The reformation was based on PRIDE

[crazzeto]

Luther

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

Others who used “alone”.

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

Jon

No offence Jon, but your refutation really does not vindicate Luther of what he did. It is the assumption of your blog author, and I guess of you as well, that Luther is correct in his previous assertion

without all works of all laws

Because this assumption was made, the author of the blog (and you) say “see, he was right to do it. Paul just wasn’t clear enough, so Luther made it more clear. What’s the harm”.

Refutation:
Paul was already prefectly clear, the truth however is that we are not justified 'without all works of all laws. What Paul was talking about was the law of the Torrah as the Holy Father said in his homily on Wed. November 19th, 2008:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

First, we must explain what is this “Law” from which we are freed and what are those “works of the Law” that do not justify. The opinion that was to recur systematically in history already existed in the community at Corinth. This opinion consisted in thinking that it was a question of moral law and that the Christian freedom thus consisted in the liberation from ethics. Thus in Corinth the term “πάντα μοι έξεστιν” (I can do what I like) was widespread. It is obvious that this interpretation is wrong: Christian freedom is not libertinism; the liberation of which St Paul spoke is not liberation from good works.

So what does the Law from which we are liberated and which does not save mean? For St Paul, as for all his contemporaries, the word “Law” meant the Torah in its totality, that is, the five books of Moses. The Torah, in the Pharisaic interpretation, that which Paul had studied and made his own, was a complex set of conduct codes that ranged from the ethical nucleus to observances of rites and worship and that essentially determined the identity of the just person. In particular, these included circumcision, observances concerning pure food and ritual purity in general, the rules regarding the observance of the Sabbath, etc. codes of conduct that also appear frequently in the debates between Jesus and his contemporaries.

This demonstrates quite clearly, why one should not go about modifying the text of the bible is such a manner. Paul did not lack clarity when he wrote Romans, Luther lacked understanding when he translated it.

 

[IowaJay]

Of course, that is the same speech where the Pope said the use of the word “alone” in connection with “faith” is not erroneous when faith is not opposed to love.

 

[tweetymom]

Sometimes some on this board even call fellow Catholics anti.

They sure do. Been there done that.

 

[Spun]

And that more over, he (Luther) decided to alter it so, successfully removing 7 books from the bible

Have you not been paying attention? Luther INCLUDED THE DEUTERO-CANONICALS IN HIS TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, he didn’t remove anything.

Do you think that by repeating a falsehood you can make it true?

Is it true that Catholic apologists are generally less interested in truth than in pillory?

 

[schaick]

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.

In this case the end does not justify the means!

You are being ridiculous now!

These church “shepards?” were telling people they could buy their or loved on’s way out of purgatory?

 

[Jon_Hus]

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

This demonstrates quite clearly, why one should not go about modifying the text of the bible is such a manner. Paul did not lack clarity when he wrote Romans, Luther lacked understanding when he translated it.

To borrow a quote from Luther, (the Pope in his homily mentioned above), “…he cites no Scripture”.

 

[crazzeto]

Have you not been paying attention? Luther INCLUDED THE DEUTERO-CANONICALS IN HIS TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, he didn’t remove anything.

Do you think that by repeating a falsehood you can make it true?

Is it true that Catholic apologists are generally less interested in truth than in pillory?

He put them at the back of the book, with no reference any where else in the book. Along with every other book he wanted to remove from the bible. Luthers introduction to SS. James (also at the back of the book, because he felt it shouldn’t be in the bible) read:

"I do not look upon it as the writing ot any Apostle, and this is my reason. First of all, because in direct opposition to St. Paul, and to all the other Scriptures, it (the Epistle of St. James) attributes justification to the works, and says, Abraham was justified by his works when he sacrificed his son. Whereas St . Paul, Rom. 4, on the contrary, teaches that Abraham was justified without works, through his faith alone

Secondly (I reject the Epistle), because it professes to instruct Christians, and in such a long treatise (lere), it does not even mention the Passion, the Resurrection, the Spirit of Christ . Whatever does not teach Christ, that is not apostolic, even if Peter or Paul were to teach it . Whereas, whatever teaches Christ, that is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod were to do it. But this James does nothing else but drive on to the law and to its works, and he mixes up things in such disorder, that I should say he was some good, pious man, who had heard certain sayings from the disciples of the Apostles, and then committed them ,vo paper; or perhaps it (the Epistle) has been taken from his own discourse by some one else Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible in the number of the truly principal books: but I will not forbid any one to place him and to keep him as he pleases."

now nice of him to “let anyone who wants James have him”, after telling them James is not an Apistolic Epistle and should be ignored because in his own fallible interpretation “it doesn’t teach Christ”.

 

[crazzeto]

To borrow a quote from Luther, (the Pope in his homily mentioned above), “…he cites no Scripture”.

If you’re suggesting the Holy Father cited no scripture in that Homily, you obviously didn’t even click the link. It’s full of citations, with links to the cited books inline.

 

[Spun]

He put them back in? What is your source for that? We are all aware of his difficulties with James. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

I am encouraging you, in charity, to be HONEST. Luther didn’t remove anything from the Bible. It would be great if we tried to be more consistent and truthful in all our dealings with Protestants. We do ourselves no favors and we don’t extend our credibility at all when we do not.

There may be Protestants out there who don;t know the truth and who may come away from conversations such as these with their faith damaged because we have lied to them. What service have we done them? Similarly, when we teach lies, we plant seeds in the lives of Catholics as well, who then repeat the lies. It’s like a weed.

There is plenty to take issue with when it comes to Luther, but there is never as much as many Catholic apologists like to pretend, that said, there is no need to repeat lies.

If the end is to show that Luther was wrong, we do no service to that end by employing dishonest means.

 

[Jon_Hus]

If you’re suggesting the Holy Father cited no scripture in that Homily, you obviously didn’t even click the link. It’s full of citations, with links to the cited books inline.

The essential arguement is “won” by the Pope based on his appeal to church writings, not Scripture. This is of course, typical.

 

[crazzeto]

The essential arguement is “won” by the Pope based on his appeal to church writings, not Scripture. This is of course, typical.

Your argument is disengenous, the Pope cited an abundance of scripture as well as an accurate historical anaylsis of what was happening in those days, which is critical information for understanding the scriptures.

 

[SyCarl]

No offence Jon, but your refutation really does not vindicate Luther of what he did. It is the assumption of your blog author, and I guess of you as well, that Luther is correct in his previous assertion

without all works of all laws

Because this assumption was made, the author of the blog (and you) say “see, he was right to do it. Paul just wasn’t clear enough, so Luther made it more clear. What’s the harm”.

Refutation:
Paul was already prefectly clear, the truth however is that we are not justified 'without all works of all laws. What Paul was talking about was the law of the Torrah as the Holy Father said in his homily on Wed. November 19th, 2008:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

This demonstrates quite clearly, why one should not go about modifying the text of the bible is such a manner. Paul did not lack clarity when he wrote Romans, Luther lacked understanding when he translated it.

As IowaJay noted, Pope Benedict XVI referred to Luther’s translation in the same audience.

At this point Luther translated: “justified by faith alone”. I shall return to this point at the end of the Catechesis…Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life.

In his next week’s general audience the Pope went on to say:

Often there is seen an unfounded opposition between St Paul’s theology and that of St James, who writes in his Letter: “as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead”(2: 26). In reality, **while Paul is primarily concerned to show that faith in Christ is necessary and sufficient, James accentuates the consequential relations between faith and works **(cf. Jas 2: 24). Therefore, for both Paul and James, faith that is active in love testifies to the freely given gift of justification in Christ.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html

I think few Protestants would disagree with this part of the Pope’s statement in the sense that works follow faith and are evidence of a true faith.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Your argument is disengenous, the Pope cited an abundance of scripture as well as an accurate historical anaylsis of what was happening in those days, which is critical information for understanding the scriptures.

Now is the time for you to quit (that is while you are, in your opinion, ahead).

 

[Spun]

A note to show you where I am coming from.

I realize that Catholics who see my interactions here are probably thinking I am some kind of traitor since I am not backing them up in EVERYTHING they say, regardless of truth.

I love the Church. I love the Pope. I believe the Church to be the Custodian of all Truth and I believe the Catholic Church is the True Church outside of which there is no salvation. I believe that there is a real historical continuity between the Apostles and the Pope and Bishops of the Church today and that this, our pedigree, is something to be held in humble awe rather than pride.

Furthermore, I believe that when we interact with others outside the Church, we must be gentle, careful, honest and above all charitable, even when all these virtues are not returned to us in the behavior of those we interact with. We are dealing with the house someone lives in, we mustn’t go at it with a blowtorch.

In this matter of Luther, I note that my fellow Catholics are often blinded by an unreasoning hatred and often jump to the impropriety of saying things that may not be entirely true in the service of a polemical point. This is entirely inappropriate and has got to stop.

So, I encourage you in Christian love to stop repeating lies. Do your own homework, don’t trust whatever anyone else says, even if they seem to be otherwise trustworthy. There is no virtue in going into a debate with the stain of perfidy.

For as long as I have the honor to be here, I will be calling you on it when I see it.

 

[JonNC]

No offence Jon, but your refutation really does not vindicate Luther of what he did. It is the assumption of your blog author, and I guess of you as well, that Luther is correct in his previous assertion

Then you must, must condemn all the others listed for their use of alone, not even in regards to a German translation.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

A note to show you where I am coming from.

I realize that Catholics who see my interactions here are probably thinking I am some kind of traitor since I am not backing them up in EVERYTHING they say, regardless of truth.

I love the Church. I love the Pope. I believe the Church to be the Custodian of all Truth and I believe the Catholic Church is the True Church outside of which there is no salvation. I believe that there is a real historical continuity between the Apostles and the Pope and Bishops of the Church today and that this, our pedigree, is something to be held in humble awe rather than pride.

Furthermore, I believe that when we interact with others outside the Church, we must be gentle, careful, honest and above all charitable, even when all these virtues are not returned to us in the behavior of those we interact with. We are dealing with the house someone lives in, we mustn’t go at it with a blowtorch.

In this matter of Luther, I note that my fellow Catholics are often blinded by an unreasoning hatred and often jump to the propriety of saying things that may not be entirely true in the service of a polemical point. This is entirely inappropriate and has got to stop.

So, I encourage you in Christian love to stop repeating lies. Do your own homework, don’t trust whatever anyone else says, even if they seem to be otherwise trustworthy. There is no virtue in going into a debate with the stain of perfidy.

I agree, but it goes both ways. A recent thread talked about how some Lutherans post with disrespect for the Catholic Church on a Lutheran site. This is equally as wrong. For example; when I hear Lutherans accuse Catholics of worshipping the Blessed Virgin, I cringe as it is clearly not the case.
Some of the best opportunities for reconciliation within the western Church sit within our two communions. We must do a better job of nurturing that growing reconciliation.

Jon

 

[crazzeto]

Then you must, must condemn all the others listed for their use of alone, not even in regards to a German translation.

Jon

For someone who types so much about taking people out of context, you didn’t hesitate posting one liners out of context. Did you read the Holy Father’s whole Homily? It’s a perfect example of what you’re attempting to do. If you wanted (and many of your protestant brothers and sisters have, here on CAF in their signatures) take one line out of that Homily, and twist it to support Luther out of context.

But reading what I post, I think it’s clearly evident to you that the Holy Father wasn’t agreeing with the assertion that we are justified with out all works of all laws.

Edit
Actually your protestant brothers and sisters are trying to twist it in this very thread.

 

[Janet1983]

Are you suggesting that the Church had power over the government to stop these penalties? If so, can you cite examples from history that prove this point.

I must admit that that is mostly what I remember from history class. Give me a little bit of time and I will research into it if you wish me to. To add something to it: When I was in school I was a very clear and absolutely strongly believing Catholic. I did not think that the punishment for heresy was inappropriate or something that would put blame on the church given the historical context of the law system. When I think of the power of the church in these ages (they are called the dark ages for a reason) I think of cases like Canossa. That one might have been the epitome of Catholic rule over the leaders of Europe, but I think I can deduct that other cases in that period, though not as openly shown in history, might have certainly occurred. The people of that day were aware that the church had the power to forgive sins (#982, p. 256, Cf. Mt 18:21-22; #986, p. 257; #1448, p. 363-364, chapter on the sacrament of penance and reconciliation) which can be a very powerful tool. Though I personally do not agree with that anymore, it certainly had an effect on the people of that day and age. Opposition to the church would have led to excommunication (see Canossa). For a ruler of that time this meant to loose basically all they had including their authority and power. Whether or not they liked it, they did prescribe the death penalty for unrepentant heretics and for heretics who repeatedly fell back into heresy and repented of it as you could see in the Summa. Whatever their attitude towards killing someone, the result is the same.
In the historical context of a rather elaborate and mostly cruel justice system, just burning someone seems oddly merciful.

 

[Janet1983]

If you want a true official teaching from the Church herself, read a CCC, Church council documents, a Papal bull. But your not getting an official Church teaching or practice from a Saints or faithful Catholic writing unless the Catholic church adopts it as meeting her canon. Any way just for your information;

If you can give me an online archive where I can find medieval papal bulls translated into either English or German, I will gladly do so. In Latin it’ll take me way too long, I must confess. I did not pay as much attention as I should have in class and I have forgotten too much over the past years.

 

[crazzeto]

If you can give me an online archive where I can find medieval papal bulls translated into either English or German, I will gladly do so. In Latin it’ll take me way too long, I must confess. I did not pay as much attention as I should have in class and I have forgotten too much over the past years.

www.vatican.va
ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp (I believe they advertise that they have all of them)

The vatican should have Latin (for sure) and English (if available in any non-latin language) of whatever documents are publicaly available. EWTN certainly will have the english versions, I can’t speak for any other language.