Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The saint who opposed Luther
Catholic Herald ^ | August 7, 2012

Posted on 08/07/2012 2:39:20 PM PDT by NYer

Thomas_Cajetan

St Cajetan (1480-1547) was, like his contemporary Martin Luther, deeply concerned by the worldliness and decadence he saw among the clergy. He, however, sought to reform the Church from within, founding the Order of the Theatines.

This was the first congregation of regular clergy. Its aims were to preach sound doctrine, to tend the poor and the sick, to restore frequent use of the sacraments and to inspire better priestly conduct.

Born into the nobility of Vicenza as Gaetano dei Conti di Tiene, Cajetan lost his father at two. His mother brought him up to be both studious and devout.

After becoming a doctor in civil and canon law at Padua in 1504, he was protonotary to Pope Julius II in Rome from 1506 to 1513. Ordained in 1516, he returned to Vicenza two years later.

In Rome he had been associated with a group of zealous clergy styling themselves the Oratory of Divine Love. Back in Vicenza, he entered the Oratory of St Jerome and founded a hospital for incurables.

“In the Oratory,” he said, “we try to serve God by worship; in our hospital we may say that we actually find Him.” He went on to create hospitals in Verona and Venice.

Distressed by what he saw of the clergy, Cajetan returned to Rome in 1523 to confer with his friends in the Oratory of Divine Love. These included Pietro Carafa, Bishop of Chieti, a fiercely intransigent prelate who would be elected Pope Paul IV in 1555. With Carafa, Cajetan established in 1524 a new order, naming them the Theatines, after the Latin name for Chieti (Theate Marricinorum). There was particular emphasis on poverty and on thorough biblical training.

Carafa became the first superior-general, though Cajetan filled that office from 1530 to 1533. Perhaps due to Carafa’s uncompromising nature, the order did not immediately flourish. Moreover, it had to flee to Venice when the Emperor Charles V sacked Rome in 1527.

After 1533 Carafa sent Cajetan first to Verona, and then to Naples, where the Theatines gradually became respected for their stand against the city’s corruption and indifference to the poor. Cajetan established pawnshops which were run purely for the benefit of their users.

Among the Theatines at Naples from 1547 was the Englishman Thomas Goldwell, who had fled from Henry VIII’s regime. In 1555, under Queen Mary, he was appointed Bishop of Asaph, before once again being obliged to leave England under Queen Elizabeth. From 1561 Goldwell was briefly superior-general at Naples. He would live to be the last survivor of Mary’s bishops.

For 250 years the Theatines flourished in western Europe, as well as conducting foreign missions. In the 19th century, however, they fell into decline. In 2005 they numbered only some 200 religious, mainly in Spain and South America.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last
To: vladimir998; Alamo-Girl

vladimir988, this is all very impressive. And you are quite right that I haven’t read any of the four books you cite. On the other hand, I haven’t made any of the arguments to which you have taken such great offense so as to make great show of your erudition.

A few questions for you with your great learning:
1) What percentage of the population could actually read or hear Latin (and here I mean more than just the words comprising the historic liturgy in the Latin mass) with any degree of comprehension?
2) How many of the pre-Luther Bibles were in some form of German - and there were many dialects of German before the time of Luther, some almost unintelligible to speakers of different dialects?
3) Regarding those Bibles available in some form of German, how many were actually widely available to those people who, by virtue of the dialect of the translation, could read them with any facility? Here percentages and numbers would be quite helpful, would they not?
4) How many of these pre-Luther Bibles, either whole, NT only, Gospels only, or just lectionaries, whether “handschriftliche” or “gedruckte”, were translated from something other than the Vulgate, i.e. directly from the OT Hebrew/Aramaic and the NT Greek? In other words, how many were something more than just translations of a translation?

Finally, I recognize that the relative scarcity of comprehensible Bibles in the era before Luther is a complex question, one not rightly or properly answered by jingoistic nostrums from any interest group. However, you must admit that the need for, and desirability of, a Bible comprehensible to the ordinary person and translated directly from the original languages was very great. Luther responded to that very real need. And the effect of his efforts (together with his co-workers) hugely altered the German language and the ability of Germans to communicate with each other, and these things are just secondary benefits to the chief benefit: access to the Word of God afforded to ordinary people.

Answers to such questions as these would enable us to actually evaluate the meaning and effect of those decrees of Trent already posted by Alamo-Girl. Do you want to help such an effort or just trot out book titles?


101 posted on 08/09/2012 12:27:30 AM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

You wrote:

“No it is not. I never claimed to know anything about him. What I said was that his bones were ordered dug up and burned by Pope Martin V.”

Is that all you claimed? You wrote: “Translating the Bible w/o permisssion was a crime. It was heresy. Pope Martin V ordered his Bibles, books, writings, and bones burned for the crime of heresy.”

Sure looks lik eyou’re making a claim there that Wycliffe committed heresy by translating the Bible - which can’t be heresy by the way.

“Now I’ll say something about his work. He preached Calvinist type doctrines.”

No, he preached Donatist type doctrines. Calvinists would reject many of his doctrines.


102 posted on 08/09/2012 4:42:43 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

You wrote:

“Exhuming a man’s body and burning it is quite defensible?”

Yes. In a society that actually believed in truth, that belief in truth didn’t stop at the edge of the grave.

“You and I are not speaking the same language.”

Yes, I’m speaking English.


103 posted on 08/09/2012 4:46:22 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; Natural Law

You wrote:

“I am very discouraged and disappointed to read that.”

Truth matters more than your discoyragement or disappointment.

“If you can not accept the historical record of the martyrdom of these precious saints, I can’t really discourse with you anymore.”

Foxe’s book was written for propaganda purposes. Historians know this. Do you?

“How anyone can trample their testimony and sacrifice is absolutely beyond me.”

Since Foxe wrote propaganda to serve the needs of the Protestant Revolution - and was rewarded with the Protestant State/Church government of England ordering every parish in the land to buy and display a copy - historians and orthodox Christians have always known the book is seriously biased. What can’t be doubted is its influence on warping Protestant views of reality.


104 posted on 08/09/2012 5:00:58 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar

You wrote:

“A few questions for you with your great learning:
1) What percentage of the population could actually read or hear Latin (and here I mean more than just the words comprising the historic liturgy in the Latin mass) with any degree of comprehension?”

Unknown.

“2) How many of the pre-Luther Bibles were in some form of German - and there were many dialects of German before the time of Luther, some almost unintelligible to speakers of different dialects?”

First, even today German dialects are unintelligible to speakers of different dialects. Upper Bavarians cannot understand the dialects of Cologne or Vienna for instance. I have seen this first hand. Second, there were numerous translations of the Bible in German before Luther. There were at least 14 editions which were printed BEFORE LUTHER. That in no way included the hundreds of translations (i.e. different editions) made by hand.

“3) Regarding those Bibles available in some form of German, how many were actually widely available to those people who, by virtue of the dialect of the translation, could read them with any facility?”

Many. More are discovered or detected in other writings all the time.

“Here percentages and numbers would be quite helpful, would they not?”

Such a thing is impossible because there is no baseline for percentages.

“4) How many of these pre-Luther Bibles, either whole, NT only, Gospels only, or just lectionaries, whether “handschriftliche” or “gedruckte”, were translated from something other than the Vulgate, i.e. directly from the OT Hebrew/Aramaic and the NT Greek?”

None. No one wanted a translation other than that of Vulgate. Since the Vulgate was THE Bible of the Western world that is the Bible people wanted to know at the time.

“In other words, how many were something more than just translations of a translation?”

Technically all modern Bibles are probably translations of translations or translations of multi-generational copies. There is evidence for instance that Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. We have no autographs, however. If true, this would mean we only have Greek translations of Matthew.

“Finally, I recognize that the relative scarcity of comprehensible Bibles in the era before Luther is a complex question, one not rightly or properly answered by jingoistic nostrums from any interest group. However, you must admit that the need for, and desirability of, a Bible comprehensible to the ordinary person and translated directly from the original languages was very great.”

Yes and no. First, all the translations were comprehensible to ordinary people or else they would not have been made, copied, printed and sold. Second, I do not believe it is necessary for a Bible to be based on the original languages in itself since there is reason to believe that has not been the case for 1500 or more years. Again, if Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, where does that leave us in terms of translations based on the original languages? Plenty of people went to heaven without being able to read let alone ever reading any Bible let alone one in the original languages or translated from the original languages. The Bible is a great gift. It is not what saves us, however.

“Luther responded to that very real need. And the effect of his efforts (together with his co-workers) hugely altered the German language and the ability of Germans to communicate with each other, and these things are just secondary benefits to the chief benefit: access to the Word of God afforded to ordinary people.”

Actually Luther did not respond to a need. Luther deliberately distorted scripture to agree with his theology. His Bible was propaganda. He dropped books from the canon (in both Old and New Testaments), altered verses to agree with his ideology. There is no doubt that his Bible - which became a maninstay of the German state churches - helped shaped the dialect which was forced on German education and government by decree in the 19th century. That movement is now causing dialects to be pushed to extinction.

“Answers to such questions as these would enable us to actually evaluate the meaning and effect of those decrees of Trent already posted by Alamo-Girl.”

No. There is no relationship there.

“Do you want to help such an effort or just trot out book titles?”

I have posted more effective information than probably anyone in this thread. I already exposed the fact that one Protestant poster was posting a bogus, made up, anti-Catholic quote, for instance. Your questions are effectively a waste or time in this thread for they have nothing to do with Trent.


105 posted on 08/09/2012 5:20:06 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

vladimir998, thank you for your answer, I guess, although it came across more a diatribe than a calm, reasoned response. The basic truth is that there were some disparate translations into German, not widely available, of Jerome’s Latin Bible, the Vulgate.

You also wrote:
“Technically all modern Bibles are probably translations of translations or translations of multi-generational copies. There is evidence for instance that Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. We have no autographs, however. If true, this would mean we only have Greek translations of Matthew.”

Now you are introducing a completely different subject for which you offer no evidence. This is a subject that has been discussed for years and years, but no solid proof has ever been forthcoming. So, it point of fact, you are offering mere speculation to undergird a position you have chosen to take whatever the case may be. Scholarly or agenda driven? Hmmmmm.


106 posted on 08/09/2012 7:40:31 AM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; vladimir998
"How anyone can trample their testimony and sacrifice is absolutely beyond me."

The one trampling the sacrifice of true martyrs are those attempting to exploit their sacrifices for sectarian and political gain and those, who with the benefit of time and proper scholarship, choose to believe it and ignore what really happened.

No one will claim that there were not excesses even by medieval standards committed in the name of the Church and the Reformation, but anyone who believes that Fox wrote an inerrant history has literally drank the kool-aid.

The book was intended to be an instrument to break the faith of those in England who remained Catholic and to embolden those who opposed the Church with a false righteousness. To that end it was immensely successful.

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing."

"These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do."

"If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates."

"My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..." – - The Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen

Peace be with you

107 posted on 08/09/2012 9:10:36 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Thanks for this post.


108 posted on 08/09/2012 9:13:06 AM PDT by Running On Empty (The three sorriest words: "It's too late")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar; vladimir998; Natural Law; Persevero; spunkets; Iscool
Thank you all for sharing your insights, dear brothers in Christ!

Seems to me there is a cultural difference between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians and Jews with reference to the availability of theological information.

As a modern day example, a few years ago I read about the Catholics reaching out to the Jews for some kind of agreement in their desire to recognize the achievements of the Pope during World War II. The Jews who were appointed to the effort received a great deal of information from the Catholics who were appointed to the effort.

As I recall, the Jews were appreciative of the information but asked that the archives be opened to them so they'd be able to do their own research. But their request was declined and so they withdrew.

My speculation is that the information was simply information to the Jews but that it was sacred to the Catholics. Hence, I would call it a cultural difference.

Likewise, non-Catholic Christians would view all of the information banned by the Council of Trent or, for instance, the writings of Tertullian which have since been lost, as simply information. And the loss of such information might discredit the Vatican in their eyes, i.e. why not preserve moot or adverse witness but for fear?

Culturally, the manuscripts to non-Catholic Christians are simply manuscripts. The power is in the words of God themselves.

But in the eyes of Catholics, I suspect the manuscripts themselves are seen as sacred. Certainly in each Mass I attend, the manuscript containing the Gospel is kissed and held up before it is read. It is treated as though physically a holy object.

But everything happens for a reason. I am confident that it all works together for the good according to God's will.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. - Romans 8:28

I liked the way Einstein put it: "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous."

Still, I'd love to have access to the lost manuscripts. But, alas, the Vatican is not a "Library of Congress" for the theological.

God's Name is I AM.

109 posted on 08/09/2012 9:51:58 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
"Still, I'd love to have access to the lost manuscripts."

This is a good point to reflect on the consequences of the iconoclastic movement within much or the Reformation that was responsible for the wanton destruction of incredible Church art treasures. Prior to wide spread literacy the Gospel was taught and spread through religious art in the form of paintings, icons, tapestries, stained glass, sculptures, music and acthitecture. It was very much the same Word of God found in Scripture expressed in a variety of different media. It was was very effective, facilitating the greatest growth period of Christianity. Wouldn't you love to have access to those too?

Peace be with you

110 posted on 08/09/2012 10:41:01 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar

You wrote:

“vladimir998, thank you for your answer, I guess, although it came across more a diatribe than a calm, reasoned response.”

Actually, logically, it could only come across to someone that way if he intended to take it that way no matter what.

“The basic truth is that there were some disparate translations into German, not widely available, of Jerome’s Latin Bible, the Vulgate.”

False. As Andrew Gow has shown, translations of the Vulgate were commonly available in late medieval Germany.

“Now you are introducing a completely different subject for which you offer no evidence.”

False. I was correctly your insufficient presentation. I need to present no evidence to correct it since the correction itself shows the your presentation was lacking. Again, you apparently have not done the needed research for the topic (or topics) at hand.

“This is a subject that has been discussed for years and years, but no solid proof has ever been forthcoming.”

It is not needed for my point. Again, as I pointed out, we have no autographs. None. My point, therefore, stands even if Hebrew and Aramaic had not been the original language.

“So, it point of fact, you are offering mere speculation to undergird a position you have chosen to take whatever the case may be. Scholarly or agenda driven? Hmmmmm.”

Truth driven. You have failed in all respects.


111 posted on 08/09/2012 11:03:11 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

vladimir998 wrote:
“Actually Luther did not respond to a need. Luther deliberately distorted scripture to agree with his theology. His Bible was propaganda.”

This is not diatribe? (Definition: A speech or discussion bitterly and violently directed against some person or thing. Synonyms: Denunciation, Invective, Tirade) I will let the readers decide.

He also wrote:
“False. I was correctly (sic: correcting) your insufficient presentation. I need to present no evidence to correct it since the correction itself shows the (sic: that) your presentation was lacking. Again, you apparently have not done the needed research for the topic (or topics) at hand.”

I made no presentation. I asked reasonable questions to which you somewhat gave answer, and then pointed out that you were changing the subject - which indeed you did, your denial notwithstanding! It is interesting to note your statement: “I need to present no evidence to correct it since the correction itself shows the (sic: that) your presentation was lacking.” Again, I made no presentation. The rest of what you pontificate here, again, I leave to the readers to evaluate the worth thereof.

He also wrote:
“It is not needed for my point. Again, as I pointed out, we have no autographs. None. My point, therefore, stands even if Hebrew and Aramaic had not been the original language.”

Your point stands? I see. Your conception of the Word of God given to men through the apostles and prophets is akin to the Calvinist conception of how Jesus Christ gives Himself to us in the Sacrament, that is, ultimately there is no presence of Jesus Christ, God and Man, in the Sacrament. It is all symbolic, His plain and clear words being dismissed as nonsense by our superior understanding and wisdom. By an analogous logic the effort that went into the Hort-Westcott, Nestle-Aland, and UBS Greek texts of the New Testament, for example, was unnecessary and wasted. You appear to be saying that God gave His Word only symbolically, to whit: Since the autographs are not extant the concrete words of God never quite attained reality. That is almost Gnostic in its ultimate unreality. On the other hand, Christians have had to deal with Gnosticism in its many manifestations for a very long time. It makes me wonder a little about the christological assumptions under which you labor.

Finally, vladimir998 concluded:
“Truth driven. You have failed in all respects.”

So, you are truth driven? Was this insight given you from heaven (do you have an autograph of the certification you received?) or did you just conclude it on the basis of your own insight? It is quite convenient in a discussion to assume the position not only of a participant, but also of the referee and the judge. I guess you are more formidable a personage than I could have imagined. So, I guess we are all forced - and I mean forced! - to agree that you have succeeded in all respects. Again, I will let the readers draw their own conclusions.


112 posted on 08/09/2012 12:09:51 PM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar; vladimir998
"Catholics voted for abortion in 2008, as they normally do."

Would you have Vlad and the other billion plus Catholics who have lived over the last 2000 years disregard the actual meaning of "LOGOS" and accept that the written words of Scripture alone have a talisman-like powers to inerrantly transmit their true meaning across thousands of years and dozens of constantly evolving languages individually to each and every believer? That is something that even Luther and Calvin never attempted. They only quibbled and rebelled over who would be the teaching authority.

Peace be with you

113 posted on 08/09/2012 12:19:55 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Catholics voted for abortion in 2008, as they normally do."

Should have been:

"Your conception of the Word of God given to men through the apostles and prophets is akin to the Calvinist conception of how Jesus Christ gives Himself to us in the Sacrament, that is, ultimately there is no presence of Jesus Christ, God and Man, in the Sacrament. It is all symbolic, His plain and clear words being dismissed as nonsense by our superior understanding and wisdom."

(Cut and paste error. My apologies to all.

114 posted on 08/09/2012 12:42:52 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Natural Law:

First of all, what is this in your response, “Catholics voted for abortion in 2008, as they normally do.”? And what does it have to do with me? I never said such a thing ... ever.

Second, in regard to “the actual meaning of ‘LOGOS’”, I have no idea what you are intending to say or criticize. And, by the way, this part is a cheap shot: “talisman-like powers.”

Let me use, again, a christological analogy. When God promised fallen mankind a Savior, who would Himself be God and Man in one person, did this not mean that the Savior, in order to be fully man would have to be born at a particular time, in a particular place, of a particular race who spoke a particular language or languages and had a particular culture, to a particular mother and be of a particular sex, either male or female? Yes or no? And are these particulars not the very substance of the Christian Church’s confession, confidence, and hope?

Similarly, if God spoke to man through the prophets and caused them to render such in writing - or will you argue that He did not do so? - did each not have to render such in a particular language? Yes or no?

Peace be with you as well.


115 posted on 08/09/2012 12:53:42 PM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
"First of all, what is this in your response,"

Please see post #114.

"Second, in regard to “the actual meaning of ‘LOGOS’”, I have no idea what you are intending to say or criticize. And, by the way, this part is a cheap shot: “talisman-like powers.”"

The point I was trying to make was that the choice of the word LOGOS by St. John was not accidental and did not mean "word" or "words" like so many Protestant apologists wrongly imply. Synonymous with Jesus, Logos is a complete system of knowledge and governing principles. Scripture itself has no god-like powers or properties, that make it superior to Tradition. Both are sacred to the degree to which they reflect God. If the written medium were to be primary Jesus would have been an author instead of an authority and the Apostles would have been scribes and secretaries instead of evangelicals and teachers.

116 posted on 08/09/2012 1:13:57 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Are you willing to answer the simple questions I posed to you before going on to the matters you have brought in your post?


117 posted on 08/09/2012 1:40:27 PM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
"Similarly, if God spoke to man through the prophets and caused them to render such in writing - or will you argue that He did not do so? - did each not have to render such in a particular language? Yes or no?"

That is a false or incomplete premise. Are you contending that God only speaks to us through the written word?

118 posted on 08/09/2012 3:20:19 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Natural Law, this is no trick question. Nor is it a false or incomplete premise. I am asking a simple question that would, if answered, at least establish some basis for discussion.

I am trying to find what we do and can agree on together. You seem to be acting like I am trying to lure you into a trap. I am not. If you find that you cannot answer or cannot trust the good faith of the one who asks - and has assured you of good faith - then I guess I know where this discussion is going ... nowhere. And if that is so, what is our purpose on the FR Religion forum? Argument for the sake of argument? I would hope not. That is not why I check in from time to time. If it is why you check in, OK, that is your privilege. And I will conduct myself accordingly.

Fair enough?


119 posted on 08/09/2012 4:13:28 PM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
"Fair enough?"

I'm not trying to be obtuse (some say it comes to me naturally) but I am having difficulty sifting through your syllogism to find an answerable question. To me it is like taking a true/false test with neither answer being right. Please restate your question and I will give answering it an honest try.

Peace be with you

120 posted on 08/09/2012 4:49:09 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar

You wrote:

“This is not diatribe? (Definition: A speech or discussion bitterly and violently directed against some person or thing. Synonyms: Denunciation, Invective, Tirade) I will let the readers decide.”

Nope, not a diatribe. I posted a sentence - that’s the example you used. It was not a speech. It was not bitter or violent. It was a statement of simple historical truth: “Actually Luther did not respond to a need. Luther deliberately distorted scripture to agree with his theology. His Bible was propaganda.”

All of that is absolutely true, undeniable, and irrefutable. And none of it is a speech, or bitter, or violent. Thus, according to even the definition you used, it was not a diatribe.

“I made no presentation.”

You posted nothing? What you posted was what you were presenting.

“I asked reasonable questions to which you somewhat gave answer, and then pointed out that you were changing the subject - which indeed you did, your denial notwithstanding!”

Your questions had little or nothing to do with the subject at hand, and if I changed the subject, you did nothing less than that too so why would you care about changing the subject?

“It is interesting to note your statement: “I need to present no evidence to correct it since the correction itself shows the (sic: that) your presentation was lacking.” Again, I made no presentation.”

If you presented nothing, then you posted nothing. But you did post something, so you did present something.

“The rest of what you pontificate here, again, I leave to the readers to evaluate the worth thereof.”

Yes, let them evaluate, by all means. Let them see how you’ve apparently read no books whatsoever on the subject, no reputable articles at all.

“Your point stands? I see. Your conception of the Word of God given to men through the apostles and prophets is akin to the Calvinist conception of how Jesus Christ gives Himself to us in the Sacrament, that is, ultimately there is no presence of Jesus Christ, God and Man, in the Sacrament.”

Your comment here makes no sense - which is to be expected.

“It is all symbolic, His plain and clear words being dismissed as nonsense by our superior understanding and wisdom.”

You’re completely wrong, of course, but why would a Protestant let facts get in the way of attacking a Catholic?

“By an analogous logic the effort that went into the Hort-Westcott, Nestle-Aland, and UBS Greek texts of the New Testament, for example, was unnecessary and wasted.”

Wasted, no. But unnecessary? Yes, for the faith. No Christian has ever been saved - and few or any people even brought to a belief in Christ most likely - by Hort-Westcott, Nestle-Aland, and UBS Greek texts of the New Testament. Christianity did not begin with the New Testament being written and it does not hinge upon the production of any 19th or 20th or 21st century edition of the Greek text or lexicon or commentary of the New Testament.

I have nothing against detailed academic work. I have produced such work myself - including detailed translation work. The Benedictines who produced a new Vulgate in the 20th century sifted through so many mss. that their full edition of the Vulgate was something like 1,200 volumes long. And that product, like every other one you listed - Hort-Westcott, Nestle-Aland, and UBS Greek texts of the New Testament - never died on the cross for anyone, never saved anyone, and most likely never even inspired anyone to hold to faith in Christ if he lacked that faith previously. That’s just a fact. Does that bother you? The truth of this doesn’t bother me in the least. Do facts bother you? Was all that effort wasted? No, it served its purpose. Was it necessary? No, not for the faith. Men were saved BEFORE it was produced and men will be saved AFTER and none of them will be saved by it. No academic work ever died on the cross for your sins. No academic work was sent by God to teach, or baptize, or minister to men.

“You appear to be saying that God gave His Word only symbolically,”

That is not only not what I said, it also is not what I appear to have said. Your approach, however, was already expected. It follows a certain pattern used by many Protestants in arguments over historical topics. First, the Protestant anti-Catholic attempts to engage in debate regarding a particular historical topic. It very quickly doesn’t go his way because he has not actually read any books or reputable articles on the subject. Once his sciolism is exposed, he insists his points or questions - which almost always have nothing to do with any substantive argument pertaining to the topic - are really worthwhile somehow anyway. When that fails, which is always the case, the Protestant anti-Catholic will always either resort to, 1) simply making things up out of thin air - things which are, in fact, logically impossible - while claiming all along those things are based squarely on the Catholic’s beliefs, posts, comments, etc., and, or 2) make a mocking attack against the Catholic (taking his ball and crying all the way home, so to speak) before making a parting shot which strongly implies either that the Protestant is a better person, or that everyone should believe him over the Catholic for whatever reason even though he completely failed to make a reasonable and sourced argument of any relevance. This is generally how it goes, again, and again, and again.

“to whit: Since the autographs are not extant the concrete words of God never quite attained reality.”

False. That is an inference not made or intended by this author but apparently invented out of whole cloth by you.

“That is almost Gnostic in its ultimate unreality. On the other hand, Christians have had to deal with Gnosticism in its many manifestations for a very long time. It makes me wonder a little about the christological assumptions under which you labor.”

Oh, and there we go. The Protestant anti-Catholic, apparently unable to actually make an argument against what I actually wrote - about Luther and Bible translations in the Middle Ages - now has to imply I hold “christological assumptions” which are some how wrong. As someone I know once said, if this were a racist incident, and the Protestant anti-Catholic were the racist, this is when he would call me “boy” and accuse me of whistling at his wife.

“So, you are truth driven? Was this insight given you from heaven (do you have an autograph of the certification you received?) or did you just conclude it on the basis of your own insight?”

Wow. I said the Protestant anti-Catholic resorts to mocking, and there it is. It’s always this way. This is all they know.

“It is quite convenient in a discussion to assume the position not only of a participant, but also of the referee and the judge. I guess you are more formidable a personage than I could have imagined. So, I guess we are all forced - and I mean forced! - to agree that you have succeeded in all respects. Again, I will let the readers draw their own conclusions.”

And again, I was right. This went as it always seems to go when a Protestant anti-Catholic enters the fray without, apparently, having actually done any research on the subject at hand. Sciolism, making things up out of thin air, false claims and accusations, mocking the Catholic for things he actually does not do, believe, nor hold, and then the Protestant anti-Catholic takes his ball and cries all the way home.


121 posted on 08/09/2012 5:17:04 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; Natural Law; Religion Moderator; scottjewell; ebb tide; Sirius Lee; lilycicero; ...
But we might note that reformers like Wycliffe were burned at the stake for translating it into the common language (English). This was a terrible policy and a terrible occurrence.
Wow, if the claim was true it would have been horrific, but thankfully - like most anti-Catholic diatribes this is a fact free screed. It makes the rest of the claims by this poster suspect, like:
I did not visit an anti-Catholic website.
Well, where did you get this falsehood then, a pro-Catholic website? And then there is this claim:
I have even seen posters at my public library, “Banned Books,” and the Bible has been listed on them as banned by the RC church.
Wow, what scholarship, posters about "banned books"! Did it ever occur to you that the Bible has sometimes been banned by secular authorities? Maybe that is what the poster was warning about?
122 posted on 08/09/2012 5:41:32 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

vladimir, you do snark well. I am impressed.

You also assume much that is not in evidence, and much about people that you don’t know.

You had said earlier: “Actually Luther did not respond to a need. Luther deliberately distorted scripture to agree with his theology. His Bible was propaganda.”

And now have added in regard to the above: “All of that is absolutely true, undeniable, and irrefutable.”

Since, in your opinion, this is all mute - which of course I deny - there is little point in talking to one whose mind is not only made up, but whose ears are closed.


123 posted on 08/09/2012 7:07:40 PM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: DManA; Persevero

Help me out here because I have read the article several times to see if I missed what you are seeing.

What exactly is the frontal assault on Protestants you read in that article?

There is one mention of Luther in which there is nothing said other than that he was a contemporary of St. Cajetan and was likewise troubled by the worldliness and decadence of some in the Church.

In the entire article, there is not one mention of Protestants or protestantism.

As to defending poor put upon Catholics....

Offer truthful information in the debate and there will be no need to defend anyone or anything from calumny.


124 posted on 08/09/2012 7:07:50 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar

You wrote:

“vladimir, you do snark well. I am impressed.”

Take your ball...

“You also assume much that is not in evidence, and much about people that you don’t know.”

Feel free to refute anything I said about “people”. (crickets)

“You had said earlier: “Actually Luther did not respond to a need. Luther deliberately distorted scripture to agree with his theology. His Bible was propaganda.””

All true.

“And now have added in regard to the above: “All of that is absolutely true, undeniable, and irrefutable.””

That’s true too.

“Since, in your opinion, this is all mute - which of course I deny - there is little point in talking to one whose mind is not only made up, but whose ears are closed.”

You “deny”, but can’t even make an argument. When you can explain how Luther could say that he wanted to “make Moses so German that no one would suspect he was a Jew” you let me know how Luther was not distorting scripture to agree with his theology. You let me know.


125 posted on 08/09/2012 7:43:55 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Natural Law. OK. I can see, perhaps, where you are unclear on what I said. Since you and I are coming from two very different backgrounds it is to be expected. And, no, I am not making any judgment as to the quality of either one.

Let me put it this way: The eternal God has entered into His creation by word, deed, and, finally, forever after in the person of Jesus Christ, who is God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father and also born of the Virgin Mary. His entry is a reality in all cases. What I have tried to determine - not very well, apparently - from the Catholics on this thread is their understanding of what the Holy Scriptures are.

Now, please note, I am not at this point asking what role they play in faith. I am not setting them against the teaching and preaching of the church. I am not saying that such teaching and preaching is either unneeded or ineffective. Of course that is not true. Nor am I making any assertions at this point about the superiority or inferiority of Scripture versus Tradition. Nor am I at this point talking about the primacy of any particular form of God’s word, whether spoken by Himself as at Sinai, spoken through an angel (or a donkey for that matter), rendered in written form, or spoken and taught by the human voice.

However, God chose to speak to man in time and space. He chose also not only to speak to man, but caused certain men to record His words. To do so the words had to be given man in human language, particular languages, languages which are known and understandable. This was, of course, due to our limitations, not His. So, if God deemed His words important enough to be recorded and regarded by man as His words, must we not first have some understanding of what is His written word? And only then can we begin to ask what role that written word plays in the establishment and maintenance of the teaching of His truth.

The analogy I used was in regard to the person of Christ. Just as God’s becoming man necessitated His becoming a particular man - there is no other way to be human - just so God’s causing His word to be recorded, written, necessitated its recording/writing in a particular language. For the Old Testament He chose as His people the descendants of Abraham, in turn and time, the Hebrews, the Israelites, the Jews, respectively, each of these terms meaning something a little different from the others. The language of these people was what we call Hebrew and, later, Aramaic. The written word of God we have today as translated into any particular language is always to be understood in the light of the language in which it was initially given, since the choice of the words, as of the language itself, was God’s alone. The same would be true of the New Testament, recorded in Greek.

I am simply asking what is your understanding of the relationship of the written word in the languages it was originally given and preserved for us to the written word in translation, whichever language that may be. To put it another way - and more specifically - irrespective of the quality of Jerome’s translation, does not primacy have to be given to the languages from which Jerome translated? And, again, I am drawing no conclusions about the role of tradition at this point.

I know that is a long question, but I am trying to understand the Catholic mind on this matter.


126 posted on 08/09/2012 7:56:11 PM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Well, vladimir998, I see that I invited you a little too softly to just put our verbal exchange (I’ll let you characterize it) to bed. Hereafter I will do so - or, to put it your way, I will take my ball and go home.

I will, however, make one observation. Your hatred for Martin Luther is so strong that I think you incapable of even trying to read and understand him. No, I am not saying that intellectually you are not able. I am quite sure you are. But hate does strange and powerful things to people.

If you would like to have the last word, be my guest.

Peace to you.


127 posted on 08/09/2012 8:06:39 PM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
"To put it another way - and more specifically - irrespective of the quality of Jerome’s translation, does not primacy have to be given to the languages from which Jerome translated?"

OK, I think I understand (and for the record I do like Dickens too.) I think your argument reinforces Church doctrine with respect to a Magisterium. What constitutional scholars call original intent is paramount in the Catholic interpretation of Scripture. It is maintained through the collective consensus of the Episcopacy derived from the Traditions and guided by an active Holy Spirit today exactly like it was beginning in the first century.

What we reject is the notion that Scripture is self-interpreting or that every believer with the indwelling Holy Spirit is capable of inerrant interpretation.

128 posted on 08/09/2012 8:13:57 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

ph


129 posted on 08/09/2012 8:25:12 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar

You wrote:

“Well, vladimir998, I see that I invited you a little too softly to just put our verbal exchange (I’ll let you characterize it) to bed. Hereafter I will do so - or, to put it your way, I will take my ball and go home.”

That’s always how this was going to end anyway.

“I will, however, make one observation. Your hatred for Martin Luther is so strong that I think you incapable of even trying to read and understand him.”

Actually I am familar with all of his works. Read through them all - all 50 or so volumes in translation. I didn’t want to spend the time reading the Weimar edition. I got so familiar with his works and their location on in the library that I memorized the call number (”BR 330 .E5 1955 fl” or something like that).

“No, I am not saying that intellectually you are not able. I am quite sure you are. But hate does strange and powerful things to people.”

I don’t hate the man. I freely admit I hate his lies, distortions, duplicity, support of bigamy, cutting books from the Bible, attacks on God’s Church, encouragement of rebellion and theft, schism, and vow breaking. I pity the man.

“If you would like to have the last word, be my guest.”

I think history will have the last word. Since you apparently don’t know much about that, it’s just as well.


130 posted on 08/09/2012 8:26:15 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
I would that all of the icons had been preserved and/or returned to their countries or places of origin. I understand the Vatican returned one to Russia a few years ago.

And I recall many years ago a very heated thread right here on the Religion Forum where certain Orthodox posters were angry and taking it out on Catholic posters that so many of their icons were lost, as I recall in the Crusades at Constantinople. If any of them survive, they should be returned IMHO.

Likewise, if the United States became a Christian theocracy, concluding that Buddhist statues were idols being worshiped against the law, I'd rather the statutes be gathered up and sent back to India or wherever Buddhists live.

The Taliban destroyed the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, which were carved into a hillside. In my view, if their presence in the land offended them so, they should have figured some way to move the structure block by block and give it to people who still cherish them.

131 posted on 08/09/2012 10:07:51 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

OK. So, would it be fair to say that, for the purposes of establishing, maintaining, and defending Catholic doctrine, it does not really make a difference whether one utilizes Jerome’s Vulgate or something like Erasmus’ Greek Textus Receptus (or any of its more complete critical editions today, e.g., Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, UBS)? If that is not a fair characterization, please tell me how to state it more fairly from the Catholic point of view.

On the matter of “what constitutional scholars call original intent” I think we will have to agree to disagree. Generally speaking, in order to establish “original intent” in regard to the U.S. Constitution one takes what is written at face value and then, if there are questions of meaning due to the passage of time or use and meaning of terms, the contemporaneous writings of the Constitution’s authors are consulted, especially those that directly concern that matters in question, as in, for example, the Federalist Papers. This manner of procedure is not unlike - quite unsurprisingly - the Reformation (personally, I do not like that term) practice of thinking that consulting the original Author as the best interpreter of His own word is the way to sure understanding of intent. In other words, for example, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison or John Jay is the best and most authoritative commentator on what Hamilton, Madison or Jay had a part in writing in the Constitution.


132 posted on 08/09/2012 10:25:50 PM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Belteshazzar
I don’t hate the man. I freely admit I hate his lies, distortions, duplicity, support of bigamy, cutting books from the Bible, attacks on God’s Church, encouragement of rebellion and theft, schism, and vow breaking. I pity the man.

I think history will have the last word. Since you apparently don’t know much about that, it’s just as well.

As is typical so many times on these threads when some simply MUST resort to denigration, sneering one-up-manship and superiority, we have access to documentation that certainly can be called Unbiased. All of the things you accuse Luther of doing - things that you use to justify your continued attacks on all non-Catholics that DARE to challenge Roman Catholicism - can be viewed in a manner that demonstrates the duplicity of the Catholic Church and clarifies the views of reformers such as Luther.

You claim Luther:

lied - like what for example?
distorted - what did he distort?
duplicitous - about what?
supported bigamy - not anymore than Pope Clement VII did (see http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=bigamy
cut books from the Bible - already talked about this - he didn't
attacked God’s Church - he attacked the decrepit mess Rome had made of the Church
encouraged rebellion and theft, schism, and vow breaking - like where?

You boast that you have read "all" Luther's works and are quite familiar with him. You toss out these invectives against him but fail to place these accusations in context, if true at all, and conveniently leave out facts that show your own bias and duplicity. I'm not a Lutheran, but I am a former Roman Catholic who left after coming to the knowledge of the truth concerning salvation by grace through faith apart from works - a MAJOR part of the Reformation that I thank God HE allowed to happen. Though it was not the first one it was certainly the most productive and millions of people were and still are being saved as a result. A great book available online on Google is Sermons on the Creed of Pope Pius IV by John Nash Griffin. Very informative about the times surrounding the Reformation and the condition of the Church at that time.

We have already discussed the Canon of Scripture on this thread and others recently, though it is an ongoing topic that never seems to be settled no matter how many facts are presented. Now if anyone is REALLY interested in something more than polemics and out-of-context quotes and positions of the man, there are numerous sites to go to to get a true and unbiased look at the man, Luther. A few I suggest that speak to the Roman Catholic perspective, good and bad, are: http://tquid.sharpens.org/catlut1.htm and http://tquid.sharpens.org/catlut2.htm

Rather than condemn all "Protestants" as "Anti-Catholic Protestant liars" who dare participate on these threads, why not get out of the middle ages and talk about right now, today? We could go on and on with recriminations about who did what to whom and when, but why? What is the benefit of that? Can we not discuss in a respectful and loving manner the doctrines that divide us? Cannot iron sharpen iron or must it always be nastiness over issues none of us can go back and do anything about? Doesn't it get tiresome after awhile? Is this how fellow Christians are supposed to talk to each other? I expect to be pounded now - though I hope I am wrong - but at least I said what I feel needed to be said. Free Republic's Religion Forum is too good of a place to be turned into a battlefield all the time. We have REAL battles to fight this election year.

133 posted on 08/09/2012 10:53:48 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

You wrote:

“lied - like what for example?”

About his obedience to the pope. About his never having seen a Bible. About his stories about the devil. About his translating the New Testament on his own.

“distorted - what did he distort?”

Romans 3:28.

“duplicitous - about what?”

Look at what he lied about.

“supported bigamy - not anymore than Pope Clement VII did (see http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=bigamy";

That doesn’t change the fact that he did it, and that he tried to keep it hidden.

“cut books from the Bible - already talked about this - he didn’t”

He did. He published his NT in an unpaginated appendix to show he considered the books uncanonical.

“attacked God’s Church - he attacked the decrepit mess Rome had made of the Church”

Nope. He encouraged princes to seize Church property. He lived in a stolen religious house so he personally benefited.

“encouraged rebellion and theft, schism, and vow breaking - like where?”

Like the Protestant Revolution. That was rebellion. He encouraged the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order to violate his vows and seize control of Prussia ans turn it into a personal possession. That’s rebellion and theft right there. Luther’s sect is clearly an act of schism. Luther broke his own vows and encouraged others to do the same.

“You boast that you have read “all” Luther’s works and are quite familiar with him. You toss out these invectives against him but fail to place these accusations in context, if true at all, and conveniently leave out facts that show your own bias and duplicity.”

False, I left out no necessary context. Anyone can read the works fo Luther. Anyone can read about his life and realize he had issues to say the least. Ever read Rix? I bet not.

“Rather than condemn all “Protestants” as “Anti-Catholic Protestant liars” who dare participate on these threads, why not get out of the middle ages and talk about right now, today?”

First, I never did what you accuse me of - I do not condemn all Protestants. I do not condemn all Protestants as anti-Catholics. But leave it to a Protestant anti-Catholic to claim I said something I never said. Incredibly you make this claim in a thread in which you demand examples from me. Okay, show me where I “condemn all “Protestants” as “Anti-Catholic Protestant liars”. Can you show that? No, you can’t. The closest you can come to what you’re claiming in this thread is 121 where I say “Protestant” two or three times but always clarify that with “Protestant anti-Catholic”. By the way, everything I said in 121 is clearly true and you’re proving it now.

Second, as a Church historian, probably the only one in this entire thread, I have every right and reason to “not get out of the middle ages”. It’s what I study. Why shouldn’t I participate in threads about it? Also, Protestant mythology is highly but falsely developed concerning the Middle Ages and the Protestant Revolution. Such Protestant distortions about history have always interesed me and are increasingly interesting other historians. Far too often Protestants here at FR offer one of two options: 1) distortions of the past, 2) encouragement of abandoning study of the past because it supposedly doesn’t help people in the present. I reject both of those options.

“We could go on and on with recriminations about who did what to whom and when, but why?”

For heretics and schismatics of the past recriminations are necessary when they have been built up into heroes.

“What is the benefit of that?

The benefit is that it is truthful, honest, fair and just. Heretics and schismatics should be exposed.

“Can we not discuss in a respectful and loving manner the doctrines that divide us?”

I discuss Protestant heresies honestly. Nothing more is needed.

“Cannot iron sharpen iron or must it always be nastiness over issues none of us can go back and do anything about?”

What it must be is honest.

“Doesn’t it get tiresome after awhile?”

I never tire of honest statements about the history of the Church.

“Is this how fellow Christians are supposed to talk to each other? I expect to be pounded now - though I hope I am wrong - but at least I said what I feel needed to be said.”

I think the problem is the apparent hypocrisy of your statements. On August 5th, for instance, when you were debating in a thread called “The Primacy of Peter” you said things such as:

“What I find even MORE interesting is the wool so many Catholics willingly allow to be pulled over their eyes so that they can continue to believe that myth.” You said this right before you posted a long quote from an anti-Catholic website that discussed the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals.

Gee, doesn’t that sound like you’re posting about “issues none of us can go back and do anything about”?

How about when you say, “But the historical record gives a very different picture.” Is that talking about “issues none of us can go back and do anything about”? Yeah, it is. And yet you’re talking about it. Hypocrisy, isn’t it? Such hyporcrisy is common among Protestant anti-Catholics. What is so shocking is the apparent hubris that comes through. How can a Protestant anti-Catholic blame someone for supposedly dwelling on “issues none of us can go back and do anything about” while rather routinely doing it himself AND NOT SEE THAT PROBLEM?

“Free Republic’s Religion Forum is too good of a place to be turned into a battlefield all the time. We have REAL battles to fight this election year.”

And yet, as I just showed, you’re neck deep in that battle at times. If you find the battle so desultory get out of it, and ease your conscience if it is so stricken. You could just post as you say others whould post, no?


134 posted on 08/10/2012 5:21:10 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

JVett, the entire history of the persecution, torture and murder of Protestants is being denied on this thread. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is being called a a lie. Luther is accused of leaving the Catholic church (he was excommunicated and given an essential death sentence) I call that a frontal assault.


135 posted on 08/10/2012 9:50:21 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: narses

No, narses, the RC church during it history banned the translation and distribution of the Bible. It punished people, some with death, for doing so. Also, reading the Bible without permission from the RC church was forbidden.

It no longer does so, and I am happy to acknowledge that. I don’t think any Catholics I know would oppose Bible reading now. But to ignore its history is wrong.

Some “defenders of the church,” so-called (a “church” that burns people for Bible publishing, preaching salvation by faith, denying the insane doctrine of indulgences, etc. is not worthy of the title) on this thread reject documentaries, especially if they air on PBS, wiki isn’t ok, biographies are false, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is apparently all a lie, the poster at the library can’t be mentioned. . . there is no history at all that is apparently acceptable, unless it denies the gross murders perpetrated under “church” order and sanction.

Here’s from encyclopedia.com, no doubt to be dismissed as yet another impeachable source:

“Luther’s publication of three treatises in 1520 that called for revolutionary changes in late medieval German political, social, and religious life led to a papal bull excommunicating him in 1521; Luther publicly burnt the bull along with a copy of canon law and was called to the Diet of Worms for the purpose of recanting his teachings. He refused and was placed under the ban of the empire, which designated him an “outlaw” whom anyone could kill without legally committing murder.”

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Martin_Luther.aspx#2

The history of Martin Luther, good and bad, is not a matter of debate. The denial on this thread is mind boggling. When I posted the information about Martin Luther I did so for the benefit of a few who may not have been familiar with it. Not to engage with people who simply deny history because it makes them uncomfortable.

As for my mistake between Tyndale and Wycliffe I already admitted it, it was an error. It was Tyndale, who:

” After months of imprisonment and many theological disputations he was condemned in August 1536 for persistence in heresy, and in October he was strangled to death and his body publicly cremated.”

Wycliffe, rather, enjoyed his bone burning after he was dug up from his grave, a fact which one poster on this thread finds praiseworthy!

Wow, what scholarship. Find an encyclopedia and read it. I don’t care which one you use. These facts are not in dispute.


136 posted on 08/10/2012 10:14:23 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Re: "“Now I’ll say something about his work. He preached Calvinist type doctrines.”

"No, he preached Donatist type doctrines. Calvinists would reject many of his doctrines.

Wycliffe taught that there was no free will. He believed and taught predestination and "all things are ordained by God". That is the foundation of Calvinism.

Donatism is something else and it does not detract in any way from the predestination he taught, which is the foundation of Calvinist doctrine.

137 posted on 08/10/2012 10:45:14 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
"If that is not a fair characterization, please tell me how to state it more fairly from the Catholic point of view."

That is not completely correct. The Church recognizes that vernacular languages evolve and that within those languages there are variances and nuances based upon region, class, ethnicity, etc. It is for this reason that the Church continually revises Bible translations; not because the initial "original intent" is thought to have changed, but because they way it is expressed or interpreted within the vernacular language has changed.

This is the reason the Church uses Latin as its official language. Latin, being a dead language, is used as the baseline by the Church and the common language to which all vernacular translations of Scripture and Church documents are tied. It is timeless no longer evolving or having the variations of vernacular languages.

Lastly, the Church maintains a Magisterium to provide inerrant clarity and clarification to all matters of doctrine and dogma.

Peace be with you

138 posted on 08/10/2012 12:09:12 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Natural Law, thank you for the thought you gave to your reply. It helps me better understand the Catholic mind. I especially appreciate your description of Latin, as a dead language, being used as a “baseline.”

I will not pretend that I fully agree with you ... you know I don’t, or that I agree with the Catholic position. But I do appreciate your helpful reply.

If you are willing to go a step further. Would that mean then that the reason the Catholic Church saw no need to replace Jerome’s Latin translation for so long time (and would tend thereafter to translate into the vernacular Bibles based on the Vulgate, e.g., the Douay-Rheims, rather than on the preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts), and in a very sense still is of such a mind?

Again, I am asking this for the sake of clarity, because I think non-Catholics have a very difficult time grasping where Catholics are coming from on this matter.

Peace.


139 posted on 08/10/2012 12:51:22 PM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
"Again, I am asking this for the sake of clarity, because I think non-Catholics have a very difficult time grasping where Catholics are coming from on this matter."

I will take this as far as you want to take it, within my capabilities. Please remember that I do not speak for the Church, but only as a Catholic who has done a significant amount of study in this area.

I think the Catholic position is based upon Scripture being but one component of the Revealed Word and infallible interpretation is entrusted to the Magisterium which is guided by the Holy Spirit and facilitated by relying on the accompanying Tradition. It was this same Magitserium that formed the Canon of Scripture from the Sacred Tradition.

A good analogy is the baseball term "chin music". To those who love the game like I do chin music has a very specific meaning; it is a high inside fast ball intended to move a batter back off the plate. It is more than an a threat, it is a warning. An English professor in Oxford, a so-called expert in the language, reading an American newspaper might surmise that it is a musical term or have something to do with the noise one's whiskers make when scratched. A "magisterium" of baseball players and fans would soon correct his misinterpretation.

140 posted on 08/10/2012 2:09:32 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Your puerile excuse for “scholarship” is laughable as are your errors. Sorry, but my respect for your sources is as low as, well, they deserve. You use Wikipedia as a source? Laughable. Truly laughable.


141 posted on 08/10/2012 5:00:28 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is being called a a lie.
Well, because it is. Documented and often so. That you fail to understand or acknowledge that fact reflects again on your lack of honest scholarship.
142 posted on 08/10/2012 5:03:05 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

You wrote:

“Wycliffe taught that there was no free will. He believed and taught predestination and “all things are ordained by God”. That is the foundation of Calvinism.”

Calvin is the foundation of Calvinism. Wycliffe lived 140 years before Calvin. He believed in things Calvin never would have.

“Donatism is something else and it does not detract in any way from the predestination he taught, which is the foundation of Calvinist doctrine.”

Wycliffe was no Calvinist. And Calvin was no Wycliffite.


143 posted on 08/10/2012 5:36:47 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

You wrote:

“No, narses, the RC church during it history banned the translation and distribution of the Bible.”

False. Show me the canon law where the Catholic Church “banned the translation and distribution of the Bible.”

“It punished people, some with death, for doing so.”

Again, false. Name the people - give me specific names. Can you? No. You might post names, but none of them will be people put to death for translating a Bible.

“Also, reading the Bible without permission from the RC church was forbidden.”

Also, completely false.

I realize there is no evidence whatsoever for your beliefs as stated above. I realize you will fail - UTTERLY - in any attempt to present a single shred of evidence for your beliefs. There is no other possible outcome. The sources are known. Most likely you have never read any of them like so many Protestant anti-Catholic sciolists before you.


144 posted on 08/10/2012 5:59:43 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; DManA; vladimir998

The thread was not begun as a frontal assault on Luther or protestantism and the statement that it was is false and provably so.

Also, the attacks began almost immediately....not from Catholics, but from protestants.

Foxe’s Book of Martyrs was not even mentioned until several posts after the one I challenged.

And, I did not comment on your debate with vladimir998.

I responded to post #66 which seems to serve no other purpose than to antagonize.

The acrimony here is palpable enough without adding to it with such blatant and pointless jabs.


145 posted on 08/10/2012 6:47:26 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
First, I never did what you accuse me of - I do not condemn all Protestants. I do not condemn all Protestants as anti-Catholics. But leave it to a Protestant anti-Catholic to claim I said something I never said. Incredibly you make this claim in a thread in which you demand examples from me. Okay, show me where I “condemn all “Protestants” as “Anti-Catholic Protestant liars”. Can you show that? No, you can’t. The closest you can come to what you’re claiming in this thread is 121 where I say “Protestant” two or three times but always clarify that with “Protestant anti-Catholic”. By the way, everything I said in 121 is clearly true and you’re proving it now.

Sure you did. You have made it more than obvious that you consider EVERY non-Catholic opponent of Catholicism - no matter what the issue or subject - an "anti-Catholic Protestant liar". You pin that to anyone who comes up against you. You did it here several times to three or four different posters and your history adequately demonstrates it is your standard OP that anyone can view. You are doing it right here with me - presuming because I testify to leaving Roman Catholicism, I am also a liar and, now, a hypocrite. What a surprise. Go ahead and look again at your posts 53, 62, 63, 89, 91, 104 and 105 - in every one you slap on the rhetoric about anti-Catholic Protestants almost like justification for whatever nasty insult you want to hurl next. It IS sad.

Rather than painting with a broad brush every non-Catholic who participates on these Religion Forum threads and disagrees from time to time with what Catholics say as Anti-Catholic Protestants, why not acknowledge that most of us love the Lord Jesus Christ every bit as much as you claim to do? Those of us who have left the Catholic Church do so for reasons that are our own and when the subject comes up, we do not shy away from explaining why.

I get it that you and some others here believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY legitimate church of Christ and ANY disagreement with that is viewed as suspect. However, if we are to have any semblance of respectful discussions on these boards - and that IS my intent - we should let go of prejudice and presumed evil motive. I stand by what I say and, though it may be hard for some to tolerate, I have every right and duty to defend my faith to the best of my ability. I don't need to resort to lies or "propaganda", though I do have the maturity to admit when I am proved wrong, even "neck deep" in the battle. It's part of being truthful, honest, fair and just.

146 posted on 08/10/2012 6:54:52 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

You wrote:

“Sure you did.”

Nope. If I had then I am sure you would easily be able to document your claim.

“You have made it more than obvious that you consider EVERY non-Catholic opponent of Catholicism - no matter what the issue or subject - an “anti-Catholic Protestant liar”.”

Again, false. First, your claim is logically impossible. There are opponents of the faith here who are Jewish, Mormon, athiest, agnostic and who knows what else. Since I know that there are such opponents, and have posted to them, I clearly could never have considered “EVERY non-Catholic opponent of Catholicism...[to be] an “anti-Catholic Protestant liar”. Thus, your claim is logically impossible from the start. Second, and I have said this before, not all anti-Catholics are Protestants and not all Protestants are anti-Catholics. Both are common here at FR, but they do not always overlap by any means.

“You pin that to anyone who comes up against you.”

No. I just correctly identify Protestant anti-Catholics because they so often admit to such in how they write, post, their pattern or illogic, ignorance, sciolism, deception, etc.

“You did it here several times to three or four different posters and your history adequately demonstrates it is your standard OP that anyone can view.”

Again, false. I correctly identified - based upon their own statements - that some posters are anti-Catholic Protestants. And they are.

“You are doing it right here with me - presuming because I testify to leaving Roman Catholicism, I am also a liar and, now, a hypocrite.”

False. I never said you were a liar or hypocrite because you left the faith. If I call someone a liar and hypocrite, it is because he lied and was a hypocrite.

“What a surprise. Go ahead and look again at your posts 53, 62, 63, 89, 91, 104 and 105 - in every one you slap on the rhetoric about anti-Catholic Protestants almost like justification for whatever nasty insult you want to hurl next. It IS sad.”

I was correct in every statement in all of those posts - every single one. You don’t have to like it, but that fact won’t change no matter how much or how little you like it.

“Rather than painting with a broad brush every non-Catholic who participates on these Religion Forum threads and disagrees from time to time with what Catholics say as Anti-Catholic Protestants, why not acknowledge that most of us love the Lord Jesus Christ every bit as much as you claim to do?”

For one thing, I cannot testify to the love of Christ supposedly held by “every non-Catholic who participates on these Religion Forum threads” because I don’t know them all, can’t know them all, and certainly can’t judge their love of Christ by their thread posts except in a few cases. Some people here are also not Christian and have no love of Christ and have said so (Jews, athiests, etc.). What is more readily discernable is how many people - sadly far too many in the Protestant anti-Catholic camp - are ignorant and spread lies apparently without a second thought. That is something that is easy to discern. Also, I cannot easily abide the idea that someone can love Christ but lie about His Church, love Christ but spread lies without a care, love Christ but not care about truth, etc. It seems that a person who does such a thing does not love Christ, but instead only loves a caricature or shell of Christ.

“Those of us who have left the Catholic Church do so for reasons that are our own and when the subject comes up, we do not shy away from explaining why.”

Your reasons are completly unimportant to me. I do not care about the subjectivity of Protestants, or anti-Catholics, or anyone else for that matter. It simply isn’t important. What matters is truth, not personal reasons, not feelings, not subjectivity.

“I get it that you and some others here believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY legitimate church of Christ and ANY disagreement with that is viewed as suspect.”

I’m not even sure what that comment is supposed to mean. Suspect? Logically, how many “legitimate” Churches did Christ establish? 10,000? 100,000? 10? Is that a difficult question for you?

“However, if we are to have any semblance of respectful discussions on these boards - and that IS my intent - we should let go of prejudice and presumed evil motive.”

Again, it is not about presumption, but actions. Actions, and patterns of actions, which are so common to Protestant anti-Catholics that they are predictable to a T.

“I stand by what I say and, though it may be hard for some to tolerate, I have every right and duty to defend my faith to the best of my ability.”

That, of course, is not the issue. When you attack THE faith, and yet do so so clearly in the wrong, that is very different than defending your faith.

“I don’t need to resort to lies or “propaganda”, though I do have the maturity to admit when I am proved wrong, even “neck deep” in the battle. It’s part of being truthful, honest, fair and just.”

You claim that, but I have no rational reason to believe it.


147 posted on 08/10/2012 8:03:36 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

God’s own fought the devil Luther. Nothing there a Protestant could possibly be offended by.


148 posted on 08/10/2012 8:03:55 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; vladimir998
"Sure you did. You have made it more than obvious that you consider EVERY non-Catholic opponent of Catholicism - no matter what the issue or subject - an "anti-Catholic Protestant liar".

You make Vlad's case almost as good as he did. You do realize that an "opponent of Catholicism" is by definition "anti-Catholic" and every opponent of the Truth a liar, don't you?

Peace be with you

149 posted on 08/10/2012 10:18:09 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

“The thread was not begun as a frontal assault on Luther or protestantism and the statement that it was is false and provably so.”

Well, I see it as a critique of Luther. He is compared and contrasted with a monk who managed to stay in the RC church.

I am ok with critiquing Luther in general, however, to say he left the RC Church when he was in fact excommunicated and sentenced to death is a bit much.

I assure you I have no personal acrimony towards you, and I was trying to write with cordialty, until such time as I was informed that Foxe’s was a book of myths (not by you), and got extremely disgusted. I put that right up there with Holocaust denial. I have no time for it.


150 posted on 08/10/2012 10:35:52 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson