Was Luther's "canon" of God, or of man?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

First, the Orthodox split away officially by 1054. They, of course, maintain otherwise. Being separated from the universal Church, their canon developed differently. I understand that the Orthodox Church, good as it is, cannot call a general council, as they answer only to their regional Patriarch. They are not formulated, it appears, to deal with universal problems via the council mechanism which was established by the APostles at Jerusalem.

Yet the Orthodox canon of the Bible contains all the books of the Catholic canon.

 

[curlycool89]

As for earthly authority. Well he certainly didn’t leave anyone with the type of authority that people seem to want to bestow on the Pope. But certainly if the Apostles were standing here teaching they would certainly be authorities. Rome after it warped itself with the False Decretals and declared it’s one Bishophric the one catholic church and started innovating dogma from neither scripture nor tradition.

Claim Alert! Claim Alert! I understand it’s much more fun to just throw out authoritative statements, but I’m not a real big fan of it. So prove it. Instead of just spewing the regular anti-Catholic propaganda, I want you to give us an example of the above statement. If you can’t even give us an example then we know that you’re just regurgitating. And discussion is based around logical conversations, not regurgitation.
Jolly Joe:

You pretend that the teachings you are receiving has something to do with the Apostles and what they taught. Well, even Rome has pretty well abandoned that idea. Instead it has turned to the claim that it has the authority to proclaim it.

False. The Church can only enshrine as dogma what has always been taught and believed. There have only been 2 ex cathadra statements in the history of the Church, and both of them are even rooted in Tradition.
Jolly Joe:

If it was the teaching of all the Apostles how come the Orthodox church which also claims that same tradition does not agree? Who’s tradition is trustworthy?

If there’s any Orthodox’s lurking please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe we pretty much both believe the same things. A couple doctrines are understood in different ways. Mostly we just disagree on the role of the Bishop of Rome (who we call the Pope).

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Church can only enshrine as dogma what has always been taught and believed.

I’m at a loss to know how this substantiates that Luther’s translation of the Bible removed some books, but I’ll bite. Show me that The Catholic Church taught the Ascension of Mary in 31 AD. Once you quote specifically The Catholic Church in a document that can be substantiated form the year 31 AD where it states, definitively, that Mary ascended into heaven upon Her death (or undeath), then I have about 2,874 other things for you to document were officially taught by specificially The Catholic Church in 31 AD.

Back to the issue of which books Luther deleted in his German translation. And why The Catholic Church deleted some that The Eastern Orthodox Church includes and several that various Oriental Orthodox Churches include.

.

 

[NotWorthy]

Back to the issue of which books Luther deleted in his German translation. And why The Catholic Church deleted some that The Eastern Orthodox Church includes and several that various Oriental Orthodox Churches include.

Since the Church has the 7 Deutero’s included in the Synod of Rome and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo (circa 400AD), and not the extra books that the Eastern Church has, I would hesitate to say the Catholic Church deleted anything.

 

[po18guy]

… a point the opening poster either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about.

Rather presumptuous, wouldn’t you say? It is not germane to the topic of this thread. Please notice that I said Luther declared that the books were not inspired. Did Luther speak infallibly?

And we all know The Catholic Church OFFICIALLY has fewer books than The Eastern Orthodox Church does.

An odd point to make, since you reject the Eastern Orthodox canon as well!

I think the opening poster here has a faulty premise: that if fewer books exist in a tome, those promoting that tome must have DELETED some books. It’s a false premise. And moot in the case of Luther since he INCLUDES the books The Catholic Church would officially embrace after his death.

Read the title of the thread. Provide an answer if you dare. Only one brave soul has ventured an answer as to whether Luther’s “canon” is of God or of man. Step up!

He preached on them. He taught them.

He declared them non-inspired by his own earthly authority.

They are quoted in The Lutheran Confessions. All before The Catholic Church officially embraced them. A point our Catholic friends don’t seem to know.

He declared them non-inspired by his own earthly authority.

The REALITY is these DEUTERO Old Testament books have never had an ecumenical, official embrace.

Ecumenism is a strategy, not a faith.

There’s never been ANY true ecumenical council on this.

Truth is not determined by the strategy of ecumenism.

 

[po18guy]

I’m at a loss to know how this substantiates that Luther’s translation of the Bible removed some books, but I’ll bite.

Yet again, Luther declared them to be “non-inspired”. He left them in for other reasons.

Back to the issue…

Which is: “Was Luther’s “canon” of heavenly or earthly origin?”