You bring up various valid responses and rebuttals, as well as those that might not be so valid. One of my questions for you is, how much of this defense is based on 1) actual facts, irrelevent to who looks good (or not so good) by said facts, as opposed to 2) defense based on loyalty and obligation to the Church that you are now a member of? Heck, you even don't have to answer; just think about the question if you want. But keep in mind that defenses based on loyalty to the organization/group does little, if any, to address the actual facts related to the topic.
I try to stay as neutral as possible, but you're right, though, that my judgement could be colored. I don't hesitate to admit that fact. My involvement in this thread at all is a reaction to some statements in another persons' posts which, although given as fact, were little more than (imho) anti-Catholic bigotry.
Another question I have for you is that even while the Church was reading the scriptures to the congregations through the years, what about encouraging the individual members of the congregations to read (and interpret) the scriptures for themselves, as well as teaching the members how to read (particularly during the Middle Ages, when the illiteracy rate was so damn high) as well as providing them with a good education? I mean, you consider the overall excellence of Catholic schools in education nowadays, why wasn't that pursued back then?
That is an interesting question and a very valid question. As you know, illiteracy was the norm throughout the middle ages and that continued up to the past couple of hundred years. One other point to bring up would be that the cost of the printed word was likewise out of the reach of normal people during those days, as well. Prior to Gutenburg's press, books literally took years to reproduce. Thus they would only be in the reach of the very wealthy and would be very highly cherished. As a result, what use would reading be to a working class who were largely serfs or tradesmen?
But what did the Church do to influence literacy among the common man? Frankly, I doubt too much. But, on the other hand, I doubt that any of the rulers of those days did too much either (after all, if the serfs were educated, they might be more likely to revolt).
In fact, the general illiteracy of the populace was what gave rise to the tradition of stained glass windows. It was important to be able to teach the gospel to the people; if they couldn't read, at least they could see the pictures in the windows...and those pictures were used as graphic aids to teaching.
However, I don't think that the Church ever discouraged reading scripture, at least not as a matter of policy. Lectio Divina (reading and meditating on sacred scripture) has always been encouraged and, in fact, brings with it an indulgence:
§ 1.59 Plenaria indulgentia conceditur christifideli qui Sacram Scripturam, iuxta textum a competenti auctoritate adprobatum, cum veneratione divino eloquio debita et ad modum lectionis spiritalis, per dimidiam saltem horam legerit; si per minus tempus id egerit indulgentia erit partialis.
Other than that, has the Catholic Church done anything else to encourage reading of scriptures? Honestly, up until the past 50 years, not nearly as much as they should have.
You touch on an important issue though "read (and interpret) scripture for themselves." I can state beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Catholic Church does not encourage interpretations of the scriptures that are at odds with the Magesterium. On the other hand, I can't think of any denomination (with the exception of the Unitarians) that does encourage scriptural interpretations that fall outside of their doctrinal framework. And that includes TWI (in fact, TWI would be a prima facie example of that).
If you would be so kind as to deal with these questions.
An aside concerning your remarks on stained glass windows. I met a Masai "mchungaji" (pastor) who was said to be the first Masai Christian in southern Tanzania. He was saved sometime in the 70's, but had little contact with other Christians. He read the Bible in Swahili and began teaching its lessons from village to village as he walked that remote wilderness. Over the years he made his own drawings of the stories and concepts he communicated which he used to teach illiterate Masai adults as well as children. He also made drawings illustrating visions he's had which he also uses in working with his charges. The drawings are cool. Intricate in a funky folk-art sense. All the human characters are depicted (of course) as Masai people.
This intelligent and gentle man has done this with no support other than the largess of his fellow Masai for over 30 years!
These days the Masai I know are quite literate, at least in Masai & Swahili.
Obviously, nothing (provided an accurate translation is provided). However, this brings up one critical point that nobody has cared to address: If the Catholic Church was so opposed to a Bible in the vernacular, why would they authorize, sponsor and publish the Douay-Rheims Bible, which, as I mentioned earlier, was published well before the KJV? (The New Testament was published 25 years before the KJV first came out and the full Bible published two years before the KJV). Why would they do this if they so hated the thought of the scriptures being translated into the vernacular?
The fact that the RCC authorized an English version of the Bible preceding the KJV does not establish that the RCC had not been at times opposed to keeping Bibles from being published in various vernaculars. In getting behind Douay-Rheims, for instance, a question of whether or not the English people were going to have access to an English-language Bible was not a question the RCC would have had to consider. Through the efforts of others, there already were English Bible versions (e.g. the Geneva Bible) that had reached the hands and minds of English-speaking people.
It seems a necessary exercise in triviality to point out that if the RCC could not prevent religious opponents from publishing Bibles in various vernaculars, perhaps a pragmatic response was to tolerate or pony up some more-or-less in-house versions produced by RCs.
It is likely that you and I, at minimum, share Chalcedon Christology and a Trinitarian view of God.
So, before we get to the point where you’re deriding me as some bigoted, anti-Catholic, Protestant heretic, and I you as hypocritically whining papist swine, I bid you a tentatively warm Hello!
Ie., first shake hands, then come out fighting. :)
It does kinda puts the civil (altho' shallow) tone to the conflict, ehh? ... Maybe that's what they needed for all those religious-based wars that they had in Europe centuries ago.
Templelady..that old chief in the Amazon will be judged in the ressurection of the dead, but not be in the 'gathering together'..to 'baptise for the dead' is bizzare, playing God and pandering to emotions, nothing more. Read EW Bullingers explanation of the verse (what is the use of a man or woman being 'baptized' if it is only for them to REMAIN dead.)
God is NOT the author of confusion !
My previous question was "could a LDS person be 'baptized' for say someone like Hitler" ?
I would almost agree with you; its my belief, based upon what I've seen, that these various competing belief systems (with the exception of the gnostics) sprung up during various periods of time in the early church history.
Mark, we'll have to agree to disagree, then. The evidence isn't so clear cut that argument and disagreement is cut off.
For example the Marcionites came into existance somewhere around the middle of the second century (named after Marcion, bishop of Sinop on the Black Sea coast, who originated the practice). The Arian heresy is said to of originated with Paul of Samosata, about 100 years after the Marcionites. The common thread, though, of almost all of these groups was a divergence from what was already identified as orthodox Christian doctrine.
True...as far as it goes. Some "heresies" sprung up in opposition to established, "orthodox" doctrines. For others, I'm not so sure that it is even possible to untangle which of the orthodox teachings were "original", and which simply beat down all competitors.
But I do agree with your conclusion, though. Had any of these heresies prevailed, they would now be considered the orthodoxy and what is now considered orthodox would be considered heresy.
Sounds like an interesting alternate history novel
I am well familiar with the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which did include many faulty translations of the Bible, to include the Tyndale and the "King James" Versions. I have no apologies to offer. Frankly, I wish that Paul VI would not have eliminated the Index back in the 1960s. Since that time all sorts of heterodox publications have come out claiming to be Catholic, while only actually bearing a vague resemblence to actual Catholic doctrine.
In regards to the prohibiting the printing, sales, and possession of the Bible in the vernacular, to my knowledge, the prohibition applied to works produced by heretical sources (e.g., Lutheran and Calvanist sources). Frankly, I would be hesitant to take Schaff-Herzog at face value without actually examining the contents of the particular documents for myself.
For what its worth, the Catholic Encyclopedia says the following regarding the subject:
First, these ten rules contain prohibitions
[*]of all heretical and superstitious writings;
[*]of all immoral (obscene) books, the old classics alone excepted, which, however, are not to be used in teaching the young;
[*]of all Latin translations of the New Testament coming from heretics.
A particular statement is made with regard to heresiarchs, or heads of sects sprung up since 1515, whose names are mentioned in the so-called first class of the index. All their books, even those free from objection, i.e., not treating of religious questions, as well as future publications, are to be considered forbidden.
Second, the rules contain conditional prohibitions, i.e. , books published by heretics, or even by Catholics, that are in the main good and useful, but not altogether free from dangerous passages, are forbidden until corrected by the lawful authorities. To these writings belong chiefly those mentioned in the Index itself as needing correction.
Third, on certain conditions, and after asking special permission, leave is granted for the reading of Latin translations of the Old Testament edited by heretics, and for the use of Bible-versions in the vernacular written by Catholics.
Fourth, preventive censorship and approbation, as prescribed by the Bull of Leo X (1515), are insisted on. The punishment of excommunication is extended also to the author who has his book printed without the necessary approbation. A copy of the examined and approved manuscript is to remain with the censor. Moreover, printers and booksellers are forbidden both to offer for sale prohibited books and to sell conditionally interdicted works to anyone not producing a permit; they are ordered to keep ready an exact list of all writings they have in stock. At the same time bishops and inquisitors are urged to supervise printing and book-shops and to have them inspected.
Finally, the rules inflict the punishment of excommunication on such as read and possess forbidden heretical works, or those suspected of heresy. Any person reading or keeping a book prohibited for other reasons commits a grievous sin and is to be punished according to the bishop's discretion. The ten rules remained in force until Leo XIV abrogated them by the Constitution "Officiorum ac Munerum" (25 Jan., 1897) and replaced them by new general decrees. In the course of time, however, the rules not only received some few additions, especially when a new index was published, but in consequence of contrary custom also gradually lost their binding force with regard to certain regulations.
Of course, I'd expect you to take my source with the same quantity of grains of salt as I would apply to yours.
Now, as to your statements:
The fact that the RCC authorized an English version of the Bible preceding the KJV does not establish that the RCC had not been at times opposed to keeping Bibles from being published in various vernaculars. In getting behind Douay-Rheims, for instance, a question of whether or not the English people were going to have access to an English-language Bible was not a question the RCC would have had to consider. Through the efforts of others, there already were English Bible versions (e.g. the Geneva Bible) that had reached the hands and minds of English-speaking people.
You will, of course, recall my mention of the Constitutions of Oxford. This law, prohibiting unlicensed publication of an unlicensed English language version of the Bible, was enacted by the English Parliment in 1408. The British Parlimentary move was obviously in response to Wycliff's version of the Bible. Wycliff was clearly a heretic and, from what I've read, his translation was significantly influenced by his heresy. This may have as much to do with it as anything else. France, Holland, Germany and Spain all had vernacular versions of the Bible prior to 1500. To my knowledge, those were authorized versions. Why an authorized version was not published in English until 1585, I can't say. I have a feeling that you are likely correct that it was recognized that a "good" translation of the Bible ought to be made available, as the Lutherans and Calvanists were bound and determined to infiltrate their versions into England. Thus, for the Anglicans, the King James Version was published in 1611 and for Catholics, the Douay Rheims. (An obvious, but humorous, aside is that, since the English Crown had broken away from Rome by that time, the Douay Rheims version would have been just as unlicensed as the Tyndale version).
This still begs the question, authorized vernacular translations in a number of languages existed prior to the Reformation. Yes, English was not one of those languages. However, had the vernacular been supressed because of its being the vernacular, why in the world would these translations been authorized?
By the way, the Spanish version was called the Biblia Alfonsina and dates from the 1200s. The German version was translated by Rellach in 1475. The Dutch version was the "Delft Bible," published in 1477. The French version was the Vaudetar Bible, 1371.
By the way, I am not defending the actions of Paul IV or Sixtus V. Both were thoroughly HORRIBLE popes.
Garth,
I would think that this is the way that any debate should occur. Politely. But I appreciate your humor...
Its amazing what happens when ad hominem attacks and invective are left at the door...
Mark, I happen to be Lutheran, in fact ELCA(Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) which signed with the Holy Roman Catholic Church the recinding of the condemnations in October 31, 1999. I am an Evangelical,
Catholic, Orthodox Christian who happens to be a member of a denomination whose leader was a German monk, priest, and mild reformer unlike Jean Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, or John Knox who were more radical. I am personally very High-Church liturgically(organ, sanctus bells, incense, icons, stations of the cross, etc) who relunctantly does Contemporary Christian Praise Music only to attract outsiders to the faith. So be careful about being anti-protestant since must Catholics would disagree with you, and I have many who are my friends as well as the Eastern Orthodox community. Thomas
I love the really old (16th & 17th C.) Lutheran hymnody. Very cool stuff, some of it removed from antiphonal chant by only a degree or two of separation.
In fact, the general illiteracy of the populace was what gave rise to the tradition of stained glass windows. It was important to be able to teach the gospel to the people; if they couldn't read, at least they could see the pictures in the windows...and those pictures were used as graphic aids to teaching.
just an aside: Stained glass windows were/are not only a 'graphic aid' but with training can also be 'read' with as much accuracy and detail, if not more, than words on a page,
The windows of those early periods not only teach the gospel and biblical story in great detail , but in their art and use of symbolism also communicate the spirit and mystery within them imo in ways that have never been duplicated or approached
Mark, I happen to be Lutheran, in fact ELCA(Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) which signed with the Holy Roman Catholic Church the recinding of the condemnations in October 31, 1999. I am an Evangelical,
Catholic, Orthodox Christian who happens to be a member of a denomination whose leader was a German monk, priest, and mild reformer unlike Jean Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, or John Knox who were more radical. I am personally very High-Church liturgically(organ, sanctus bells, incense, icons, stations of the cross, etc) who relunctantly does Contemporary Christian Praise Music only to attract outsiders to the faith. So be careful about being anti-protestant since must Catholics would disagree with you, and I have many who are my friends as well as the Eastern Orthodox community. Thomas
Thomas,
My apologies if I said something to offend you. That was certainly not my intent in any fashion. My sole intent in even entering this thread was in reaction to a statement made by another poster which was, I considered, to be an ad hominem attack.
I am glad that the Lutheran World Federation, of which ELCA (from what I understand) is a member, was able to arrive at a partial consensus with Rome in the form of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and does not publish scurrilous attacks against the Catholic Church in its statement of beliefs. I wish that this was the case for the other Lutheran denominations, such as the LCMS, the WELS, and the ELS (see item 13 on the web page). The ELCA does say that they accept the Smalcald Articles, as well, but they don't explicitly state that they fully endorse Article IV anymore, so its hoped that they have reconsidered that position. I, for one, am glad that they have toned it down.
If you can identify the specific thing I said that you believe was an attack, I'll be happy to see if I can rephrase it in more neutral language. As I said, my intent was not hardly to offend, but rather to present a vigorous defense against an ad hominem attack.
Luther was correctly upset at the abuse of indulgences that had become widespread in his day. That practice was reformed through the Council of Trent:
In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.
Well. I've missed a lot today. Evan's repsonse about Sir Thomas Moore and Tyndale preempted what I was going to say, as have a couple of other posters more historically informed than I. So at this point, I've only one comment.
Mark, you have accused me of anti-Catholic bigotry, but you continue to refer to Luther, Calvin, and every other Prostestant as "heretic". That seems somewhat hypoctritical to say the least. What makes Luther a heretic? The rejection of the claim that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ? The rejection of a celibate priesthood? Or was it his insistence that raising money by the selling of indulgences was a corrupt practice? To paraphrase John 10:32, For which of these do you consider Luther a heretic?
And since we're discussing the virtues and vices of the Roman Catholic Church relative to the Bible, how does one justify calling a man a heretic for breaking with the RCC because of something he read in the Bible? (Specifically, Martin Luther reading Romans).
Templelady..that old chief in the Amazon will be judged in the ressurection of the dead, but not be in the 'gathering together'..
My point exactly--everyone will be at the resurrection --the just and unjust alike
But to bar someone from the gathering together because they had NO CHANCE to hear the gospel in the first place is not what a loving Heavenly Father would do
to 'baptise for the dead' is bizzare, playing God and pandering to emotions, nothing more.
You are definitely entitled to your opinion of the practice--please keep in mind that it is just that-- your opinion.
Read EW Bullingers explanation of the verse (what is the use of a man or woman being 'baptized' if it is only for them to REMAIN dead.)
God is NOT the author of confusion !
Bullinger was not a prophet of GOD --he was a man giving his opinions--they are worth that-- no more no less. Some of those opinions may be accurate, inacurrate or somewhere in between.
Besides which he hits on my point exactly --there would be no point IF they remained dead--However since LDS theology teachs that they don't--there is most definitely a point--suggest you go back and click on the link in my previous post for a more through explanation.
My previous question was "could a LDS person be 'baptized' for say someone like Hitler" ?
Yes
However, Just because a baptism for the dead is performed in behalf of someone does not mean that they accept it in the spirit world. They have the right to reject the baptism and what it stands for just as they would here on earth.
Someone on another thread spoke about families being together for ever and that that would mean that Osama Bin Ladin could be with his family forever
But it doesn't work that way, baptism is not a free pass to heaven--you have to live a worthy life--baptised or not-- if you run loose destroying, lying, murdering, and stealing on this earthly plane with no repentence --the baptism isn't going to be your get out of jail free card.
Well. I've missed a lot today. Evan's repsonse about Sir Thomas Moore and Tyndale preempted what I was going to say, as have a couple of other posters more historically informed than I. So at this point, I've only one comment.
Mark, you have accused me of anti-Catholic bigotry, but you continue to refer to Luther, Calvin, and every other Prostestant as "heretic". That seems somewhat hypoctritical to say the least. What makes Luther a heretic? The rejection of the claim that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ? The rejection of a celibate priesthood? Or was it his insistence that raising money by the selling of indulgences was a corrupt practice? To paraphrase John 10:32, For which of these do you consider Luther a heretic?
And since we're discussing the virtues and vices of the Roman Catholic Church relative to the Bible, how does one justify calling a man a heretic for breaking with the RCC because of something he read in the Bible? (Specifically, Martin Luther reading Romans).
Peace
JerryB
OK, Jerry.
Heresy is defined by Webster's dictionary as:
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards
The Code of Canon Law defines it as follows:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
St. Thomas Aquinas says (Summa II-II.11.1):
Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas.
So you ask if it is a little hypocritical to call Luther, Calvin, et al, heretics? If you read the definitions, above, it is clear that they would be considered as such. I'm sorry if that is upsetting, but, from the definitions I've shown you, you can see that I am not trying to use the word as a perjorative, its simply the correct word.
Please don't get me wrong, I am NOT accusing modern subscribers to Lutheranism or Calvinism heretics or schismatics. They were raised in their denominations -- obviously the heresies that formed those denominations should not be laid at their feet. I'm just thankful of the orthodoxy that those denominations DO subscribe to and pray that they will eventually be able to be brought into the fold again at some point.
In fact, Jerry, you'll be surprised to learn that I have encouraged some people who have considered converting to Catholicism but who have lingering problems with some aspect of Catholic dogma to study the issue thoroughly and, if they can't resolve the problem, to hold off converting or to go to a relatively orthodox Protestant denomination, such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, or Methodism. My thought is that it would be better for them to wait until such time as they are fully convinced rather than to convert with lingering doubts and then to leave. (cf 2 Pet 2:21)
Oh, and by the way, I would imagine that most Protestants would consider me, as a Catholic, to be a heretic as well, because my beliefs do not agree with their established orthodoxy. And that's fine.
To quote John 10:32 (NAB) "Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?"
Jerry, for one, I consider the concept of Sola Scriptura taught by most Protestants as simply being unscriptural.
2 Thes 2:15 (NAB): "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
2 Thes 2:15 (RSV): "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
Both of the above verses explicitly state that the apostles (Paul specifically here) taught the people not only through the letters but also by oral teachings -- that were not recorded in the Bible. So how are the brothers supposed to stand fast in traditions taught "by word of mouth" if they practice sola scriptura in their theology?
That's one example. A fairly controversial one, I'll admit. But just one.
And since we're discussing the virtues and vices of the Roman Catholic Church relative to the Bible, how does one justify calling a man a heretic for breaking with the RCC because of something he read in the Bible? (Specifically, Martin Luther reading Romans).
That is very simplistic. First of all, if you read the definitions I supplied above, I'm sure you'll see why "heretic" is the correct word to use for Luther's case. However, I'll try to synthesize the situation down a little bit; any errors I make are unintentional and hopefully Thomas will be able to correct any errors I've made.
Luther was an Augustinian Monk. He had a very scrupulous nature. He was (rightly) offended by the abuses of indulgences promulgated by Pope Leo X. As stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, and shows how far short all efforts at reform had hitherto fallen. Albert of Brandenburg, already Archbishop of Magdeburg, received in addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obliged to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. To indemnify hiim, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter's; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it. Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the "Indulgences for the Dead" became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above. He recognized neither the gravity of the situation nor the underlying causes of the revolt. Vigorous measures of reform might have proved an efficacious antidote, but the pope was deeply entangled in political affairs and allowed the imperial election to overshadow the revolt of Luther; moreover, he gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.
His 95 Theses, rather than strictly dealing with those abuses, attacked the instution of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation itself. (See Thesis #6, in particular)
That's where the charge of heresy initally sprung out of. It grew from there. Rather than dealing with the legitimate issues raised by Luther, the Pope dealt severely with Luther and then there was pushback on Luther's part. In fairness to Luther, he initially did not want to foment a schism in the Church. Had the Church dealt with the substance of Luther's issues, its likely that he wouldn't have left. But he did, and then there were continued changes: he rejected all of Tradition, proclaiming sola scriptura; he rejected the effectual nature of the sacraments, proclaiming sola fide, and he eventually called the Pope the anti-Christ (Smalcald Articles, Article IV). Obviously at that point, there was no turning back.
The ultimate irony is that the abuses of indulgences was recognized and corrected not that long after Luther and his followers left. (See my extract from the Council of Trent, a couple of posts up)
To say that Martin Luther read something in Romans, had a light turn on in his head and have him reject Catholicism all at one point, is overly simplistic and does neither Luther nor Catholicism any favors.
Thomas, if I've misstated something, my apologies, please do add on as you see fit.
Interesting. I was just listening to something on this earlier this morning.
Though the RC church has steadfastly rejected sols scriptura, it has, with some 20th Century exceptions, steadfastly affirmed scriptural inerrancy. In layman's terms, the church maintains that scripture plus "the tradition of the fathers" (in so many words) constitute the church's , and by extension man's, rule for faith and practice. (As you said above in so many words, Mark).
But there's a rub. When church tradition, or papal encyclical, et. al, does violence to the principle of inerrancy, who wins? In many cases, such as Maryology, the "communion of the saints", etc., it seems that tradition has won. The only way those things can be harmonized is at the expense of scriptural inerrancy. By this I mean, the resultant interpretations seem to do violence to the clear meaning of the text.
-----------------------------------
A few points regarding the reformers. I think it is unfair to call Tyndale a reformer very much in the Lutheran mold. My reading tells me he met Luther but once. He never clearly deliniated a doctrinal stance, whereas Luther went on to publish many books of theology. Luther was a firebrand, publishing many leaflets & tracts with incendiary & scathing condemnations of the Pope and of the church. Tyndale did nothing of the kind that I'm aware of. By contrast, he was an academic and focused on Bible translation. His work still stands, in my opinion, as the single greatest accomplishment in Bible translation by a single person.
Calling him a heretic, by the definitions you gave, hardly seems a cause for concern. It simply means that the group to which you subscribe found disagreement in what he says. Which makes us all, I suppose, heretics to somebody. So be it.
Interesting. I was just listening to something on this earlier this morning.
Though the RC church has steadfastly rejected sols scriptura, it has, with some 20th Century exceptions, steadfastly affirmed scriptural inerrancy. In layman's terms, the church maintains that scripture plus "the tradition of the fathers" (in so many words) constitute the church's , and by extension man's, rule for faith and practice. (As you said above in so many words, Mark).
But there's a rub. When church tradition, or papal encyclical, et. al, does violence to the principle of inerrancy, who wins? In many cases, such as Maryology, the "communion of the saints", etc., it seems that tradition has won. The only way those things can be harmonized is at the expense of scriptural inerrancy. By this I mean, the resultant interpretations seem to do violence to the clear meaning of the text.
From my studies on the subject, I have found nothing in Church dogma that has "done violence" to scripture. I have, on the other hand, seen a lot that has been promulgated as dogma (but in fact wasn't) that does incredible violence.
A few points regarding the reformers. I think it is unfair to call Tyndale a reformer very much in the Lutheran mold. My reading tells me he met Luther but once. He never clearly deliniated a doctrinal stance, whereas Luther went on to publish many books of theology. Luther was a firebrand, publishing many leaflets & tracts with incendiary & scathing condemnations of the Pope and of the church. Tyndale did nothing of the kind that I'm aware of. By contrast, he was an academic and focused on Bible translation. His work still stands, in my opinion, as the single greatest accomplishment in Bible translation by a single person.
Well, not being an expert at it, I'll have to take your word for this. I based my judgement upon readings like the following, from Reformed Perspectives:
The Lutheran influence on Tyndale’s Testament was pervasive. This fact may indicate that the Englishman had moved closer to the Lutheran position since his disappointment with what we might refer to as the “non-populist humanism” of Cuthbert and since his arrival in Germany. On the other hand, it may merely indicate that he was freer now to express the Lutheran opinions which he had held already. Or perhaps some combination of both explanations is true. In any event, Tyndale’s prefaces to Romans, First Corinthians, and Galatians were essentially translations of Luther’s own. Even more importantly, Tyndale’s prologue, epilogue, and marginal glosses were distinctly Lutheran in their emphasis on the priority of justification by faith. As an example of this emphasis, consider this passage from the Tyndale’s epilogue:
Note the difference of the lawe, and of the gospell. The one axeth and requyreth, the wother perdoneth and forgeveth. The one threateneth, the wother promyseth all good thynges, to them that sett their trust in Christ only… Applye the gospell, that is to saye the promyses, vnto the deservynge off Christ, and to the mercye of god and his trouth, and soo shalt thou nott despeare: butt shalt feale god as a kynde and a mercifull father.6
This strong law-gospel contrast is Lutheran, and it stands opposed to the Lollard emphasis on the overarching unity of the Bible as “God’s law.”
Calling him a heretic, by the definitions you gave, hardly seems a cause for concern. It simply means that the group to which you subscribe found disagreement in what he says. Which makes us all, I suppose, heretics to somebody. So be it.
As I said earlier, I'm sure my beliefs as a Catholic would rank me as a Heretic in most Protestant eyes.
I will briefly address the definitions of heresy as offered by Mark.
The Webster's Definition:
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards
1a I do not think that "church" here necessarily means "Catholic Church", however someone with a Catholic bias would probably read that into it. In most churchs dogma is not always in harmony with the "Word of God".
1b This obviously assumes that the Catholic Church has sole authority to establish the standards for truth. A notion that I strongly reject. Truth trancends the Roman Catholic Church and it's claim as the sole mediator of truth.
1c. More of the same.
2a. Dominant does not mean correct. The Catholic Church persecuted Galieo as a heretic because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.
2b. More of the same.
The Cannon Law Definition:
Can. 751 "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
This a Catholic defintion coined to force adherence of its members to the dogmas of the Catholic Church and to force submission to the Pope. It again wrongly assumes the Catholic Church to be the sole arbiter of the truth. In any case canon law only applies to those within the Catholic Church, not Christians at large.
St. Thomas Aquinas says (Summa II-II.11.1):
"Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas."
We can safely assume that Thomas Aquinas meant Cathiolic faith when he said Christian Faith. Therefore his definition only applies to those who accept the Catholic Church as the one true Church and the Catholic Faith as the one true faith.
"Heresy" is like the word "cult". Its meaning depends upon the person/group using it. It seems that Mark would have us accept the Catholic definitions as authoritive, when in fact the definitions offered only apply to him as a Catholic and speak loudly as to his own religious bias. That being said, we all have bias. When we are convinced that we or our group is absolutly right on dogma or doctrine, then it stand to reason that we are therefore equally convinced that any dissenting view is absolutly wrong.
Mark calling Luther a heretic is absolutely the correct usage according to the Catholic definitions he subscribes to. I wouldn't expect anything less from a good Catholic.
Heretic would apply to Luther because he was a subject of the Catholic Church when he posted his theses. By those who assume that Rome has/had the authority to be the sole arbiter of truth, faith and practice, Luther therefore WAS a heretic according to the Catholic definitions offered. His theses contradicted accepted Church dogmas thus making him a "heretic".
However, I do not assume the authority of Rome or accept the self-serving definitions offered by the Catholic Church. In my view, Luther's theses were mostly correct, and the and the practices and dogmas he rejected needed to be rejected.
A heretic to some is a man of faith, courage and conviction to others.
I'm glad that you can see that I am not trying to cause a stir with the usage of the word heretic.
Your last sentence,
A heretic to some is a man of faith, courage and conviction to others.
is a very correct statement and I would expect no less from any Protestant or Catholic who is convinced of his beliefs and is willing to stand up for those beliefs in front of opposition.
I would submit that I would be viewed as a heretic in TWI, as I have totally rejected their theology since leaving that organization some 16 years ago. In fact, I am sure I would be viewed as apostate. I would not hardly be offended if a TWIt called me either of those terms, as they would be accurate, from the TWIt's perspective.
Even our good friends Mike and Allan would be viewed as schismatic by TWI, but not necessarily heretical...
As far as the "self-serving" comment, we could make that comment about any group that holds a set of beliefs, no matter what those beliefs may be. Frankly, Merriam Webster is not hardly a Catholic source; however, the last two citations I provided were intentionally from Catholic sources (how could one call that any more self-serving than the LCMS declaration of faith which declares that the Pope is the anti-Christ?), as I was showing the basis from which Luther was declared a heretic by the Catholic Church.
The bottom line is that, regardless of our beliefs, we should be able to defend those beliefs. Hopefully we can agree on some issues once we come to an understanding of what each other believes (rather than listening to propaganda, invective, and ad homina from either side) and, at the end of the day, respect each others' right to believe differently. I enjoy that kind of debate and consider it as an opportunity for either side to grow in understanding of their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of the others in the discussion.
But how can you justify Maryology or the communion of the saints (prayer to saints), for instance, without doing violence to the clear intent of accepted scripture? This, to me, goes to the heart of this topic.
And I don't mean this in a pugilistic way. I'm just interested in how one can justify such apparently disparate conclusions.
Mark, you might be interested that Lenoir-Rhyne College has been for the last 12 years been sponsoring an
Aquinas-Luther Conference on various topics. Although Luther did say "sola scriptura", today we proably would say scripture as primary souce, Lutheran confessions as secondary, church Fathers as tertiary level. Lutherans do have tradition, both historical and denominational.
But how can you justify Maryology or the communion of the saints (prayer to saints), for instance, without doing violence to the clear intent of accepted scripture? This, to me, goes to the heart of this topic.
And I don't mean this in a pugilistic way. I'm just interested in how one can justify such apparently disparate conclusions.
OK, Evan, I'll tackle the "communion of saints" issue first. Hopefully the thought process behind this will show that "violence is not done" to scripture. I can't do anything at all about your interpretation of scripture's clear intent. Frankly, anything I believe will do violence to your beliefs. So I will not ever be able to assuage you of your beliefs and have no intention of trying to do so. But, in the interest of showing that I do not "do violence" to the scriptures, I'll try outline the scriptural origins of the Catholic belief.
To clear something up first and foremost, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to worship (latria) God alone. Anything else is idolatry.
Rev 7:
9 After this I had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands.
10 They cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation comes from our God, who is seated on the throne, and from the Lamb."
11 All the angels stood around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They prostrated themselves before the throne, worshiped God,
12 and exclaimed: "Amen. Blessing and glory, wisdom and thanksgiving, honor, power, and might be to our God forever and ever. Amen."
13 Then one of the elders spoke up and said to me, "Who are these wearing white robes, and where did they come from?"
14 I said to him, "My lord, you are the one who knows." He said to me, "These are the ones who have survived the time of great distress; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 "For this reason they stand before God's throne and worship him day and night in his temple. The one who sits on the throne will shelter them.
16 They will not hunger or thirst anymore, nor will the sun or any heat strike them.
17 For the Lamb who is in the center of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to springs of life-giving water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."
Rev 5:
8 When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.
9 They sang a new hymn: "Worthy are you to receive the scroll and to break open its seals, for you were slain and with your blood you purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue, people and nation.
10 You made them a kingdom and priests for our God, and they will reign on earth."
11 I looked again and heard the voices of many angels who surrounded the throne and the living creatures and the elders. They were countless in number,
12 and they cried out in a loud voice: "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches, wisdom and strength, honor and glory and blessing."
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, everything in the universe, cry out: "To the one who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor, glory and might, forever and ever."
14 The four living creatures answered, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.
Rev 8:
3 Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne.
4 The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.
5 Then the angel took the censer, filled it with burning coals from the altar, and hurled it down to the earth. There were peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and an earthquake.
Note: "holy ones" = agios (saints)
From the above three passages, it is apparent that the prayers of the saints reach up to God. It is also apparent from the first passage, that those who died in a state of grace are taken, in some form, to heaven (they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb). They worship God day and night, which implies that they have awareness -- how could one worship God without awareness (at least the question I'd ask)?
James 5:8 "...The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful."
1 Tim 2:1-2 " First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity."
Of course, there are more, but these two passages show that intercessory prayer is regarded as a worthy endeavor.
We see that on a regular basis, we ask our friends, relatives, and fellow Christians to pray for us on a regular basis. The Catholic Church has the belief that souls who die in a state of grace are taken to heaven and, while there, are aware of their surroundings. Not omniscient, but aware. We also believe in intercessory prayer. Becuase of these two issues, we believe that we can ask those souls in heaven to add their prayers to ours.
As Clement of Alexandria said, "So is he always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him." (Stromata 7:12) (208 AD)
Or as Cyprian of Carthage said, "Let us on both sides always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if any one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy." (Epistle 56:5) (253 AD)
Evan, the lives of the saints are studied and revered because their witnesses were tremendous examples of Christian piety and faith that can help strengthen our walk. "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us" (Heb 12:1) As we believe that they are with God, are aware, and that their prayers are heard, we request their intercession as we would request the intercession of the saints that are here on earth (see above).
I realize that, as a Protestant, you will not agree with my conclusions. However, I hope I've been able to demonstrate that these beliefs do not "do violence" to scripture. The same basic thought process applies to the Blessed Virgin, although obviously there will be some different scriptures involved.
Mark, you might be interested that Lenoir-Rhyne College has been for the last 12 years been sponsoring an
Aquinas-Luther Conference on various topics. Although Luther did say "sola scriptura", today we proably would say scripture as primary souce, Lutheran confessions as secondary, church Fathers as tertiary level. Lutherans do have tradition, both historical and denominational.
I am very interested in that. That is a very hopeful sign.
However, the question I have in this light is if the ELCA still stands fully behind the Smalcald Articles, particularly the Second Part, Articles III and IV?
I understand the LCMS and WELS still do, but, particularly from what you've said to me, I am not sure anymore about the ELCA.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
15
15
23
Popular Days
Oct 9
24
Oct 8
21
Oct 1
20
Oct 10
15
Top Posters In This Topic
Allan 10 posts
Oakspear 15 posts
templelady 15 posts
markomalley 23 posts
Popular Days
Oct 9 2005
24 posts
Oct 8 2005
21 posts
Oct 1 2005
20 posts
Oct 10 2005
15 posts
markomalley
I try to stay as neutral as possible, but you're right, though, that my judgement could be colored. I don't hesitate to admit that fact. My involvement in this thread at all is a reaction to some statements in another persons' posts which, although given as fact, were little more than (imho) anti-Catholic bigotry.
That is an interesting question and a very valid question. As you know, illiteracy was the norm throughout the middle ages and that continued up to the past couple of hundred years. One other point to bring up would be that the cost of the printed word was likewise out of the reach of normal people during those days, as well. Prior to Gutenburg's press, books literally took years to reproduce. Thus they would only be in the reach of the very wealthy and would be very highly cherished. As a result, what use would reading be to a working class who were largely serfs or tradesmen?But what did the Church do to influence literacy among the common man? Frankly, I doubt too much. But, on the other hand, I doubt that any of the rulers of those days did too much either (after all, if the serfs were educated, they might be more likely to revolt).
In fact, the general illiteracy of the populace was what gave rise to the tradition of stained glass windows. It was important to be able to teach the gospel to the people; if they couldn't read, at least they could see the pictures in the windows...and those pictures were used as graphic aids to teaching.
However, I don't think that the Church ever discouraged reading scripture, at least not as a matter of policy. Lectio Divina (reading and meditating on sacred scripture) has always been encouraged and, in fact, brings with it an indulgence:
§ 1.59 Plenaria indulgentia conceditur christifideli qui Sacram Scripturam, iuxta textum a competenti auctoritate adprobatum, cum veneratione divino eloquio debita et ad modum lectionis spiritalis, per dimidiam saltem horam legerit; si per minus tempus id egerit indulgentia erit partialis.
(from Eschiridion Indulgentium N. 30)
Other than that, has the Catholic Church done anything else to encourage reading of scriptures? Honestly, up until the past 50 years, not nearly as much as they should have.
You touch on an important issue though "read (and interpret) scripture for themselves." I can state beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Catholic Church does not encourage interpretations of the scriptures that are at odds with the Magesterium. On the other hand, I can't think of any denomination (with the exception of the Unitarians) that does encourage scriptural interpretations that fall outside of their doctrinal framework. And that includes TWI (in fact, TWI would be a prima facie example of that).
I hope I did so adequately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
An aside concerning your remarks on stained glass windows. I met a Masai "mchungaji" (pastor) who was said to be the first Masai Christian in southern Tanzania. He was saved sometime in the 70's, but had little contact with other Christians. He read the Bible in Swahili and began teaching its lessons from village to village as he walked that remote wilderness. Over the years he made his own drawings of the stories and concepts he communicated which he used to teach illiterate Masai adults as well as children. He also made drawings illustrating visions he's had which he also uses in working with his charges. The drawings are cool. Intricate in a funky folk-art sense. All the human characters are depicted (of course) as Masai people.
This intelligent and gentle man has done this with no support other than the largess of his fellow Masai for over 30 years!
These days the Masai I know are quite literate, at least in Masai & Swahili.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
The fact that the RCC authorized an English version of the Bible preceding the KJV does not establish that the RCC had not been at times opposed to keeping Bibles from being published in various vernaculars. In getting behind Douay-Rheims, for instance, a question of whether or not the English people were going to have access to an English-language Bible was not a question the RCC would have had to consider. Through the efforts of others, there already were English Bible versions (e.g. the Geneva Bible) that had reached the hands and minds of English-speaking people.
It seems a necessary exercise in triviality to point out that if the RCC could not prevent religious opponents from publishing Bibles in various vernaculars, perhaps a pragmatic response was to tolerate or pony up some more-or-less in-house versions produced by RCs.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.bi...ictions_on.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douai_Bible
*****
Mark,
It is likely that you and I, at minimum, share Chalcedon Christology and a Trinitarian view of God.
So, before we get to the point where you’re deriding me as some bigoted, anti-Catholic, Protestant heretic, and I you as hypocritically whining papist swine, I bid you a tentatively warm Hello!
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ie., first shake hands, then come out fighting. :)
It does kinda puts the civil (altho' shallow) tone to the conflict, ehh? ... Maybe that's what they needed for all those religious-based wars that they had in Europe centuries ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Templelady..that old chief in the Amazon will be judged in the ressurection of the dead, but not be in the 'gathering together'..to 'baptise for the dead' is bizzare, playing God and pandering to emotions, nothing more. Read EW Bullingers explanation of the verse (what is the use of a man or woman being 'baptized' if it is only for them to REMAIN dead.)
God is NOT the author of confusion !
My previous question was "could a LDS person be 'baptized' for say someone like Hitler" ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Cynic:
As to your links:
I am well familiar with the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which did include many faulty translations of the Bible, to include the Tyndale and the "King James" Versions. I have no apologies to offer. Frankly, I wish that Paul VI would not have eliminated the Index back in the 1960s. Since that time all sorts of heterodox publications have come out claiming to be Catholic, while only actually bearing a vague resemblence to actual Catholic doctrine.
In regards to the prohibiting the printing, sales, and possession of the Bible in the vernacular, to my knowledge, the prohibition applied to works produced by heretical sources (e.g., Lutheran and Calvanist sources). Frankly, I would be hesitant to take Schaff-Herzog at face value without actually examining the contents of the particular documents for myself.
For what its worth, the Catholic Encyclopedia says the following regarding the subject:
Of course, I'd expect you to take my source with the same quantity of grains of salt as I would apply to yours.Now, as to your statements:
You will, of course, recall my mention of the Constitutions of Oxford. This law, prohibiting unlicensed publication of an unlicensed English language version of the Bible, was enacted by the English Parliment in 1408. The British Parlimentary move was obviously in response to Wycliff's version of the Bible. Wycliff was clearly a heretic and, from what I've read, his translation was significantly influenced by his heresy. This may have as much to do with it as anything else. France, Holland, Germany and Spain all had vernacular versions of the Bible prior to 1500. To my knowledge, those were authorized versions. Why an authorized version was not published in English until 1585, I can't say. I have a feeling that you are likely correct that it was recognized that a "good" translation of the Bible ought to be made available, as the Lutherans and Calvanists were bound and determined to infiltrate their versions into England. Thus, for the Anglicans, the King James Version was published in 1611 and for Catholics, the Douay Rheims. (An obvious, but humorous, aside is that, since the English Crown had broken away from Rome by that time, the Douay Rheims version would have been just as unlicensed as the Tyndale version).
This still begs the question, authorized vernacular translations in a number of languages existed prior to the Reformation. Yes, English was not one of those languages. However, had the vernacular been supressed because of its being the vernacular, why in the world would these translations been authorized?
By the way, the Spanish version was called the Biblia Alfonsina and dates from the 1200s. The German version was translated by Rellach in 1475. The Dutch version was the "Delft Bible," published in 1477. The French version was the Vaudetar Bible, 1371.
By the way, I am not defending the actions of Paul IV or Sixtus V. Both were thoroughly HORRIBLE popes.
Garth,
I would think that this is the way that any debate should occur. Politely. But I appreciate your humor...
Its amazing what happens when ad hominem attacks and invective are left at the door...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Mark, I happen to be Lutheran, in fact ELCA(Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) which signed with the Holy Roman Catholic Church the recinding of the condemnations in October 31, 1999. I am an Evangelical,
Catholic, Orthodox Christian who happens to be a member of a denomination whose leader was a German monk, priest, and mild reformer unlike Jean Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, or John Knox who were more radical. I am personally very High-Church liturgically(organ, sanctus bells, incense, icons, stations of the cross, etc) who relunctantly does Contemporary Christian Praise Music only to attract outsiders to the faith. So be careful about being anti-protestant since must Catholics would disagree with you, and I have many who are my friends as well as the Eastern Orthodox community. Thomas
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I love the really old (16th & 17th C.) Lutheran hymnody. Very cool stuff, some of it removed from antiphonal chant by only a degree or two of separation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
just an aside: Stained glass windows were/are not only a 'graphic aid' but with training can also be 'read' with as much accuracy and detail, if not more, than words on a page,
The windows of those early periods not only teach the gospel and biblical story in great detail , but in their art and use of symbolism also communicate the spirit and mystery within them imo in ways that have never been duplicated or approached
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Thomas,
My apologies if I said something to offend you. That was certainly not my intent in any fashion. My sole intent in even entering this thread was in reaction to a statement made by another poster which was, I considered, to be an ad hominem attack.
I am glad that the Lutheran World Federation, of which ELCA (from what I understand) is a member, was able to arrive at a partial consensus with Rome in the form of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and does not publish scurrilous attacks against the Catholic Church in its statement of beliefs. I wish that this was the case for the other Lutheran denominations, such as the LCMS, the WELS, and the ELS (see item 13 on the web page). The ELCA does say that they accept the Smalcald Articles, as well, but they don't explicitly state that they fully endorse Article IV anymore, so its hoped that they have reconsidered that position. I, for one, am glad that they have toned it down.
If you can identify the specific thing I said that you believe was an attack, I'll be happy to see if I can rephrase it in more neutral language. As I said, my intent was not hardly to offend, but rather to present a vigorous defense against an ad hominem attack.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oh, Thomas, one other thing:
Luther was correctly upset at the abuse of indulgences that had become widespread in his day. That practice was reformed through the Council of Trent:
Session XXV, p 278
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Well. I've missed a lot today. Evan's repsonse about Sir Thomas Moore and Tyndale preempted what I was going to say, as have a couple of other posters more historically informed than I. So at this point, I've only one comment.
Mark, you have accused me of anti-Catholic bigotry, but you continue to refer to Luther, Calvin, and every other Prostestant as "heretic". That seems somewhat hypoctritical to say the least. What makes Luther a heretic? The rejection of the claim that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ? The rejection of a celibate priesthood? Or was it his insistence that raising money by the selling of indulgences was a corrupt practice? To paraphrase John 10:32, For which of these do you consider Luther a heretic?
And since we're discussing the virtues and vices of the Roman Catholic Church relative to the Bible, how does one justify calling a man a heretic for breaking with the RCC because of something he read in the Bible? (Specifically, Martin Luther reading Romans).
Peace
JerryB
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
But to bar someone from the gathering together because they had NO CHANCE to hear the gospel in the first place is not what a loving Heavenly Father would do
You are definitely entitled to your opinion of the practice--please keep in mind that it is just that-- your opinion.
Bullinger was not a prophet of GOD --he was a man giving his opinions--they are worth that-- no more no less. Some of those opinions may be accurate, inacurrate or somewhere in between.Besides which he hits on my point exactly --there would be no point IF they remained dead--However since LDS theology teachs that they don't--there is most definitely a point--suggest you go back and click on the link in my previous post for a more through explanation.
Yes
However, Just because a baptism for the dead is performed in behalf of someone does not mean that they accept it in the spirit world. They have the right to reject the baptism and what it stands for just as they would here on earth.
Someone on another thread spoke about families being together for ever and that that would mean that Osama Bin Ladin could be with his family forever
But it doesn't work that way, baptism is not a free pass to heaven--you have to live a worthy life--baptised or not-- if you run loose destroying, lying, murdering, and stealing on this earthly plane with no repentence --the baptism isn't going to be your get out of jail free card.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I think the kindest thing for me right now would be for me to not even reply to those points of yours, maybe someone else will ??!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
OK, Jerry.
Heresy is defined by Webster's dictionary as:
The Code of Canon Law defines it as follows:St. Thomas Aquinas says (Summa II-II.11.1):
So you ask if it is a little hypocritical to call Luther, Calvin, et al, heretics? If you read the definitions, above, it is clear that they would be considered as such. I'm sorry if that is upsetting, but, from the definitions I've shown you, you can see that I am not trying to use the word as a perjorative, its simply the correct word.Please don't get me wrong, I am NOT accusing modern subscribers to Lutheranism or Calvinism heretics or schismatics. They were raised in their denominations -- obviously the heresies that formed those denominations should not be laid at their feet. I'm just thankful of the orthodoxy that those denominations DO subscribe to and pray that they will eventually be able to be brought into the fold again at some point.
In fact, Jerry, you'll be surprised to learn that I have encouraged some people who have considered converting to Catholicism but who have lingering problems with some aspect of Catholic dogma to study the issue thoroughly and, if they can't resolve the problem, to hold off converting or to go to a relatively orthodox Protestant denomination, such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, or Methodism. My thought is that it would be better for them to wait until such time as they are fully convinced rather than to convert with lingering doubts and then to leave. (cf 2 Pet 2:21)
Oh, and by the way, I would imagine that most Protestants would consider me, as a Catholic, to be a heretic as well, because my beliefs do not agree with their established orthodoxy. And that's fine.
To quote John 10:32 (NAB) "Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?"
Jerry, for one, I consider the concept of Sola Scriptura taught by most Protestants as simply being unscriptural.
2 Thes 2:15 (NAB): "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
2 Thes 2:15 (RSV): "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
Both of the above verses explicitly state that the apostles (Paul specifically here) taught the people not only through the letters but also by oral teachings -- that were not recorded in the Bible. So how are the brothers supposed to stand fast in traditions taught "by word of mouth" if they practice sola scriptura in their theology?
That's one example. A fairly controversial one, I'll admit. But just one.
That is very simplistic. First of all, if you read the definitions I supplied above, I'm sure you'll see why "heretic" is the correct word to use for Luther's case. However, I'll try to synthesize the situation down a little bit; any errors I make are unintentional and hopefully Thomas will be able to correct any errors I've made.
Luther was an Augustinian Monk. He had a very scrupulous nature. He was (rightly) offended by the abuses of indulgences promulgated by Pope Leo X. As stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
His 95 Theses, rather than strictly dealing with those abuses, attacked the instution of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation itself. (See Thesis #6, in particular)
That's where the charge of heresy initally sprung out of. It grew from there. Rather than dealing with the legitimate issues raised by Luther, the Pope dealt severely with Luther and then there was pushback on Luther's part. In fairness to Luther, he initially did not want to foment a schism in the Church. Had the Church dealt with the substance of Luther's issues, its likely that he wouldn't have left. But he did, and then there were continued changes: he rejected all of Tradition, proclaiming sola scriptura; he rejected the effectual nature of the sacraments, proclaiming sola fide, and he eventually called the Pope the anti-Christ (Smalcald Articles, Article IV). Obviously at that point, there was no turning back.
The ultimate irony is that the abuses of indulgences was recognized and corrected not that long after Luther and his followers left. (See my extract from the Council of Trent, a couple of posts up)
To say that Martin Luther read something in Romans, had a light turn on in his head and have him reject Catholicism all at one point, is overly simplistic and does neither Luther nor Catholicism any favors.
Thomas, if I've misstated something, my apologies, please do add on as you see fit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Interesting. I was just listening to something on this earlier this morning.
Though the RC church has steadfastly rejected sols scriptura, it has, with some 20th Century exceptions, steadfastly affirmed scriptural inerrancy. In layman's terms, the church maintains that scripture plus "the tradition of the fathers" (in so many words) constitute the church's , and by extension man's, rule for faith and practice. (As you said above in so many words, Mark).
But there's a rub. When church tradition, or papal encyclical, et. al, does violence to the principle of inerrancy, who wins? In many cases, such as Maryology, the "communion of the saints", etc., it seems that tradition has won. The only way those things can be harmonized is at the expense of scriptural inerrancy. By this I mean, the resultant interpretations seem to do violence to the clear meaning of the text.
-----------------------------------
A few points regarding the reformers. I think it is unfair to call Tyndale a reformer very much in the Lutheran mold. My reading tells me he met Luther but once. He never clearly deliniated a doctrinal stance, whereas Luther went on to publish many books of theology. Luther was a firebrand, publishing many leaflets & tracts with incendiary & scathing condemnations of the Pope and of the church. Tyndale did nothing of the kind that I'm aware of. By contrast, he was an academic and focused on Bible translation. His work still stands, in my opinion, as the single greatest accomplishment in Bible translation by a single person.
Calling him a heretic, by the definitions you gave, hardly seems a cause for concern. It simply means that the group to which you subscribe found disagreement in what he says. Which makes us all, I suppose, heretics to somebody. So be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
From my studies on the subject, I have found nothing in Church dogma that has "done violence" to scripture. I have, on the other hand, seen a lot that has been promulgated as dogma (but in fact wasn't) that does incredible violence.
Well, not being an expert at it, I'll have to take your word for this. I based my judgement upon readings like the following, from Reformed Perspectives:As I said earlier, I'm sure my beliefs as a Catholic would rank me as a Heretic in most Protestant eyes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I will briefly address the definitions of heresy as offered by Mark.
The Webster's Definition:
1a I do not think that "church" here necessarily means "Catholic Church", however someone with a Catholic bias would probably read that into it. In most churchs dogma is not always in harmony with the "Word of God".
1b This obviously assumes that the Catholic Church has sole authority to establish the standards for truth. A notion that I strongly reject. Truth trancends the Roman Catholic Church and it's claim as the sole mediator of truth.
1c. More of the same.
2a. Dominant does not mean correct. The Catholic Church persecuted Galieo as a heretic because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.
2b. More of the same.
The Cannon Law Definition:
This a Catholic defintion coined to force adherence of its members to the dogmas of the Catholic Church and to force submission to the Pope. It again wrongly assumes the Catholic Church to be the sole arbiter of the truth. In any case canon law only applies to those within the Catholic Church, not Christians at large.
We can safely assume that Thomas Aquinas meant Cathiolic faith when he said Christian Faith. Therefore his definition only applies to those who accept the Catholic Church as the one true Church and the Catholic Faith as the one true faith.
"Heresy" is like the word "cult". Its meaning depends upon the person/group using it. It seems that Mark would have us accept the Catholic definitions as authoritive, when in fact the definitions offered only apply to him as a Catholic and speak loudly as to his own religious bias. That being said, we all have bias. When we are convinced that we or our group is absolutly right on dogma or doctrine, then it stand to reason that we are therefore equally convinced that any dissenting view is absolutly wrong.
Mark calling Luther a heretic is absolutely the correct usage according to the Catholic definitions he subscribes to. I wouldn't expect anything less from a good Catholic.
Heretic would apply to Luther because he was a subject of the Catholic Church when he posted his theses. By those who assume that Rome has/had the authority to be the sole arbiter of truth, faith and practice, Luther therefore WAS a heretic according to the Catholic definitions offered. His theses contradicted accepted Church dogmas thus making him a "heretic".
However, I do not assume the authority of Rome or accept the self-serving definitions offered by the Catholic Church. In my view, Luther's theses were mostly correct, and the and the practices and dogmas he rejected needed to be rejected.
A heretic to some is a man of faith, courage and conviction to others.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Goey,
I'm glad that you can see that I am not trying to cause a stir with the usage of the word heretic.
Your last sentence,
A heretic to some is a man of faith, courage and conviction to others.
is a very correct statement and I would expect no less from any Protestant or Catholic who is convinced of his beliefs and is willing to stand up for those beliefs in front of opposition.
I would submit that I would be viewed as a heretic in TWI, as I have totally rejected their theology since leaving that organization some 16 years ago. In fact, I am sure I would be viewed as apostate. I would not hardly be offended if a TWIt called me either of those terms, as they would be accurate, from the TWIt's perspective.
Even our good friends Mike and Allan would be viewed as schismatic by TWI, but not necessarily heretical...
As far as the "self-serving" comment, we could make that comment about any group that holds a set of beliefs, no matter what those beliefs may be. Frankly, Merriam Webster is not hardly a Catholic source; however, the last two citations I provided were intentionally from Catholic sources (how could one call that any more self-serving than the LCMS declaration of faith which declares that the Pope is the anti-Christ?), as I was showing the basis from which Luther was declared a heretic by the Catholic Church.
The bottom line is that, regardless of our beliefs, we should be able to defend those beliefs. Hopefully we can agree on some issues once we come to an understanding of what each other believes (rather than listening to propaganda, invective, and ad homina from either side) and, at the end of the day, respect each others' right to believe differently. I enjoy that kind of debate and consider it as an opportunity for either side to grow in understanding of their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of the others in the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
But how can you justify Maryology or the communion of the saints (prayer to saints), for instance, without doing violence to the clear intent of accepted scripture? This, to me, goes to the heart of this topic.
And I don't mean this in a pugilistic way. I'm just interested in how one can justify such apparently disparate conclusions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Mark, you might be interested that Lenoir-Rhyne College has been for the last 12 years been sponsoring an
Aquinas-Luther Conference on various topics. Although Luther did say "sola scriptura", today we proably would say scripture as primary souce, Lutheran confessions as secondary, church Fathers as tertiary level. Lutherans do have tradition, both historical and denominational.
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
OK, Evan, I'll tackle the "communion of saints" issue first. Hopefully the thought process behind this will show that "violence is not done" to scripture. I can't do anything at all about your interpretation of scripture's clear intent. Frankly, anything I believe will do violence to your beliefs. So I will not ever be able to assuage you of your beliefs and have no intention of trying to do so. But, in the interest of showing that I do not "do violence" to the scriptures, I'll try outline the scriptural origins of the Catholic belief.
To clear something up first and foremost, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to worship (latria) God alone. Anything else is idolatry.
Rev 7:
Rev 5:Rev 8:
Note: "holy ones" = agios (saints)
From the above three passages, it is apparent that the prayers of the saints reach up to God. It is also apparent from the first passage, that those who died in a state of grace are taken, in some form, to heaven (they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb). They worship God day and night, which implies that they have awareness -- how could one worship God without awareness (at least the question I'd ask)?
James 5:8 "...The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful."
1 Tim 2:1-2 " First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity."
Of course, there are more, but these two passages show that intercessory prayer is regarded as a worthy endeavor.
We see that on a regular basis, we ask our friends, relatives, and fellow Christians to pray for us on a regular basis. The Catholic Church has the belief that souls who die in a state of grace are taken to heaven and, while there, are aware of their surroundings. Not omniscient, but aware. We also believe in intercessory prayer. Becuase of these two issues, we believe that we can ask those souls in heaven to add their prayers to ours.
As Clement of Alexandria said, "So is he always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him." (Stromata 7:12) (208 AD)
Or as Cyprian of Carthage said, "Let us on both sides always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if any one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy." (Epistle 56:5) (253 AD)
Evan, the lives of the saints are studied and revered because their witnesses were tremendous examples of Christian piety and faith that can help strengthen our walk. "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us" (Heb 12:1) As we believe that they are with God, are aware, and that their prayers are heard, we request their intercession as we would request the intercession of the saints that are here on earth (see above).
I realize that, as a Protestant, you will not agree with my conclusions. However, I hope I've been able to demonstrate that these beliefs do not "do violence" to scripture. The same basic thought process applies to the Blessed Virgin, although obviously there will be some different scriptures involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I am very interested in that. That is a very hopeful sign.
However, the question I have in this light is if the ELCA still stands fully behind the Smalcald Articles, particularly the Second Part, Articles III and IV?
I understand the LCMS and WELS still do, but, particularly from what you've said to me, I am not sure anymore about the ELCA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.