What did Luther "throw out"

[AF_Fugue]

Who gave Luther the authority to re-define what a sacrament is?

As has been said before on this thread, it wasn’t Luther’s intention to eliminate any of the Sacraments. From the section of the Book of Concord I linked before:

In the Thirteenth Article the adversaries [the Church] approve our statement that the Sacraments are not only marks of profession among men, as some imagine, but that they are rather signs and testimonies of God’s will toward us, through which God moves 2] hearts to believe [are not mere signs whereby men may recognize each other, as the watchword in war, livery, etc., but are efficacious signs and sure testimonies, etc.]. But here they bid us also count seven sacraments. We hold that it should be maintained that the matters and ceremonies instituted in the Scriptures, whatever the number, be not neglected. Neither do we believe it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose of teaching, different people reckon differently, provided they still preserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture. Neither have the ancients reckoned in the same manner. [But concerning this number of seven sacraments, the fact is that the Fathers have not been uniform in their enumeration; thus also these seven ceremonies are not equally necessary.]

In Luther’s eyes, the most important Sacraments were Baptism, the Lord’s Supper [Eucharist], and Absolution [Reconciliation]. He considered that Confirmation, although received at a different time, was a part of Baptism. These are the Sacraments that we are commanded to participate in, and meant for all people. They are for the forgiveness of sins and are therefore of prime importance. Matrimony and Holy Orders, while good and certainly of God, were obviously not commanded to everyone. Some are called to marriage, others to serve the Church as clergy, and others to neither. Therefore, Luther wanted to underscore the importance of the Sacraments that were for everyone for the forgiveness of sins. Even Annointing of the Sick, is not strictly necessary for Salvation, even in the RCC.

Finally, Luther’s definition of a Sacrament is not, to my eyes, in conflict with the Church’s. He calls them, “rites that have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added.”

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;7705762]Who gave Luther the authority to re-arrange the books of the Bible?

I think he did not just stop at the OT, he wanted to re-arrange the NT books too.

Hi pablope,
To my knowledge, scripture did not come with a table of contents. It seems no authority would be needed. His rearrangement reflected the view of many Catholics of his time and earlier that some books, in both the OT and NT, were considered disputed. And it is these disputed books which he rearranged.

I think you should study more a different viewpoint of the development of the Bible canon. From about AD 397 or so, once a Church Council defined the canon, there was not dispute about the Canon till Luther and his friends came along. So the CC was forced to stop the tinkering and declare the canon closed.

This just isn’t the case. Even Jerome and Eusebius disputed certain books. The earlier synods that listed a canon were not ecumenical, but local and regional. And the vriety of books considered canon, even without Lutherans and protestants is not agreed upon, even today (take a look at the Orthodox canons). Trent defines without question the canon for Catholics, and Luther was dead by the time of Trent.

You will also find out that those who initially questioned some of the books to be included kept their silence and accepted the Church’s decision once it was made.
I am at a lost why Protestants always cite these Catholic theologians. But they fail to see that when the Church spoke, they accepted what the Church promulgated.

And that was at Trent, as there was even dipute at the council regarding the canon. There’s nothing wrong with quoting and citing Catholic theologians, whether they be before the schism or since. The Lutheran confessions are full of quotes from the ECF’s. One would think it is something of a central foundation for rebuilding unity, not a point of criticism.

Jon

 

[Alix1912]

And that was at Trent, as there was even dipute at the council regarding the canon. There’s nothing wrong with quoting and citing Catholic theologians, whether they be before the schism or since. The Lutheran confessions are full of quotes from the ECF’s. One would think it is something of a central foundation for rebuilding unity, not a point of criticism.

It is a point of unity, however you have to ignore this if you want to play the “Bash Martin Luther, blame him for everything wrong with Christanity today game”. Unfortunatly that game didn;t really hold water then or now, just like you cannot say every Catholic Clergyman in Luther’s time was corrupt, you cannot deny that Martin Luther had many valid points and questioned things that many other Catholics were also questioning.

 

[JonNC]

What sacrements did Martin Luther leave out when he left the CC?
Today i just learned that Luther taught the faithful must confesss their sins to the pastor.

fb,
Considering the discussion thus far, considering the tone of the Lutheran confessions regarding the sacraments, and the fact that the confessions do not designate which books are considered canonical, my experience is that I do not believe that these two topics in and of themselves would be considered by Lutherans as Church dividing, particularly if the other doctrines that divide us were resolved.

For example, unlike the another Lutheran poster on this thread, I have heard and do consider confession/Holy Absolution to be a sacrament (though I admit the other position is in the majority). ISTM we value confession to such an extent that it isn’t much of a stretch to name it such, even by those who prefer to call it a Holy rite. My Lutherans siblings, however, may disagree.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

It is a point of unity, however you have to ignore this if you want to play the “Bash Martin Luther, blame him for everything wrong with Christanity today game”. Unfortunatly that game didn;t really hold water then or now, just like you cannot say every Catholic Clergyman in Luther’s time was corrupt, you cannot deny that Martin Luther had many valid points and questioned things that many other Catholics were also questioning.

I agree, though I find here many Catholics who truly are not willing to play that game, much to my joy. OTOH, there are also Lutherans, though few who post here, who want to play the same game in reverse, much to my sadness.
The blame game didn’t work for 450 years. Perhaps ecumenism will succeed where hostility failed, if we, as Pope Benedict encourages, we put our trust in God, as He is the only one who can secure the unity Christ called for, and Christians of good will seek.

Jon

 

[Alix1912]

fb,
Considering the discussion thus far, considering the tone of the Lutheran confessions regarding the sacraments, and the fact that the confessions do not designate which books are considered canonical, my experience is that I do not believe that these two topics in and of themselves would be considered by Lutherans as Church dividing, particularly if the other doctrines that divide us were resolved.

For example, unlike the another Lutheran poster on this thread, I have heard and do consider confession/Holy Absolution to be a sacrament (though I admit the other position is in the majority). ISTM we value confession to such an extent that it isn’t much of a stretch to name it such, even by those who prefer to call it a Holy rite. My Lutherans siblings, however, may disagree.

Jon

Agree 100%

 

[Alix1912]

I agree, though I find here many Catholics who truly are not willing to play that game, much to my joy. OTOH, there are also Lutherans, though few who post here, who want to play the same game in reverse, much to my sadness.
The blame game didn’t work for 450 years. Perhaps ecumenism will succeed where hostility failed, if we, as Pope Benedict encourages, we put our trust in God, as He is the only one who can secure the unity Christ called for, and Christians of good will seek.

Jon

Also Agree 100%

 

[fbl9]

This discussion got me reading my Lutheran Confessions again, and it turns out the issue of “how many” Lutheran sacraments is a bit fuzzier than even I thought. I was taught the criteria with slightly different wording, but essentially the same. A sacrament is:

1. 
   *]Commanded by Christ
   *]Contains an earthly element (or physical sign)
   *]Contains a promise from God.
   
   Based on these criteria, there would indeed only be two.
   1. 
      *]Baptism - check
      *]Holy Communion - check
      *]Reconciliation - missing #2
      *]Matrimony - missing #1
      *]Holy Orders - depending on the understanding of each of the above, it could be missing any of the three
      *]Confirmation - missing #1 (also #2 if you don’t count oil)
      *]Annointing of the Sick - missing #1
      
      However, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, it says
      
      Despite this, as a Lutheran, I have never heard of Absolution referred to as a Sacrament. The writers then go on to confuse the issue even more.
      
      It seems the writers’ primary intentions were to separate the important Sacraments from the less important (in their minds). Of primary importance were those which granted forgiveness of sins. It is also argued that as long as they are practiced, the number and designation is not important. (Similar to the Church’s stance that the exact numbering of the Ten Commandments is not a Big Deal.)
      
      I recommend, if you’re interested in the whole exposition on the Sacraments, that you read the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XIII here bocl.org/?AP+XIII

1. 1. 
      One could disagree that reconcilation is a sacrement because the pastor is the earthly element. no yes? Is not reconcillation for the forgiveness of sins? To my feeble mind it seems so.
      
      Matrimony could also be agrued that it came from Christ as He is in union with the Father from eternity.

 

[fbl9]

I would like to thank all who posted thus far for keeping things to charitable discussion.
As for blaming Martin Luther for the “mess” i do no such thing, but i do recognize him as the first of protesters.(on a scale of influence).

 

[pablope]

I would like to point out that the canon, while widely accepted around the 5th century, was by no means a settled matter. From the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

In the end, it must be noted that whatever Luther’s personal views were on specific books, he did, in the end, translate the ENTIRE Bible into German – Deuterocanon and all. We all have doubts at times, and Martin Luther happened to be in the position that a lot of people heard about his doubts. However, it appears that he did respect the long history these books have had in the Church and included them in his translation. The complete removal of them from published Bibles is a relatively recent development. (I haven’t been able to find where I read that before – something about publishing companies realizing they could save money by leaving them out, and most non-Catholics wouldn’t notice or care.)

I think there is no dispute in that he included them all in the Bible. What he did do (I stand corrected if not true) was he put them in a separate area. A Bible Society (do not know which) I think removed them sometime in the 1800s. What prompted them?

and most non-Catholics wouldn’t notice or care

I do not agree much on this one. Catholics are accused of adding to the Bible, and it is a source of dispute. Maybe not with Lutherans but with others.

Orthodox have a bigger list, I believe.

 

[pablope]

As has been said before on this thread, it wasn’t Luther’s intention to eliminate any of the Sacraments. From the section of the Book of Concord I linked before:

In Luther’s eyes, the most important Sacraments were Baptism, the Lord’s Supper [Eucharist], and Absolution [Reconciliation]. He considered that Confirmation, although received at a different time, was a part of Baptism. These are the Sacraments that we are commanded to participate in, and meant for all people. They are for the forgiveness of sins and are therefore of prime importance. Matrimony and Holy Orders, while good and certainly of God, were obviously not commanded to everyone. Some are called to marriage, others to serve the Church as clergy, and others to neither. Therefore, Luther wanted to underscore the importance of the Sacraments that were for everyone for the forgiveness of sins. Even Annointing of the Sick, is not strictly necessary for Salvation, even in the RCC.

Finally, Luther’s definition of a Sacrament is not, to my eyes, in conflict with the Church’s. He calls them, “rites that have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added.”

It may not have been Luther’s intention, but it was the end result, isn’t it? Look at the variety of belief in other PCs,

Another question is: Where did Luther get the authority to define which is important and which is not? Should not all the sacraments be treated the same?

 

[pablope]

Hi pablope,

To my knowledge, scripture did not come with a table of contents. It seems no authority would be needed. His rearrangement reflected the view of many Catholics of his time and earlier that some books, in both the OT and NT, were considered disputed. And it is these disputed books which he rearranged.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;7707661]
Hi, Jon…I was referring to the placement in a different section of those books he disputed. He could do that, but did Luther seek approval and authorization prior to embarking on it?

Good to talk with you again, pablope. I enjoy it when our paths cross here at CAF.
By the time Luther embarked on his translation into German, he had already bee excommunicated. His NT for came out in, I think 1522, and his completed Bible in 1534.

Agreed Jon. My point was whether it was ecumenical or not, there was widespread acceptance and no open disputes till Luther. Otherwise, a Trent like decision closing the Canon would have happened sooner.

I agree, except I think there was more “discussion” regarding the D-C’s and the disputed NT books than your statement here allows for. It seems that, until the Reformation, Rome was quite content to allow the topic to be batted about, so to speak. But in many ways, Luther did nothing more regarding Catholic freedom regarding the canon than others. The difference was, he was Luther.

Agreed Jon. What I have observed is that Jerome and Eusebius are used to justify Luther’s actions, instead of just examining Luther’s actions by themselves regarding the disputed DC books.

I think Luther relied on the likes of Jerome in developing his thoughts about the canon, so it may be hard to separate him from earlier Catholic thinkers. I also think there is a tendancy to overstate Luther’s opinion regarding the disputed books (though some of his early prefaces provide some ammunition in that way). You are right, though, that we ought to evaluate Luther based on Luther.
Finally, I hold the belief that there were reasons his translation has 74 books, and the Lutheran confessions no where set a canon. Certainly, he and the other Lutheran reformers held a respect for the D-C’s that Lutherans today ought to reconsider.

Jon

 

[Alix1912]

It may not have been Luther’s intention, but it was the end result, isn’t it? Look at the variety of belief in other PCs

You cannot hold someone responsible for other’s gross misinterpretation of his words and writing. Luther is probably spinning in his grave at the misuse of a lot of his teachings even within his own denominations (The ELCA for example). Still you cannot blame him for this.

Agreed Jon. My point was whether it was ecumenical or not, there was widespread acceptance and no open disputes till Luther. Otherwise, a Trent like decision closing the Canon would have happened sooner.

 

[pablope]

You cannot hold someone responsible for other’s gross misinterpretation of his words and writing. Luther is probably spinning in his grave at the misuse of a lot of his teachings even within his own denominations (The ELCA for example). Still you cannot blame him for this.

Thanks, Alix.

Well, you just ably demonstrated why there is a need for a teaching authority, a magisterium, to properly interpret the teachings, dogmas, doctrines, etc, so that one does not stray, and a lead shepherd…**a pope. **

You just also ably demonstrated why one cannot be his own authority and interpret the Bible or writings on his own without proper guidance.

Yet, the CC is criticized for having a Magisterium.

What happened to Luther’s teachings bare this out. You said…“Still you cannot blame him for this.”…

I would ask “Why not”? He disregarded authority, did he not? And look what happened…and still happening today…

 

[pablope]

Good to talk with you again, pablope. I enjoy it when our paths cross here at CAF.
By the time Luther embarked on his translation into German, he had already bee excommunicated. His NT for came out in, I think 1522, and his completed Bible in 1534.

I think Luther relied on the likes of Jerome in developing his thoughts about the canon, so it may be hard to separate him from earlier Catholic thinkers. I also think there is a tendancy to overstate Luther’s opinion regarding the disputed books (though some of his early prefaces provide some ammunition in that way).

Finally, I hold the belief that there were reasons his translation has 74 books, and the Lutheran confessions no where set a canon.
Jon

Hi Jon…the feeling is mutual…your posts are a joy to read. I hope all is well with you and your family.

I agree, except I think there was more “discussion” regarding the D-C’s and the disputed NT books than your statement here allows for. It seems that, until the Reformation, Rome was quite content to allow the topic to be batted about, so to speak. But in many ways, Luther did nothing more regarding Catholic freedom regarding the canon than others. The difference was, he was Luther.

I admit I am not familiar as you with that part of Church history. My question is did those Catholics go as far as Luther, ie, question authority, that finally forced the CC at Trent?

You are right, though, that we ought to evaluate Luther based on Luther.

Agreed. I hope all others follow your wisdom and lead.

Certainly, he and the other Lutheran reformers held a respect for the D-C’s that Lutherans today ought to reconsider.

I am assuming Lutherans use the standard Protestant Bible, right?

I agree, not only Lutherans, but all PCs should examine why the DCs were removed in the first place and stop blaming Catholics for adding to the Bible.

Peace and blessing, Jon…

 

[guanophore]

He didn’t “throw away” any sacraments. It’s really a matter of semantics. He placed a clear definition on what a sacrament is.

Why do you think that Luther had to revise the Apostolic definition of a sacrament, replacing it with his own?

What the catholic church calls sacraments, the Lutheran church calls Holy (non-sacramental) rites.

I think when you start reading Luther, you will find that his definitions and beliefs are quite different from that of modern Lutherans. The Lutheran faith has continued to evolve, and drift away from the Apostolic Faith.

The books he removed were the apocrypha, which weren’t even canonized by the catholic church until 1546 AD.
Peace and Blessings,
Julie

Julie, I challenge you to find one single Bible that existed from the time it was canonized (382 AD) until Luther that did not contain the Deuterocanonical books.

The Church canonized the Septuagint along with the NT in the fourth century.

When the legitimacy of it was questioned in 1546, the Catholic Church, as she does when speaking out against all heresies, make a dogmatic pronouncement.

The same is true for the word “Trinity”, not coined until generations after the NT books were penned. It is a mistake to think that the Church did not believe in the Trinity prior to the dogmatic pronoucement, just as much as the Church did not think the 27 books of the NT were Holy Scripture until 382 AD.

 

[guanophore]

He DID NOT throw out books of the Bible.   He seperated out books of the Old Testament that could not be traced back to original translations.

And by what authority did he do this?

History has proven his mistake, as these books were later found in the original Hebrew at Qumran.

  Also those books he questioned were being questioned at the time and had been questioned before by Catholic Theologians.

Yes, but individual theologians do not define the doctrine of the faith. This duty belongs to the Magesterium, to whom all those individual theologians submitted their work, including questionings and disagreements.

  Also don't even try to lay all the division in the Christian church on Luther, it was already happening before he got involved.

Indeed, the corruption of the Roman clergy in Europe at Luther’s time fomented such rebellion. It is hard enough to follow an authority that acts in purity, much less those that are wolves in sheeps clothing.

England had already seperated from the church and many in Germanic and Swiss and French area’s of Europe were starting to question Rome.

The problem was that they questioned the doctrine, as well as the people. People are always in need of reform. The doctrines of Christ are not. When the Reformers replaced the corrupt clergy with themselves as leaders,they also replaced the Apostolic Faith with that of their own imaginings.

 

[guanophore]

I would like to point out that the canon, while widely accepted around the 5th century, was by no means a settled matter. From the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

One must consider the source when reading. The Catholic Encyclopedia, along with Jerome,come from a Latin perspective only. The 22 Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church have not had such disputes, having received the Alexandrian Septuagint as authoritative from the Apostles.

the RCC

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

In fact, it was not infallibly defined (and did not seem to be a church-dividing issue) until the Council of Trent.

I am glad to see that you can acknowledge that infallible conciliar declarations are not made unless there are church dividing issues. This does not mean that the canon was not formed or received before that time.

The complete removal of them from published Bibles is a relatively recent development. (I haven’t been able to find where I read that before – something about publishing companies realizing they could save money by leaving them out, and most non-Catholics wouldn’t notice or care.)

Yes, this was a publishers decision, and was economic in nature.

This is precisely why the CC banned all such publishings. The Church does not recognize the authority of publishers to decide.

 

[guanophore]

In Luther’s eyes…

yes, but by what authority did he replace the perspective of the church (through the Apostles’ eyes) with his own?

the most important Sacraments were Baptism, the Lord’s Supper [Eucharist], and Absolution [Reconciliation]. He considered that Confirmation, although received at a different time, was a part of Baptism.

I cannot tell that Luther was even aware of the Eastern Church, or that he knew that Eucharist and Confirmation are given at baptism. They are not separated as they are in the West.

These are the Sacraments that we are commanded to participate in, and meant for all people.

By what authority does he determine this?

By what authority does he decide that all sacraments apply to all people?

Matrimony and Holy Orders, while good and certainly of God, were obviously not commanded to everyone.  Some are called to marriage, others to serve the Church as clergy, and others to neither.

How does this make them less sacramental?

Therefore, Luther wanted to underscore the importance of the Sacraments that were for everyone for the forgiveness of sins. Even Annointing of the Sick, is not strictly necessary for Salvation, even in the RCC.

These are artificial parameters created by Luther that were not known to the Church in the 1500 years prior. Regardless of Luther’s intentions to “underscore”, he does not have the authority to change the Teachings of Jesus that were givent to the Church.

Finally, Luther’s definition of a Sacrament is not, to my eyes, in conflict with the Church’s. He calls them, “rites that have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added.”

With all due respect, your “eyes” do not have the authority to change the Teachings of Jesus either.