authentic, modern Catholic theologians. They appear to be more interested in understanding what he meant, not how he said it, because their goal is better relations between our communions, not perpetuating division.

Jon

 

[schaick]

I can’t attest to each point, but if you start looking at the writings of Luther pride and arrogence bare out, for instance:

“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God and must be a child of Hell.”

and

“I will not allow it to be judged by anybody, not even by any of the Angels. For, since I am certain of it, I intend, by means of it, to be your judge and also, that of the Angles; so whoever does not accept my teaching can-not be saved”.

All from Luthers own Statements concerning His Teachings and its Results

all statements taken from Luther’s German and Latin works.

books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_slider_thumb#v=onepage&q=not%20even%20the%20angles&f=false

And this one:

“Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns or teeth. Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason (I do not believe in the authority of either popes or councils by themselves, for it is plain that they have often erred and contradicted each other) in those Scriptures that I have presented, for my conscience is captive to the Word of God, I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

"Feelings come and feelings go,
And feelings are deceiving;
My warrant is the Word of God–
Naught else is worth believing.

Though all my heart should feel condemned
For want of some sweet token,
There is One greater than my heart
Whose Word cannot be broken.

I’ll trust in God’s unchanging Word
Till soul and body sever,
For, though all things shall pass away,
HIS WORD SHALL STAND FOREVER!"
— Martin Luther

But seriously check it out:
1 Corinthians 6
1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? **3Do you not know that we will judge angels? **How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![a] 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

Considering that Luther taught strictly by the Holy Bible then well of course:
“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God and must be a child of Hell.”

 

[crazzeto]

Hyperbole was one of Luther’s writing styles. It seems it has always been misunderstood
by some apologists, intentionally twisted by the anti-Lutherans, but rarely a problem for authentic, modern Catholic theologians. They appear to be more interested in understanding what he meant, not how he said it, because their goal is better relations between our communions, not perpetuating division.

Jon

I’m sorry Jon, but this is a weak argument. You should click the link and read the book, there’s no misunderstanding.

 

[crazzeto]

And this one:

“Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns or teeth. Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason (I do not believe in the authority of either popes or councils by themselves, for it is plain that they have often erred and contradicted each other) in those Scriptures that I have presented, for my conscience is captive to the Word of God, I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

"Feelings come and feelings go,
And feelings are deceiving;
My warrant is the Word of God–
Naught else is worth believing.

Though all my heart should feel condemned
For want of some sweet token,
There is One greater than my heart
Whose Word cannot be broken.

I’ll trust in God’s unchanging Word
Till soul and body sever,
For, though all things shall pass away,
HIS WORD SHALL STAND FOREVER!"
— Martin Luther

But seriously check it out:
1 Corinthians 6
1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? **3Do you not know that we will judge angels? **How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![a] 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

Considering that Luther taught strictly by the Holy Bible then well of course:
“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God and must be a child of Hell.”

It is too bad Luther knowingly choose to ignore the real, living word of God, in favor of a mere printed book. And that more over, he decided to alter it so, successfully removing 7 books from the bible, successfully adding “alone” where it never was, and attempting to remove Jame, Jude, Hewbrews and Revelation from the bible. His reformation co-horts stopped him, but that didn’t stop him from not including the books with the books he views as connonical in the bible, and offering extensive commantary explaining why no one should pay any attention to any of these books.

 

[JonNC]

It is too bad Luther knowingly choose to ignore the real, living word of God, in favor of a mere printed book. And that more over, he decided to alter it so, successfully removing 7 books from the bible, successfully adding “alone” where it never was, and attempting to remove Jame, Jude, Hewbrews and Revelation from the bible. His reformation co-horts stopped him, but that didn’t stop him from not including the books with the books he views as connonical in the bible, and offering extensive commantary explaining why no one should pay any attention to any of these books.

Goodness.

In his translation, Luther translated and included all 73 of the books that were typically in a western Bible. In addition, it included the Prayer of Manasses. This translation continues to be used by German Lutherans. Luther’s opinion of the Duetero-canonical books, as well as the NT books you name, was well known, and shared by many scholars throughout history, including Luther contemporary Cr. Cajetan. What is more, differences of opinion over the canonicity of these books was permitted within the Catholic Church. In other words, Luther held positions what were held by others, and were permitted in the Catholic Church.

Luther did not add the word “alone”, since he translated the Bible into German, not English. And that is the point; Luther’s Bible was a translation into German. He translated Roman 3:28 as was necessary to translate from Greek to German. While the German has the word “allein” in Romans 3:28, “alone” does not appear in any English translation that I know of, because it isn’t necessary when translated into English.
bible.cc/romans/3-28.htm

Do you have evidence that Luther did not want folks to read all 74 books he took the time and effort and years to translate?

Are you aware that some Lutheran Churches use lectionaries that offer D-C verses as primary or alternative OT lesson readings?

Jon

 

[schaick]

It is too bad Luther knowingly choose to ignore the real, living word of God, in favor of a mere printed book. And that more over, he decided to alter it so, successfully removing 7 books from the bible, successfully adding “alone” where it never was, and attempting to remove Jame, Jude, Hewbrews and Revelation from the bible. His reformation co-horts stopped him, but that didn’t stop him from not including the books with the books he views as connonical in the bible, and offering extensive commantary explaining why no one should pay any attention to any of these books.

Luther did not ignore the real, living WORD of GOD who in fact was Jesus.

The Holy Spirit and God, is the Author of this book you belittle.

The Word of God that has saved people through the generation is preserved in a Book.

So the co-horts were able to stop the prideful man? Interesting.

You can read the preface by Luther to the Books in question:

bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)
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, “You shall bear witness to me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ

Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thread title: The Reformation was based on PRIDE

Additional truth: The Reformation was based on real estate!

 

[schaick]

Thread title: The Reformation was based on PRIDE

Additional truth: The Reformation was based on real estate!

LOL!! Yes the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica by Pope Leo X!

 

[Spun]

The idea that the Church leadership did not want Hus dead or that they weren’t at all complicit in the violation of his safe-conduct and subsequent execution is the very worst kind of revisionism in the service of a polemical position.

It’s just silly. As Catholics, we are very fond of admitting that church leaders, even Popes were occasionally venal men who did wicked things, but when it comes to actual examples of them doing wicked things, explanations, circumstances and ameliorations magically arise.

Weird.

 

[crazzeto]

Jon, I have an answer for you but my computer got silly on me before I posted it. Working on wedding invitations and I took too long to come back to the computer so it booted me. I have a lot more words of Luther for you, they’re conclusive.

I will leave you however with an answer to Luther adding the word alone to the bible. He most certainly did do this, and it most certainly was intentional. His own letters convict him of the change, in fact I find it interesting you used the argument you used. If you read the book I linked to earlier, the author brings up your very point, and proves it wrong, definitivly so with the following:

It is not only correct, but also most necessary to say it straight out in the clearest and most powerful manner: ’ Faith alone, without the works, makes us pious.’ And I am sorry that I did not also add ‘all’ and ‘of alt,’ thus: ’without all works of all laws,’ so that it might come out full and clear (rund). Therefore it shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and crazy, they will not get it out. But this is enough for the present. I will (if God gives His grace) say more about it in the book: De Justificatione.

 

[erikd]

The idea that the Church leadership did not want Hus dead or that they weren’t at all complicit in the violation of his safe-conduct and subsequent execution is the very worst kind of revisionism in the service of a polemical position.

It’s just silly. As Catholics, we are very fond of admitting that church leaders, even Popes were occasionally venal men who did wicked things, but when it comes to actual examples of them doing wicked things, explanations, circumstances and ameliorations magically arise.

Weird.

Do you have any evidence to back up these accusations?

 

[erikd]

LOL!! Yes the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica by Pope Leo X!

Are you suggesting that it was wrong of the Church to re-build St. Peter’s? Would that also make it wrong for the Jews to have built the first or second Temple? Where would you draw the line? Just curious.

 

[ElisabethM]

hmmm . . . I just read through this entire thread. As a former dyed-in-the-wool Lutheran (LCMS) and student of Luther (NOT claiming to be an expert by any means), I think this discussion got off track by making an assertion that cannot be proven and is not, in the end, helpful.

Luther and his attempt to reform the Church are both very complex. The most compelling arguments I have read to explain the “Reformation” are that the causes were more social and political than theological. As a Lutheran, I was taught it was all theological–the “Here I stand!” argument. In the end, though, I believe it was essentially a peasant revolt. Luther lit a match and threw it into dry tinder. It immediately raged out of control and whether out of pride or something else, he chose not to turn back.

The 95 Theses in themselves are not so troublesome (more about the abuses of indulgences than anything fundamentally opposed to the Catholic Church), but they were the match that started the firestorm. Once the fire raged out of control, Luther, in my opinion, began to justify his stance vis-a-vis the Catholic Church through more and more polemical writings and the further he got a way from the Catholic Church, the more clouded his mind and soul grew, the “hardening of heart” that occurs with unrepentance.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Do you have any evidence to back up these accusations?

erikd, not that I care mind you, but you would be doing yourself a hugh favor by simply letting this matter go. Unless of course you like wearing egg on your face.

Yours truly,
Jon

 

[Jon_Hus]

hmmm . . . Luther and his attempt to reform the Church are both very complex. The most compelling arguments I have read to explain the “Reformation” are that the causes were more social and political than theological. .

For Luther, his attempt at reform was strictly theological. If you studied Luther you would know this. For many Germans, Luther sparked a religious revival once they realized how far the church had strayed from the Bible. You are correct though in implying that some of the masses took advantage of the turmoil and stage peasant revolts against the government. This in itself would have had little impact on the church if the church wan’t so thightly wrapped with the government.

What you are saying about social and political considerations is true for the political leaders and power brokers. The reformation would not have suceeded if there were not the political and social aspects present, many of which were under the direct control of the church.

Luther was not the first to attempt reform. Those who came before him were unsucessful because the political and social (and technological) time wasn’t right. However, while Luther gets credit for sparking the reformation, he wasn’t the only person on the edge at the time, this we know because the reformation broke out almost in unison in europe and Luther didn’t at first have much influence outside of Germany.

Luther was the first person to publicly challange the Pope and get away with it. Once the dam was breached, the floods came and the landscape will never be the same again. While many pine away for the good old days, the cat is out of the bag so to speak.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I have an answer for you but my computer got silly on me before I posted it. Working on wedding invitations and I took too long to come back to the computer so it booted me. I have a lot more words of Luther for you, they’re conclusive.

I will leave you however with an answer to Luther adding the word alone to the bible. He most certainly did do this, and it most certainly was intentional. His own letters convict him of the change, in fact I find it interesting you used the argument you used. If you read the book I linked to earlier, the author brings up your very point, and proves it wrong, definitivly so with the following:

It is not only correct, but also most necessary to say it straight out in the clearest and most powerful manner: ’ Faith alone, without the works, makes us pious.’ And I am sorry that I did not also add ‘all’ and ‘of alt,’ thus: ’without all works of all laws,’ so that it might come out full and clear (rund). Therefore it shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and crazy, they will not get it out. But this is enough for the present. I will (if God gives His grace) say more about it in the book: De Justificatione.

Luther

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

So, explain, then, to me why it does not appear in any English translation?

Others who used “alone”.

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.

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

Jon

 

[Spun]

Do you have any evidence to back up these accusations?

I made no accusations.

Jan Hus was executed while under safe conduct at the Council of Constance. This is a historical fact. That he was remitted to the civil authority for the carrying out of the execution so that churchmen could keep their hands clean is irrelevant.

For centuries the church had been fighting AGAINST the civil authority (and mostly successfully) in order to preserve the right to judge clergy exclusively in ecclesiastical courts. There is no question that if the case was such that the Emperor wanted him dead but the Pope and Council did not, they (the latter) could have effected his sanctuary and preservation from penalty at the hands of the civil authority. That they did not do so clearly means that they were complicit in his death.

It’s a very simple QED when you know history.

The really interesting thing is that this was pretty much universally acknowledged by an earlier, less biased generation of Catholic theologians and historians. The idea that the church is completely innocent of the death of Jan Hus is a very recent development and the arguments put forward for it are so flimsy as to satisfy only those already convinced. But then, this is the purpose of most internet apologetics: the satisfaction of those already convinced.

Anyhow, it’s things like this that give lie to our recurring claim that we admit there have been bad men who did bad things in charge of the church.