The reformation was based on PRIDE

[erikd]

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

You answered this when I asked if any evidence exists of the accusations made earlier. I take it there is no evidence, judging by your answer. It’s too bad the discussion could not be kept civil by including historical data and backing up the accusations with actual facts. Since that is the case, you’re probably right, there’s no point in moving forward.

 

[erikd]

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.

The question still remains unanswered: Did the Church have any power over civil authorities to stop this? You answered theoretically, I was looking for a historically accurate answer. Until one is provided, your theory is just a theory, and the accusations of the complicity of the Catholic Church remains unfounded.

 

[erikd]

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.

I believe you’re taking things out of context. Pope Benedict XVI said that if faith is considered as including works (James 2:24) then faith alone would be correct. Luther did not believe in works as he did not recognize the Book of James as canonical.

 

[erikd]

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?

Spun, I believe you asked me the same question earlier. I responded to you why, and you have not answered me as of yet. If Martin Luther claimed that the antilegomena was not canonical, surely his followers would believe the same. This, of course, led to the false understanding of works not being necessary for salvation, which is contrary to the entire second chapter of the Book of James, which was not canonical according to Martin Luther. And yes, there were several different versions of the German Luther Bible, some of them did not include the deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament and some did not include the antilegomena of the New Testament. While I understand that some Lectionaries used by the Lutheran Church may include the deuterocanonicals, they are not included in all, making it not the standard. These Books have been in the Christian Canon since 382 AD and should be in all Christian Bibles, not a few select ones.

By the way, if you still disagree with any of the points above, I might suggest that you re-write the Catholic Encyclopedia, since that is where I get my information. Can you cite your sources?

 

[erikd]

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?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as the faith tracts on this very website (which include an imprimatur from the Bishop of San Diego) will tell us that the Church never sanctioned the sale of indulgences. Can you cite your sources that this is incorrect?

Also, I understand that Martin Luther had a similar understanding, which he could not substantiate. Please use actual examples from history to prove your point.

Thank you

 

[erikd]

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.

If I may interject here, let me give you historical data from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In his disputation with Eck at Leipzig, in 1519, when his opponent urged the well-known text from II Machabees in proof of the doctrine of purgatory, Luther replied that the passage had no binding authority since the book was outside the Canon. In the first edition of Luther’s Bible, 1534, the deuteros were relegated, as apocrypha, to a separate place between the two Testaments.

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Under what authority did Luther make himself the arbiter of canonicity? Why did he go against 1150 years of Christian beliefs?

Please provide citations and quotes for your rebuttal.

 

[erikd]

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.

Hi Spun, you should know that I have nothing but love for all of my Christian brothers and sister. I and several others have quoted accurate historical data, to which you answered with disagreeing opinions. If you have anything substantial to back up your opinions, you might want to share it. I invite you to share with all the accurate and historical truths which back up your stances. I also invite you to answer some of my posts which you’ve left unanswered. I can’t stress enough that I am a Christian Catholic, and have nothing but love for all including you.

 

[erikd]

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

Well said, Jon.

 

[erikd]

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.

Janet, I believe that in post 72 I explained what St. Thomas Aquinas was doing by way of making comparisons between civil crimes and crimes against God. If you read through post 72 I believe you will see that the Summa never prescribed that penalty, St. Thomas merely compared the severity of the crimes.

 

[erikd]

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

From this very website, a Q&A about indulgences states the following:

*Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “It is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.” *

catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

Please cite your sources that one could buy indulgences.

 

[erikd]

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.

I’ll also be watching, Spun, for some of your answers to my questions.

 

[erikd]

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.

The Douay-Rheims included them, and it precluded the KJV

 

[erikd]

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.

Yet, these Books were proclaimed to not be canonical, even though Luther had absolutely no power to make such a proclamation.

 

[erikd]

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?

Janet, I once again ask you to re-visit post 72 which explains how St. Thomas Aquinas was making comparisons of crimes and their punishments to make a point. Aquinas was by no means telling people to execute anyone.

 

[Janet1983]

Janet, I believe that in post 72 I explained what St. Thomas Aquinas was doing by way of making comparisons between civil crimes and crimes against God. If you read through post 72 I believe you will see that the Summa never prescribed that penalty, St. Thomas merely compared the severity of the crimes.

I see that you said that. I acknowledged that too in one of my responses. I disagree however. He embeds the penalty in the historical situation. If forgery is worthy of death, then corrupting the faith that quickens the soul should be too in his estimation. That is precisely why he said that they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.

 

[erikd]

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.

Once again, I ask you for your sources to prove my sources incorrect. I have cited numerous sources regarding Luther proclamation of non-canonicity for canonical Books of the Bible, I have shown how the followers of Martin Luther had removed Books and cited my sources, and have patiently waited for your sources. I am still patiently waiting.

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.

Are you denying that Luther claimed these Books to be not canonical? If you are, please share your sources.

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.

Actually, the first council to approve the current canon of the Bible was convened in 382 AD and then re-affirmed several times. The research is available from this very website:

The first council recorded as dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which convened in A.D. 382 under Pope Damascus. Later councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and the ecumenical council of Florence (1438) reaffirmed the canon issued by the Council of Rome.
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Counter-Reformation

It is important to note that while some people, including St. Jerome have stated that the deuterocanonical Books may not be canonical, they all agreed with the Church’s decision to include them. St. Jerome went so far as to admonish those who disagreed with his compliance with Pope Damasus.

 

[erikd]

I see that you said that. I acknowledged that too in one of my responses. I disagree however. He embeds the penalty in the historical situation. If forgery is worthy of death, then corrupting the faith that quickens the soul should be too in his estimation. That is precisely why he said that they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.

I’m sorry Janet, but I believe, with all due respect, that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas. Remember, that he also says, as you pointed out in post 71:

In obedience to Our Lord’s institution, the Church extends her charity to all, not only to friends, but also to foes who persecute her, according to Matthew 5:44: “Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you.” Now it is part of charity that we should both wish and work our neighbor’s good. Again, good is twofold: one is spiritual, namely the health of the soul, which good is chiefly the object of charity, since it is this chiefly that we should wish for one another. Consequently, from this point of view, heretics who return after falling no matter how often, are admitted by the Church to Penance whereby the way of salvation is opened to them.

Also, please remember that the Summa Theologica is not Church Law or Canon Law. It is merely the work of one of the foremost philosophers of the Christian era. If it did advocate death (which it does not) the Church would have had to apply these teachings into Her own Canonical Law and this kind of law simply never existed. If it did, I would be interested in seeing it.

 

[ElisabethM]

Matthew 7
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them.

I was actually thinking of what Martin Luther accomplished as a simple Monk and wonder do Catholics consider these good fruits?

Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Arts, 1505, twenty-one years of age-headed towards Laws school. October 19, 1512, at the age of 28 Luther received his Doctor’s degree in theology

Chair in Biblical Theology at the University of Wittenberg and Priest for Wittenburg’s Castle Church.

Hymns by Martin Luther:
All Praise to Thee, Eternal God
Christ Jesus Lay in Death’s Strong Bands
Dear Christians, One and All, Rejoice
Flung to the Heedless Winds
From Depths of Woe I Cry to Thee
From Heaven Above
If God Had Not Been on Our Side
In Peace and Joy I Now Depart
In the Midst of Earthly Life
Isaiah, Mighty Seer, in Days of Old
Lord, Keep Us Steadfast in Your Word
May God Bestow on Us His Grace
A Mighty Fortress
O Lord, Look Down from Heaven, Behold
O Lord, We Praise Thee
Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above
Savior of the Nations, Come
That Man a Godly Life Might Live
Thou Who Art Three in Unity
We All Believe in One True God
We Now Implore God the Holy Ghost

Wrote thosands of sermons, read the Bible through 2 times a year for 10 years. Translated the Bible into German.

Luther’s whole adult workng life centered around Scripture, theology, the Church.

“There is no more lovely, friendly, and charming relationship, communion, or company than a good marriage.” (Martin Luther)

Martin and Kate had six children together- one was a teacher, a court advisor, a physician. Luther’s sisters’ six children lived with them after her death

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” Galatians 5:22-23

 

[Spun]

Erik,

You seem to have taken the liberty of answering a number of my responses to Matariel. For the record, my issue with Matariel has never had anything to do with Luther’s overall view of the canonicity of specific texts, rather with the assertion that he removed them from the Bible. Again, we are all aware of Luther’s canonical opinions.

But then, this was not a discussion you and I were having.

Let’s get back to the crux of our conversation:

In your OP, you cited Fr. Keenan to the effect that Luther was mortified in his pride because the Dominicans got the Indulgence rather than the Augustinians. Since Fr. Keenan cannot substantiate this, it falls to you as the one who cited him here to do so.

I have nothing to prove to you, I made no positive claim vis a vis your OP. Rather, I repudiated Keenan’s claim, the burden of proof for which has not yet been lifted.

This is, at the moment, the only issue between us. Please stop trying to shift the burden and please stop trying to obscure the matter with questions about things we have not controverted.

When you have shown that Keenan is correct, we can move on to other things.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

The following are quotes from “A Doctrinal Catechism” written by Rev. Stephen Keenan. The Catechism was developed to protect the “Catholic faith” and expose the “practice assailed by modern heretics.”

CHAPTER II

*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. 

Q. To what did he allow himself to be driven by this pride and jealousy? 
A. To attack the doctrine of Indulgences itself. 

Q. Would the Catholic Church have blamed Luther had he merely attacked the abuses or avarice of individual Catholics? 
A. No, certainly. He erred in this, that under pretence of reprehending abuses, he assailed the true faith on the subject of Indulgences.

Q. What was his next step? 
A. He posted on the gates of the Church of Wittemburg, ninety-five articles, which he wrote and which contained many things not in accordance with the doctrines of the Church. 

Q. Were these articles refuted? 
A. They were, and with much ability, by some Catholic Theologians, to whom Luther replied with a haughty insolence unworthy of a Christian. 

Q. What hypocritical pretences did Luther make in 1517, during these disputes? 
A. He pretended that he wished to teach nothing but what was conformable to Scripture, to the Holy Fathers, and approved by the Holy See. (T.1. Ger. Edit. Gen. p. 12.) 

Q. What did he write to Jerome, Bishop of Brandenburg? 
A. That he wished to decide nothing himself, and that he wished to submit all his doctrines to the Church. (Ibid, p. 54.) 

Q. What did he write to Pope Leo in 1518? 
A. That he would listen to that Pope's decision as to an oracle proceeding from the mouth of Jesus Christ. (Ibid, p. 58) 

Q. What did he promise to his religious superiors? 
A. That he would be silent, if his adversaries were placed under the same restraint.

Q. What inference do you draw from all this? 
A. That he was either a hypocrite who did not intend to fulfil his promises, or that he was quite satisfied of the truth of the doctrines which he impugned, since otherwise he could not conscientiously promise silence and obedience. 

Q. What other consequences do you draw? 
A. That a man swollen with pride, envy, jealousy—a disobedient hypocrite—was not the person to be chosen by God to reform abuses if any such existed.*

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/catechism.htm

Not really a step toward Christian unity in the universal body of Christ. I thought the last few Popes encouraged ecumenism within Christendom?