Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary

http://www.catholicculture.org ^ | April 24, 2003 | Dave Armstrong

[boatbums]

Nope..neither a lie, outright or not, nor a load of bull, big or small. You've read these threads long enough, verga, to know that this is hardly the first time this has been discussed. Those other councils you mentioned were not ecumenical, did not agree completely with the previous one, and, most important of all, if any of them HAD been dogmatically affirmed, there would have been NO need for Trent to do so. BUT...Trent DID find the need to do so and they STILL didn't have anything near unanimous consent among those involved. Dissent went on before, during and after the council made its decrees.

From http://drakeshelton.com/2011/09/15/the-protestant-position-on-the-apocrypha-defended-in-francis-turretin-and-william-whitaker/ we learn:

The style and matter of the books proclaim them to be human, not divine. It requires little acuteness to discover that they are the product of human labor, although some are more excellent than others. For besides the fact that the style does not savor of the majesty and simplicity of the divine style and is redolent with the faults and weaknesses of human genius (in the vanity, flattery, curiosity, mistaken zeal and ill-timed affectation of learning and eloquence, which are often met with), there are so many things in them not only foolish and absurd, but even false, superstitious and contradictory, as to show clearly that they are not divine but human writings. We will give a few specimens of the many errors. Tobias makes the angel tell a falsehood. He says that he is Azariah, the son of Ananias (Tob. 5:12*) and that he is Raphael, the angel of the Lord (12:15). The angel gives a magical direction for driving away the devil by the smoke of a fish’s liver (Tob. 6:6), against that of Christ (Mt. 17:21). He arrogates to himself the oblation of prayers (Tob. 12:12), which belongs to the work of Christ alone. The book of Judith celebrates the deed of Simeon (Jud. 9:2), which Jacob cursed (Gen. 49:5-7); praises the deceits and lies of Judith (Jud. 11), which are not very consistent with piety. Worse still, she even seeks the blessing of God upon them (Jud. 9:13). No mention is made of the city Bethulia in the Scriptures; nor does any trace of the deliverance mentioned there occur in Josephus or Philo, who wrote on Jewish subjects. The author of Wisdom falsely asserts that he was king in Israel (Wis. Sol. 9:7, 8) that he might be taken for Solomon. Yet he alludes to the athletic contests which in the time of Solomon had not been established among the Greeks (Wis. Sol. 4:2). Further, he introduces the Pythagorean metempsychosis (metempsychosin, Wis. Sol. 8:19, 20) and gives a false account of the origin of idolatry (14:15, 16). The Son of Sirach (Sir 46:20) attributes to Samuel what was done by the evil spirit raised by wicked devices (1 S. 28:11), falsely speaks of Elijah’s bodily return (Sir. 48:10), and excuses his oversights in the prologue.

V. There are so many contradictions and absurdities in the additions to Esther and Daniel that Sixtus Senensis unhesitatingly rejects them. Baruch says that in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, he read his book to Jeconiah and to all the people of Babylon; but Jeconiah was in prison and Baruch had been taken away to Egypt after the death of Gedaliah (Jer. 43:7*). He mentions an altar of the Lord (Bar. 1:10) when there was none, the temple being destroyed. The books of the Maccabees often contradict each other (compare 1 Mac. 1:16 with 9:5, 28 and chapter 10). The suicide (autocheiria) of Razis is praised (2 Mac. 14:42). Will-worship (ethelothreskeia) is commended (2 Mac. 12:42) in Judas’s offering a sacrifice for the dead contrary to the law. The author apologizes for his youth and infirmity and complains of the painful labor of abridging the five books of Jason, the Cyrenian (2 Mac. 2:23*, 24; 15:39). If you wish any more specimens from these books, consult Rainold, Chamier, Molinaeus, Spanheim and others who have pursued this line of argument with fullness and strength.

VI. The canon of faith differs from the canon of ecclesi­astical reading. We do not speak here of the canon in the latter sense, for it is true that these apocryphal books were sometimes read even publicly in the church. But they were read “for the edification of the people” only, not “for establishing the authority of the doctrines” as Jerome says, Praefatio . . . in Libros Salomonis (NPNF2, 6:492; PL 28.1308). Likewise the legends containing the sufferings of the martyrs (which were so called from being read) were publicly read in the church, although they were not considered canonical. But we speak here of the canon of faith.

VII. The word “canon” is used by the fathers in two senses; either widely or strictly. In the first sense, it embraces not only the canon of faith, but also the canon of ecclesiastical reading. In this way, we must understand the Third Council of Carthage, Canon 47 (Lauchert, p. 173) when it calls these canonical books (if indeed this canon has not been foisted in [pareisaktos] because it men­tions Pope Boniface who was not at that time pope; hence Surius, the Ivlonk [Concilia omnia (1567), 1:508*] attributes this canon to the Seventh Council of Carthage, not the Third) not strictly and properly of the canon of faith, but widely, of the canon of reading. The synod expressly says that the sufferings of the martyrs should also be read and so we must understand Augustine when he terms them “canonical:’ For he makes two orders of canonicals: the first of those which are received by all the churches and were never called in ques­tion; the second of those which are admitted only by some and were usually read from the pulpit. He holds that the latter are not to be valued as rightly as the former and have far less authority (Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 11.5* [NPNFI, 4:180]). But the Apocrypha are spurious, false and worthless writings-the fables of the Scriptures (Augustine, CG 15.23 [FC 14:474]). However the word “canon” is taken strictly for that which has a divine and infallible authority in proving the doctrines of faith. Jerome takes the word in this sense when he excludes those books from the canon. Thus Augustine attached a wider signification to the word “canon” than Jerome, who again takes the word “apocryphal” in a wider sense than Augustine, not only for books evi­dently false and fabulous, but also for those which (although they might be read in the church) should not be used to prove the doctrines of faith. Thus the seem­ingly contradictory expressions of these fathers may easily be reconciled. Thus Cajetan near the end explains them: “The words of councils as well as of teach­ers being brought to the test of Jerome, it will appear that these books are not canonical (i.e., regulars to establish matters of faith), although they may be called canonical (i.e., regulars for the edification of believers), since they were received into the Biblical canon for this purpose” (“In librum Hester commentarii, in quotquot in Sacra Scripturae (1639], 2:400). Dionysius Carthusianus agrees with him (Prooemium in “Tobiam,” in Opera Omnia [1898], 5:83-84).

[Faith Presses On]

So how does the Catholic belief on Communion give you a personal knowledge of Jesus?

[boatbums]

You are right! I don't expect the more virulent RCs on this forum to grasp the truth of what you are saying because to them their church IS their way to salvation. Still, there are some who comprehend the gospel in spite of the error taught in their religion. They join with all those who are called to fellowship in the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord and know deep down that He saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins, giving us a new birth and new life through the Holy Spirit.

[af_vet_1981]

The Holy Spirit calls Mary, *the mother of Jesus*.

There are very few passages where the Holy Spirit is expressly speaking or calling, so it is more accurate to save that expression for those few passages. The scriptures however, inspired by God, explicitly describe Mary as the
1. mother of Jesus,
2. mother of my (our) Lord, and
3. mother of God with us.

All three are true. Therefore it is scriptural to call Mary the mother of God for she is the mother of "God with us."

Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also ?Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

[Salvation]

Faith is Christ is more than mere fellowship.

A support group is important, yes, but Christ is supremely important.

Unless Christ is the center of your service (Lutheran still?) the something is terribly wrong.

I know of a church that had young children sing and dance — and that was the service.

Not centered on Christ.

[af_vet_1981]

So how does the Catholic belief on Communion give you a personal knowledge of Jesus?

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

[Iscool]

Devout Catholic Scriptural commentators for the past 500 years have seen in this vision a prediction of Luther and his Protestant Revolt.<<

Now that's funny...Those commentators shouldn't even be messin' with a bible...

[Rashputin]

Thank you for a wonderful example of the convaluted vain pride that flows out of a denial of the perfection and power of the Holy Spirit. Scripture describes that state of mind as follows:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks ; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Romans 1:22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

[boatbums]

Thank you for a wonderful example of the convaluted vain pride that flows out of a denial of the perfection and power of the Holy Spirit.

You're welcome. Always glad to help people understand the truth of the word of God and how He leads us to recognize - through the Holy Spirit - the difference between God-breathed revelation and the chronicles of men who were not writing as they were being "carried along by the Holy Spirit".

[Rashputin]

It's good to have you finally admit that for you "truth" means believing the Holy Spirit is imperfect and therefor there is no Trinity.

[verga]

Trent found the need only after what had always been accepted was challenged. Try reading some secular sources for history instead of the biased stuff you have been.

[verga]

My quote: Catholics know Him in the most personal way through the Eucharist.

Your question: So how does the Catholic belief on Communion give you a personal knowledge of Jesus?

When we receive the precious Body and Blood we must first assent that it is indeed Him with the "Amen" and then consume Him.

Short of the marriage act it is the most personal/intimate knowledge you can have.

[verga]

That's just it, I'm not the one insisting those seven books belong as part of the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures. You don't seem to get it that those books were NEVER part of the Old Testament, they didn't come from God, they were NOT Divine revelation, as ALL the documentation I have given to you demonstrates. Do you not bother to read even the rebuttals in this thread?

It wasn't until Trent in the sixteenth century that the Catholic church even dogmatically declared them canonical, so who was in error about those books before then? They were NOT recognized as inspired because they DID contain errors

Ever hear of a little thing called the Septuagint?

So when you say NEVER, you should actually be saying always.

[Elsie]

Luther was an alcoholic, Jew-hating, Catholic-hating, heretic, who only through the grace of God didn’t lose his head at the gallows.

While THESE guys were merely men; after all...

---

Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.^[1]

Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy

Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy

Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.^[2]

Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.^[3]

Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony^[4]

Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

[Elsie]

I’ve gotten corralled into giving responses that generated more heat than light and I no longer want to do that anymore.

I understand; as I've been there - although a LONG time ago.

Just remember the old mantra:

"Whatever doesn't kill me; makes me stronger."

[Elsie]

Obviously you do not speak for any Catholic other than yourself...Your statement has been proven false more times than we can count...

My parents had to correct me over and over before I finally got the point.

Don't give up hope; for...

---

The following is a MORMON list; but #16 can apply here as well...

---

Standard LDS responses to data put to them:

 
 1. How you interpret it is wrong... 
 2. You are too ignorant to really understand it because you are not a member.... 
 3. You're not qualified to judge because you're no LONGER a member... 
 4. You are just a bigot for bringing the whole ugly truth to light ... 
 5. So’s yer Mama! 
 6. Laugh it all off and post some silly image. 
 7. Jump down the rabbit hole; Alice! 
 8. Bait & Switch 
 9. The OTHER 'half' of the truth is what we are avoiding.
10. "I Know It When I See It"
11. Hand waving... 
12. YOU play defense for a while. 
13. HEE Hee hee... let's get the Calvinists and the Armenians fighting!
14. GREAT FUN! Let's get the Catholics and the Protestants fighting!
15. Huh? Did you say something?
16. If I repeat this enough times some folks will be fooled into thinking it's true.
17. Playing dumb.
18. Refusing to answer because your ATTITUDE offends them.
19. (Let's see if they'll fall for the 'Defend a freak' ploy.)
20. And the MOST used... IGNORE what they posted and answer the question that SHOULD have been asked.

[Elsie]

I think the reason I keep doing so is not so much for the obstinate few for which NO facts will suffice but for others who may be reading the thread so that they can have those facts to make up their own minds.

Amen!

[Elsie]

I will ignore your attempt at blasphemy.

Attempt?

One either does it or does not.

--Basic Yoda

[Elsie]

Satan is aware of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

So was Joseph!

[Elsie]

This is either an out right lie or the biggest load of bull ever.

Watch it!