The reformation was based on PRIDE

[KathleenGee]

Dokimas,

There is a great book out called ‘The Dialogues’. It was written by St. Catherine of Siena…it explains the soul, the walk in perfection, and heaven.

 

[Spun]

Don’t forget he also broke his vows to God, wanted to burn the book of St. James because it didn’t agree with his theology, encouraged persecution of the Jews, get rid of Esther and the Deuterocanon, etc., etc.

And I am not judging Luther. I am merely stating facts; when it comes to a historical figure like Luther you cannot just sweep his bad things under the rug and merely present the good. His legacy is in both.

No, you’re repeating lies.

Luther never tried to “get rid of Esther and the Deuterocanon”.

Why do you think you can say whatever you want about someone whether it’s true or not? Do we get a pass on the eighth commandment because we’re talking about Luther? How dare we ever criticize a Protestant for repeating errors and falsehood about our Church and its leaders.

I’ll make a prediction. You’re going to do a cursory check of sources, realize that Luther never tried to get rid of the Deutero-Canons and then attempt to change the charge from “removal” of the Deutero-Canonicals to a more generalized criticism of his overall canonical outlook.

But what I would like to see is real substantiation for the claim that Luther ever removed these books from the Bible or that he even wanted to.

 

[Matariel]

No, you’re repeating lies.

And I thought I was a fellow-Catholic— ?

Luther never tried to “get rid of Esther and the Deuterocanon”.

He did not include the Deuterocanon in his Luther Bible (or the End Chapters of Esther and Daniel). His views on Revelation, Hebrews, and Esther were generally negative, and in his book Bondage of the Will he said Esther’s canonicity was less than the apocryphal books because, if I recall correctly, it did not mention God in the original Hebrew text.

Why do you think you can say whatever you want about someone whether it’s true or not?

So, you, as a fellow-Catholic, automatically assume that I am outright lying instead of misinformed? Really? That’s not a very Catholic or Christian thing to do— definitely not charitable.

Do we get a pass on the eighth commandment because we’re talking about Luther?

Again, you automatically assume the worst about me, a fellow-Catholic. You should apologize.

How dare we ever criticize a Protestant for repeating errors and falsehood about our Church and its leaders.

Point out to me where I am wrong, just as we point out to Protestants where they are wrong.

I’ll make a prediction. You’re going to do a cursory check of sources, realize that Luther never tried to get rid of the Deutero-Canons and then attempt to change the charge from “removal” of the Deutero-Canonicals to a more generalized criticism of his overall canonical outlook.

Um, no, I already gave you my answer? How about YOU present some evidence that I was purposefully lying? Or better yet, that what I said was even untrue?

But what I would like to see is real substantiation for the claim that Luther ever removed these books from the Bible or that he even wanted to.

See above.

 

[JonNC]

=Matariel;6367671]
He did not include the Deuterocanon in his Luther Bible (or the End Chapters of Esther and Daniel). His views on Revelation, Hebrews, and Esther were generally negative, and in his book Bondage of the Will he said Esther’s canonicity was less than the apocryphal books because, if I recall correctly, it did not mention God in the original Hebrew text.

I believe you are misinformed, though the sources that knowingly make this claim are a different story. Luther, when he finished his translation into German in 1534, included all 73 of the books typically in a western Bible, plus the Prayer of Manassas. This is undeniable. I have a copy of Luther’s Bible in German.

His position on the canonicity of the D-C’s was held by many, going back to St. Jerome.
It - questioning the canonicity of the D-C’s and other books - was permitted by the Church until Trent, which happened after Luther died.

Jon

 

[Matariel]

I believe you are misinformed, though the sources that knowingly make this claim are a different story. Luther, when he finished his translation into German in 1534, included all 73 of the books typically in a western Bible, plus the Prayer of Manassas. This is undeniable. I have a copy of Luther’s Bible in German

A Lutheran gave me the benefit of the doubt and was more kind to me than even a fellow-Catholic, who foremost I thought would understand… amazing… anyway, thank you for informing me JonNC; I was reading a Luther Bible online and the Deuterocanon was NOT included. I do not know why.

His position on the canonicity of the D-C’s was held by many, going back to St. Jerome.
It - questioning the canonicity of the D-C’s and other books - was permitted by the Church until Trent, which happened after Luther died.

But Jerome conceded after the Synod of Rome and put the Deuterocanon in his Vulgate, if I recall correctly. Is this correct?

 

[Spun]

If you don’t check your sources before you repeat a criticism and that criticism turns out to be wrong, you’re repeating a lie.

It’s that simple.

Our both being Catholic doesn’t give you a pass. Not from me anyway.

So now you know, Luther never tried to remove the Deutero-Canonicals from the Bible. Hopefully you won’t be going around saying that he did anymore.

I’ll be watching.

ETA: I am not holding you responsible for originating the error, just for repeating it without checking.

 

[SteveVH]

I believe you are misinformed, though the sources that knowingly make this claim are a different story. Luther, when he finished his translation into German in 1534, included all 73 of the books typically in a western Bible, plus the Prayer of Manassas. This is undeniable. I have a copy of Luther’s Bible in German.

His position on the canonicity of the D-C’s was held by many, going back to St. Jerome.
It - questioning the canonicity of the D-C’s and other books - was permitted by the Church until Trent, which happened after Luther died.

Jon

Hey Jon. I’m a little confused then. If Luther accepted the D-C’s then who decided to omit them? And, if Luther accepted them then why do Lutherans today reject them? Or am I wrong?

Thanks

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hey Jon. I’m a little confused then. If Luther accepted the D-C’s then who decided to omit them? And, if Luther accepted them then why do Lutherans today reject them? Or am I wrong?

Thanks

Lutherans never omitted them, per se. While they were traditionally viewed as uninspired, since Lutherans largely spoke German up until they began to assimilate in the US, they continued using Luther’s German translation, which contained the DC’s. When Lutherans began speaking English, they began using English translations such as the updated KJV, NIV, etc., none of which have the DC’s.

 

[TriuneUnity]

A Lutheran gave me the benefit of the doubt and was more kind to me than even a fellow-Catholic, who foremost I thought would understand… amazing… anyway, thank you for informing me JonNC; I was reading a Luther Bible online and the Deuterocanon was NOT included. I do not know why.

That’s odd that they didn’t. More than likely it was the site you were viewing that removed them

But Jerome conceded after the Synod of Rome and put the Deuterocanon in his Vulgate, if I recall correctly. Is this correct?

Yes. In most respects Jerome and Luther are almost exact parallels. Jerome rejected the DC’s (as did Athanasius, Melito of Sardis, Gregory the Great, among others), so did Luther. Jerome rejected James, and Esther (perhaps more, I am not sure), so did Luther. Both included them in their translations. In the case of Jerome because of papal request, and Luther because he realized that at the time of his translation, the churches (including the laity) largely accepted the DC’s.

You should be able to track down Luther’s prefaces to each of the DC books somewhere online. God bless!

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

As was pointed out, Luther and the German Bible included the D-C, it was the English who excluded them.

In the early 17th C. when the KJV and others were coming into general use in England it was decided that the OT cannon would be made up of books written in Hebrew, the NT in Greek.

The D-C were not found in Hebrew, only in the Greek of the Septuagint. This indicated to the scholars of the day that they were late additions to the Hebrew scriptures and so were not of equal value.

So, lets stop “blaming Luther”, eh. It was the English church that took the move to drop material. Although some NT material was historically under question, it was not dropped since it could be traced to the original Greek and to the time span of the first Christian century.

 

[Greg27]

I think this ‘Catechism’ grossly oversimplifies the complexity surrounding the events that led to the Reformation. There are far better works out there which explain its roots.

 

[larkin31]

I think this ‘Catechism’ grossly oversimplifies the complexity surrounding the events that led to the Reformation. There are far better works out there which explain its roots.

Indeed.

It is no examination of Luther or the Reformation at all. It is a wonder–other than by provoking anger–that the original post generated 12 pages of replies.

 

[Matariel]

If you don’t check your sources before you repeat a criticism and that criticism turns out to be wrong, you’re repeating a lie.

It’s that simple.

I did check my sources. You just wanted to attack me, apparently, which is very un-Christian and uncharitable.

Our both being Catholic doesn’t give you a pass. Not from me anyway.

I wasn’t asking for a pass; I was asking for a decent conversational partner to offer points to the contrary, not accuse, slander, and make uncharitable remarks about me.

So now you know, Luther never tried to remove the Deutero-Canonicals from the Bible. Hopefully you won’t be going around saying that he did anymore.

Then why were they not in the version of Luther’s Bible I read? And besides, you didn’t do anything to prove a point. Instead, a charitable, level-headed Lutheran did— unlike you.

I’ll be watching.

I don’t care if you’ll be watching or not frankly.

ETA: I am not holding you responsible for originating the error, just for repeating it without checking.

I checked the version I used— they weren’t in there.

 

[Janet1983]

Executing criminals that were traitors to the Christian society and government. In those times Heresy was revolution against the Christian society. The Holy Inquisition was a just system and more often than not the death penalty was not the end result. In 3 hundred some years of the Spanish Inquisition, in the colonies and in Spain, a few thousand criminals were executed for heresy. Heresy murders the soul. Is it holy and good and just to let heresy run free to kill millions and millions of souls?

With that kind of a definition (“Heresy murders the soul. Is it holy and good and just to let heresy run free to kill millions and millions of souls?”) you should be in favor of the death penalty for those you consider heretics today as well, because the definition of heresy was and is the same. Though the society at large is not Christian any more in most countries and a heretic therefore is not rebelling against society as a such, the effects should be the same, following your logic.
Do you think that people like me should be executed for leaving the Catholic Church and defending ideas opposing the Catholic faith and dogma? Do you think that it would be good and just to execute me?

 

[Vile_Servant]

Do you think that people like me should be executed for leaving the Catholic Church and defending ideas opposing the Catholic faith and dogma?

No. We can all exercise our free will to choose and defend our chosen faith and dogma.

Do you think that it would be good and just to execute me?

No. God will be our judge.

peace.

 

[Spun]

Matariel,

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

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

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

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

This thread is a case in point: the OP is based on the vexedly polemical rantings of a protestant-baiting 19th century priest. These were set before us and it was said that they were historically accurate. It has been demonstrated that they are not only historically inaccurate but they lack the common charity of seeking nuance before ammunition.

But then, this is common for many internet apologists of every stripe; what is important is slam dunking someone, not being honest or careful with facts.

Luther’s Bible was originally published in 1534. At that time it contained all 73 books of the majority canon. It has gone through innumerable printings since then. It needs to be remembered that Luther’s Bible is to German speakers every bit what the King James version is to speakers of English. 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. He can’t reasonably be held responsible for what people have done with his work after he died.

I don’t know why, in your research, you never cam across the fact that Luther included them. It is copiously attested. Photographic examples of the contents table of the Luther Bibel are all over the place on the internet as well as discussions of the canon and references to Luther’s inclusion of the Deutero-Canonicals.

In my opinion, far too much is made even of Luther’s opinion of these books (as well as of those New Testament books he took issue with). Taking issue with the canon has been very common in the history of the church, it has risen and fallen and in the 16th century, with the advent of new scholarship and movable type, was at its height. 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.

 

[Dokimas]

Matariel,

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

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

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

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

This thread is a case in point: the OP is based on the vexedly polemical rantings of a protestant-baiting 19th century priest. These were set before us and it was said that they were historically accurate. It has been demonstrated that they are not only historically inaccurate but they lack the common charity of seeking nuance before ammunition.

But then, this is common for many internet apologists of every stripe; what is important is slam dunking someone, not being honest or careful with facts.

Luther’s Bible was originally published in 1534. At that time it contained all 73 books of the majority canon. It has gone through innumerable printings since then. It needs to be remembered that Luther’s Bible is to German speakers every bit what the King James version is to speakers of English. 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. He can’t reasonably be held responsible for what people have done with his work after he died.

I don’t know why, in your research, you never cam across the fact that Luther included them. It is copiously attested. Photographic examples of the contents table of the Luther Bibel are all over the place on the internet as well as discussions of the canon and references to Luther’s inclusion of the Deutero-Canonicals.

In my opinion, far too much is made even of Luther’s opinion of these books (as well as of those New Testament books he took issue with). Taking issue with the canon has been very common in the history of the church, it has risen and fallen and in the 16th century, with the advent of new scholarship and movable type, was at its height. 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.

A real pleasure to read something from a clear headed thinker. I confess I’m not always such a commentor.​

Well done, Spun.

PS … Would you concider yourself home-Spun. (Just a little pun like fun. I hope you don’t mind?)

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Spun…

The fruit of truth is greater unity among us…it is my daily prayer that American Christians will work very hard and stay on it with communication and dialogue to clear all misundertsandings!

 

[larkin31]

Matariel,

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

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

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

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

This thread is a case in point: the OP is based on the vexedly polemical rantings of a protestant-baiting 19th century priest. These were set before us and it was said that they were historically accurate. It has been demonstrated that they are not only historically inaccurate but they lack the common charity of seeking nuance before ammunition.

But then, this is common for many internet apologists of every stripe; what is important is slam dunking someone, not being honest or careful with facts.

Luther’s Bible was originally published in 1534. At that time it contained all 73 books of the majority canon. It has gone through innumerable printings since then. It needs to be remembered that Luther’s Bible is to German speakers every bit what the King James version is to speakers of English. 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. He can’t reasonably be held responsible for what people have done with his work after he died.

I don’t know why, in your research, you never cam across the fact that Luther included them. It is copiously attested. Photographic examples of the contents table of the Luther Bibel are all over the place on the internet as well as discussions of the canon and references to Luther’s inclusion of the Deutero-Canonicals.

In my opinion, far too much is made even of Luther’s opinion of these books (as well as of those New Testament books he took issue with). Taking issue with the canon has been very common in the history of the church, it has risen and fallen and in the 16th century, with the advent of new scholarship and movable type, was at its height. 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.

you clearly know this better than I

but I made a similar point just now on another thread, where Catholics are criticisizing other Catholics for making Catholicism look bad by disagreeing on some matters of dogma. As if to say that disagreement is un-Catholic, as if to forget how much debate has gone on through Catholic Church history for millenia.

anyway, thanks for this post. I learned from it.

 

[larkin31]

No. We can all exercise our free will to choose and defend our chosen faith and dogma.

No. God will be our judge.

peace.

Too bad those Spanish judges did not feel the same way for those thousands who were put to death.