Where did reformers get the authority to leave the Catholic Church?

[crazzeto]

Just curious, what authority was needed to rearrange the order of the books of the Bible, at least in Luther’s time, and where is that authority specifically written?

Jon

The Authority of God is needed to alter the bible, it is the inerrant word of God. Changing it, in anyway risks introducing error either directly, or as a result of removing information which would otherwise explain any apparently contradiction or error. In fact, the bible it’s self ends (almost, 2nd to last passage) with this passage:

drbo.org/chapter/73022.htm

18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. 20 He that giveth testimony of these things, saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

It would seem to me, that if you’re going to follow a faith based soly on an altered version of the bible, with altered doctrine and theology, you had best besure the alterations came from God. No?

 

[JonNC]

Good point. Usually when there is a major change in authority, God signifies it by means of miracles (Moses and the parting of the Red Sea, for example; David conquering Goliath; and Jesus with His many miracles) - but I am not aware of any miracles associated with the Reformation, on the Protestant side.

Jan Hus might have said that Father Martin surviving the Reformation without very warm toes was a miracle.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Just curious, what authority was needed to rearrange the order of the books of the Bible, at least in Luther’s time, and where is that authority specifically written?

Jon

This authority most properly belongs to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, if they have what seems to them to be a good reason to change the order of the books, or to change the names of the books as they are referred to in translation (obviously, they aren’t allowed to touch the Vulgate of St. Jerome, which is the original template for all Bibles); not just any random person who comes along and decides he wants to.

 

[jmcrae]

Jan Hus might have said that Father Martin surviving the Reformation without very warm toes was a miracle.

Jon

The explanation is very simple; he was hiding out in an extremely well-fortified castle, and guarded by the German army. The Pope was too busy dealing with the Muslims and Jews who were trying to take over Spain, to really apply his undivided attention to Martin Luther.

It is a myth that any Protestants were involved with the Spanish Inquisition, other than very indirectly.

 

[JonNC]

The Authority of God is needed to alter the bible, it is the inerrant word of God. Changing it, in anyway risks introducing error either directly, or as a result of removing information which would otherwise explain any apparently contradiction or error. In fact, the bible it’s self ends (almost, 2nd to last passage) with this passage:

I suspect the writer, not being aware of any particular order or listing of the books of the Bible, would not consider that type of “alteration” as being important.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The explanation is very simple; he was hiding out in an extremely well-fortified castle, and guarded by the German army.

The miracle of medieval construction.

Jon

 

[crazzeto]

I suspect the writer, not being aware of any particular order or listing of the books of the Bible, would not consider that type of “alteration” as being important.

Jon

John was mearly recording the Word of God as revealed to him in a vision.

 

[jmcrae]

The miracle of medieval construction.

Jon

A miracle of Catholic origin, let us not forget.

Construction standards have really gone down since the advent of Protestantism …

 

[JonNC]

A miracle of Catholic origin, let us not forget.

Construction standards have really gone down since the advent of Protestantism …

Well, we never had someone like John Tetzel raising money for us.

Jon

 

[Jon_Hus]

The Authority of God is needed to alter the bible, it is the inerrant word of God. Changing it, in anyway risks introducing error either directly, or as a result of removing information which would otherwise explain any apparently contradiction or error. In fact, the bible it’s self ends (almost, 2nd to last passage) with this passage:

drbo.org/chapter/73022.htm

It would seem to me, that if you’re going to follow a faith based soly on an altered version of the bible, with altered doctrine and theology, you had best besure the alterations came from God. No?

For example?

The fact is, crazzeto, when Luther stated to realize there were problems in Rome, it was due to his study of the Valgate. At that time there was no thought of translating it into vernacular. Luthers translation came after the break with Rome, you knew this but just forgot I’m sure.

Today, in English, there are several Roman Catholic translation of the Bible. I have in my personal library two of them, the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. I also have an approved for Roman Catholics New Revised Standard Version. I cannot find any real major difference between them and any of my protestant Bibles as far as the greek new testament translation is concerned. As a side comment though I’m courious to know why the RCC cannot see fit to publish an English translation that is as much a joy as say the New King James Version.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, we never had someone like John Tetzel raising money for us.

Jon

True - your guys raise money for themselves. (Oral Roberts, Tammy Faye, etc.)



It’s fun to villify Tetzel for his methods, but we wouldn’t have the Sistine Chapel or the David, or the Pieta without him and guys like him, and I think Christians of all denominations appreciate those things - I’ve even seen them reproduced in Evangelical web sites to illustrate a number of Biblical principles.

 

[crazzeto]

For example?

The fact is, crazzeto, when Luther stated to realize there were problems in Rome, it was due to his study of the Valgate. At that time there was no thought of translating it into vernacular. Luthers translation came after the break with Rome, you knew this but just forgot I’m sure.

Today, in English, there are several Roman Catholic translation of the Bible. I have in my personal library two of them, the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. I also have an approved for Roman Catholics New Revised Standard Version. I cannot find any real major difference between them and any of my protestant Bibles as far as the greek new testament translation is concerned. As a side comment though I’m courious to know why the RCC cannot see fit to publish an English translation that is as much a joy as say the New King James Version.

That’s not entirly accurate, among other books Martin Luther tried removing from the bible was the Book of James:

biblestudy.org/question/why-did-martin-luther-want-book-of-james-out-of-bible.html

Mainly because it refutes his theology of saved through faith alone.

 

[jmcrae]

For example?

The fact is, crazzeto, when Luther stated to realize there were problems in Rome, it was due to his study of the Valgate. At that time there was no thought of translating it into vernacular. Luthers translation came after the break with Rome, you knew this but just forgot I’m sure.

There were vernacular translations of the Bible being made beginning in the 700s AD, the same period of history when the European languages were developing alphabets for themselves, and developing a written form. Martin Luther certainly had access to German-language Bibles when he was in the Seminary and probably as a child in school, as well.

 

[Nominefili]

True - your guys raise money for themselves. (Oral Roberts, Tammy Faye, etc.)



It’s fun to villify Tetzel for his methods, but we wouldn’t have the Sistine Chapel or the David, or the Pieta without him and guys like him, and I think Christians of all denominations appreciate those things - I’ve even seen them reproduced in Evangelical web sites to illustrate a number of Biblical principles.

We “villify guys like Tetzel” because they told poor, uneducated commoners who were entrusted to them as their sheep that they could save themselves from damnation by funding such construction projects. Nobody cares whether or not the church builds nice buildings, but not at the expense of souls. I would rather worship in a grass hut than listen to heresy in the Sistine chapel.

 

[jmcrae]

We “villify guys like Tetzel” because they told poor, uneducated commoners who were entrusted to them as their sheep that they could save themselves from damnation by funding such construction projects.

Actually, they were receiving Papal Indulgences for giving money to these projects, which is a different thing than “saving themselves from damnation.”

Nobody cares whether or not the church builds nice buildings, but not at the expense of souls. I would rather worship in a grass hut than listen to heresy in the Sistine chapel.

Actually, the Sistine Chapel is probably the one place on earth that you would never hear any heresy preached.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5865982:

What, in their view, was lost?

Curiously,
Mick

Much of the traditionalism of the Early Church.

Would you care to be a little more specific?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Jon_Hus]

That’s not entirly accurate, among other books Martin Luther tried removing from the bible was the Book of James:

biblestudy.org/question/why-did-martin-luther-want-book-of-james-out-of-bible.html

Mainly because it refutes his theology of saved through faith alone.

Luther questioned the book of James but did not take it out.

 

[Nominefili]

Actually, they were receiving Papal Indulgences for giving money to these projects, which is a different thing than “saving themselves from damnation.”

Well obviously, by looking at my ‘religion’ stat you would have to realize that we have very different understandings of these things.

Actually, the Sistine Chapel is probably the one place on earth that you would never hear any heresy preached.

I beg to differ, but obviously the Reformation isn’t going to be resolved over an internet forum.

In the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Indulgences, it says the following:

Once it is admitted that Christ left the Church the power to forgive sins (see PENANCE), the power of granting indulgences is logically inferred. Since the sacramental forgiveness of sin extends both to the guilt and to the eternal punishment, it plainly follows that the Church can also free the penitent from the lesser or temporal penalty.

See, the office of the keys, I have no problem with. But why can’t it just stop there? Why should the church exploit those keys by offering special pardon to those who can pay up? Why should Christ’s forgiveness be held hostage? The problem is the Church took a good, essential, thing (that is, the binding and loosing of sins) and found a way to profit from it. Christ’s forgiveness extends to all the baptized who believe in Him. I think we can tell from his various discourses about the rich and the story of the poor woman who gave two copper coins that Christ didn’t intend his forgiveness to be bought and sold like a commodity.

 

[crazzeto]

Luther questioned the book of James but did not take it out.

He did take it out, in is very first Printed version of the Bible. he was then strong armed by his fellow protistant reformers to put it back in. The same is true of Revelation among other books in the bible.

In Luthers words:

in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture.

and

Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.

So it was Luthers intention to start a religion, based soly on the text recording the historical accounts of our faith (rather than any teaching body) while doubting that the full text is inerrant and not in any way contradictory. I find it truely bizzar that Protistants accues us Catholics of being “against scriputre”, suggesting we should “read scipture” (well we all should, so I agree there) and accuse us of not “beleiving scripture” when these are the problems found at the very roots of your faith tradition.

 

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;5866407]True - your guys raise money for themselves. (Oral Roberts, Tammy Faye, etc.)

Ouch!! That hurt. :blackeye: They’re not my guys. And they wouldn’t claim a good Lutheran like me, either.

It’s fun to villify Tetzel for his methods, but we wouldn’t have the Sistine Chapel or the David, or the Pieta without him and guys like him, and I think Christians of all denominations appreciate those things - I’ve even seen them reproduced in Evangelical web sites to illustrate a number of Biblical principles

Can’t argue with you there. And it isn’t usually fair to look back and judge people of those times by our standards. I think it is a mistake we all should avoid. And we certainly can’t hold each other accountable for their actions, either.

Jon