The History of the Reformation…The Three Trials…(Part 9 of 12)

With reference to Luther's preference for "change one's mind" rather than "do penance) as a translation for metanoite, wmfights wrote I am struck by the mistakes in translation from Greek to Latin. Is it possible that Jerome was driven by pressure from within the institutional structure of the RCC, or were they just mistakes?

It was a mistake only if you take as true Luther's theology about repentance. This is a good example of claiming as fact what is in fact a dispute about interpretation. Sproul needs to read some medieval theologians before he pontificates about justification. Read Alister McGrath, Justitia Dei. McGrath is an Evangelical Protestant but he's honest enough a scholar (unlike the author of this article) to recognize that the Reformers introduced a totally new understanding of justification. McGrath thinks this is good because he thinks Augustine misunderstood the Hebrew terms translated in the Septuagint and that Luther and the humanists recovered the original forensic, or courtroom, meaning of the Greek terms. One can equally well look at the philology of the humanists as primitive--they failed to take into account that the secular Greek use of the terms involved would not govern their use in a religious text translating Hebrew theology, in the Septuagint. So Luther's reliance on the modernist scholarship of his day (humanism) actually led to a misunderstanding of what the Greek text meant when it was written and used by Paul.

In terms of methodology in biblical exegesis, what Luther did was to employ contemporary (modernist, from "modernus" meaning "now") methods that were primitive forays at lower criticism, and he ended up with false results because he didn't think through all the implications of the new scholarship.

It is true that the Greek terms translating the Hebrew language about "righteous" had only courtroom acquittal meanings in secular Greek literature in Paul's day. But that doesn't mean Paul had secular court acquittal meanings in mind when he used these terms. Words can take on new meanings. For centuries these Greek courtroom acquittal terms had been used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew words that for the Jews clearly meant "become righteous" not merely "be declared righteous" or "acquitted." Paul was a Jew, steeped in the Jewish understanding of becoming righteous. When he read and used Greek courtroom acquittal terms in writing about righteousness, he thought in Hebrew terms. In other words, when one translates into a new language, the force of the meaning of what is translated can, over time, give new meaning to the words of the host language used to translate. One sometimes has to, in translating, use words that have only one, inadequate, set of connotations in the host language but their meaning becomes clear because the material, the content, being translated moves powerfully in the direction of a different meaning. That the Hebrews understood righteousness to be something we really are (or aren't) not merely a matter of courtroom acquittal, seems obvious to me. If one reads all the Hebrew scriptures on this subject in Greek dress (the Septuagint) again and again, as Paul would have done, the non-courtroom-acquittal meaning of "righteousness" would have come through.

Thus, if we wish to know what Paul meant by these terms (which Luther did, because he accused the Catholic church of misinterpreting them in the Church's theology of justification and salvation), going to secular Greek literature of the day by itself won't help. Yet that's what the humanist scholars on whom Luther depended did. And Luther could not see how limited, how narrow his exegetical method was. In short, the Reformation theology of justification rested on uncritical use of poor scholarship that had only recently come on-line. Luther was a modernist.

Historically this caricatures the Cajetan-Luther exchange. See Jared Wicks's books on Luther and Cajetan.

1. Translating a long article Wicks wrote for the Dictionnaire de Spiritualite is the book Luther and his spiritual legacy (Wilmington, Del. : M. Glazier, Date: 1983)

2. Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy>/i> (Catholic University of America Press, 1978)

3. Luther's reform : studies on conversion and the church, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz. Beiheft ; 35 (Mainz : Verlag P. von Zabern, Date: 1992)

4. Man yearning for grace; Luther's early spiritual teaching (Washington, Corpus Books, 1968)

Wicks studied carefully the archives relating to the Cajetan story. Cajetan did not accuse Luther of heresy. He told him he was a rash theologian. As I have posted before, behind his back, others were maneuvering to have Luther arrested for heresy. The story as told here is an embellished Protestant myth. Wicks admires Luther. He is not a Catholic hack historian. And he's a far more careful historian than the sources upon with this preacher depends.

The specific details of the events of 1518 based on Wick's archival studies were published in a long article in a scholarly journal about the time of the book Luther and His Spiritual Legacy. I don't have the citation immediately at hand but perhaps can post it later. But the guts of his argument will be found in his 1992 book.

The story as told here is an embellished Protestant myth. Wicks admires Luther. He is not a Catholic hack historian.

I find in reading both perspectives on this subject Catholic authors present their views from the authority of the Church (sympathetic to Rome) while Protestant authors present their views from the authority of scripture (sympathetic to Luther). This shouldn't surprise us for that's where the road of indulgences led us. I doubt if an author, let alone a reader, can be very objective.

One cannot fault Cajetan because he was entrenched in the beliefs of the authority of the Church. He was a fast riser (a Cardinal at 21) and probably had visions of being Pope. His "feather in his cap" would have been to have Luther publicly recant in front of all Germany. It was certainly a throne in his side when he was unable to do so. I suspect Rome was pretty mad at him and Cardinal Cajetan saw his Popeship being flushed down the toilet (understanding that indoor plumbing had not been invented.)

I think it’s just as equally wrong to say Luther was obstinate to Cajetan. Luther was firm in his convictions just as Cajetan was. Catholics like to paint Luther as just willy-nilly coming up with a “new” theology. After he was told to recant his writings and he said he had to think about it, I’m sure he mentally went through all the years of Church fathers writings and compared it against what he had written. His affirmation of his writings was based just as much on history as Cajetan view was. But what spur Luther on was the paying for indulgences was clearly wrong, had no basis in scripture and yet the Church persisted in arguing in favor of the practice simply by saying the Pope can make up any rule He wishes.

You no doubt disagree with Luther stance on this, but in this lay the heart of the Reformation.

Harley,what you have done here is wrong, sinful--though I suppose you are excused by ignorance. Your argument against Cajetan is entirely ad hominem, that is, you explain his actions psychologically and portray him as motivated by ambition for power. What evidence do you have for this? This is sheer speculation on your part. Have you read any of Cajetan's writings? Have you even read a biography or article about Cajetan?

I give you evidence that others in the Church were to blame (in the Curia) and evidence that the portrayal of Cajetan as having treated Luther as a heretic is simply false. I did not exonerate the Catholic Church. Luther was wronged, but not by Cajetan. Cajetan was utterly fair to him and the sermon you posted utters calumny against Cajetan.

You do no research to evaluate my claims. You simply speculate solely out of your own brain and place the blame entirely on Cajetan, whom you portray as a venal and evil man.

Now that is a sin against Christian charity, Harley. You have stated what you cannot know to be true as an explanation for what happened. You have borne false witness against us Catholics, after I offered you a nuanced understanding of what happened: Luther had legitmate complaints about abuses; he did some poor theologizing at the same time, Cajetan called him on the poor theologizing but agreed that many abuses needed correcting; Cajetan was stabbed in the back by members of the Curia. The posted article distorts this. You come back and portray Cajetan as venal.

You now cannot plead ignorance, Harley. Show where I'm wrong by showing evidence from the sources, not from some hack Protestant apologist, of Cajetan's venality or power-hunger or else apologize. Some day you will have answer for asserting what you cannot really know to be true.

Cajetan's writings are readily available in English. I cited them in my previous posting. I have read them. Have you?

Two more points: another move you make, terms of how you argue your case, Harley, is to ignore my arguments and reduce both "sides" to bias. This is the old "moral equivalence" argument used by liberals and postmodernists: "you only say that because of your bias."

Now, I did not write simply from a biased Catholic perspective. I showed where plenty of blame lies on Catholic shoulders. The articles by Karl Adam that have been posted recently excoriates the abuses in the late medieval church. (I have two or three quibbles with Adam's account, which I will post soon, but otherwise, I would agree with him.) So you cannot reasonably simply dismiss what I wrote as "biased Catholic."

Secondly, I did not say Luther was obstinate to Cajetan. You use that as a premise upon which to tee off against Cajetan, saying, in effect, "so's your mother." But I did not fault Luther for obstinacy here. I do fault him (as Karl Adam does) for obtinacy later. As I have posted at least twice before, Luther and Cajetan might have reached an agreement about which theological points Luther ought to repudiate, not as a heretic, but as a rash theologian. But this failed in large part because Luther and Cajetan were undermined by sinful dealings of members of the curia. So your premise--that we Catholics say Luther was obstinate to Cajetan--is something I have not alleged. I have praised Luther's actions up to this point. (One of my criticisms of Adam's account is that he places Luther's going off the rails way too early, in 1512.) I fault his actions after this point. I praise Cajetan's actions. Both Cajetan and Luther acted honorably and fairly in this exchange, which is why the way it's portrayed in the sermon you posted is so false and misleading. I fault others in the Church who undermined both Luther and Cajetan's efforts to reach a settlement theologically, before Luther could be charged with heresy. He was not a heretic at this point and he would not have become a heretic had he not reacted to the injustice done against him by throwing overboard fundamental principles of Christian Catholic teaching. He had not done so up to this point. (And here, again, I disagree slightly with Adam, although Adam does not accuse him of serious error before 1520, rather says that Luther was psychologically and theologically predisposed to error in the period from about 1510 to 1520. Here too, I disagree--and rely on Wicks's careful examination of this period for my evidence.)

while Protestant authors present their views from the authority of scripture (sympathetic to Luther).

Harley,

You should correct this to state:

while Protestant authors present their views from the authority of their interpretation of scripture (sympathetic to Luther).

As I have attempted to show several times, there are many, many issues where there is a definite scriptural basis for traditional, apostolic Christian belief that have hence been rejected by the protestants.

Examples include:

The importance of holding to apostolic tradition
The primacy of Peter among the apostles
Transubstantiation
Purgatory

So, in fact, it is the Protestant interpretation of scripture that is in question. The fact that there are so many diverse denominations, all of which say they possess the authentic Christian message, many of which claim exclusivity, that have developed since the time of Wyclif, Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli is the most telling evidence of this point.

After all, if this was not the case, there would be no need for the Lutherans (ECLA, LCMS, WCLA, etc.), the Disciples of Christ (+First Christian), the Methodists (plus AME, CME, Weslyan, Nazarene, etc.), the Baptists (General, Southern, Independent, Free-Will, Primative, United, etc.), the Church of Christ (in various permutations), the Assemblies of God, the Four-Square, the Pentacostals, the Holiness, the Reformed, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterians (PCUSA, PCA, etc.), the Mennonites, etc. This is not to mention the smaller groups and the non-affiliated churches, many of whom have their own theology. And I'm sure I left out some group (no offense intended).

Do we practice infant baptism or adult baptism only? Do we baptize from a font, a pool, or exclusively in a river? (different Protestant groups have different beliefs)
Do we have communion every week, every month, every year, or rarely, if ever? (again, different beliefs) Do we use unleavened bread or leavened bread? Grape juice or wine?
Do we believe in free will or predestination?
Do we have a central denominational structure or is each congregation self-governing? Is there a credo of beliefs or not?
Do women keep their heads covered in the church or not? Can women wear pants? Can women cut their hair? Can women wear makeup or jewelry? Can they wear bright-colored clothing?
Are men required to wear beards? Are men allowed to cut their hair? Are men allowed to have long hair?
Are pants allowed to have zippers? Can we show buttons on our clothes?
Is the televison or radio allowed? Is the Internet allowed? Is electric lighting allowed?
Is an organ allowed in church? How about other musical instruments?
Are churches allowed to have stained glass? crosses? steeples?
Are you allowed to vote in public elections? Are you allowed to take social security when retired? Are you allowed a social security number? Are you allowed to give blood? Donate organs?
Do you worship on Saturday or Sunday?
And so on.

I am not trying to mock any of these denominations, but all of these differences exist among Protestant denominations. All of them claim to assert the primacy of the Bible and hold to the principle of sola scriptura and sola fide.

There are certain denominations that state that you must be baptized in the Holy Spirit in order to be assured of salvation. There are other denominations that state that the gifts of the Holy Spirit disappeared at the time of the apostles. Both sides, in their extreme, claim that those who don't subscribe to their beliefs are going to Hell. Not only that issue: there are some who do not subscribe to Jesus being the second person of the Trinity (e.g., United Pentacostal, Jehovah's Witnesses). Some Protestant denominations would hesitate calling these people Christians, because they deny the Trinity. People from these groups accuse Trinitarians of idolatry. Both sides claim scripture as their authority.

So your statement that Protestant authors present their views from the authority of scripture (sympathetic to Luther) rings hollow to me as a Catholic, because I see all the division within the protestant camp. If that statement was true, Western Christianity would consist of two groups: protestants (with the only subdivisions being merely stylistic) and Catholics. It's clear that an individual's interpretation of scripture is essential in the Protestant camp, as much if not more so than the authority of scripture itself.

The above is not intended to offend or mock anybody's beliefs. It is simply my observations of western Protestantism and the logical conclusions I draw from those observations.

while Protestant authors present their views from the authority of their interpretation of scripture (sympathetic to Luther). ...So your statement that Protestant authors present their views from the authority of scripture (sympathetic to Luther) rings hollow to me as a Catholic, because I see all the division within the protestant camp.

I think that is a fair statement and a correction is in order. You are right that it was Luther's interpretation. I still don't think he "willy-nilly" pulled this out of the sky and he more than likely went back and did some serious soul searching and replayed things that he read over again in his mind. Nor can we say that this was just Luther's idea because we see the same thing in Hus and Wycliffe as well as some of Luther's supporters. But I will agree with you that you can fairly say this was what became the "Protestants' interpretation".

As far as all those various denominations you'll find those who still hold the Reformed view of Luther have very little doctrinal differences on minor points. Also, as a Protestant viewing the Catholic Church, I can say with some degree of confidence that most of us Protestants see the same sort of splintering and divisions within the Catholic Church as with the Protestants. The problem is Catholics don't want to admit it.

I wrote: "You simply speculate solely out of your own brain."

You replied: "From your point of view isn't that what being a Protestant is all about?."

Sir, with respect, that is irrelevant. Even if our point of view is that that's all Protestants ever do (which is false), presenting mere speculation as fact is always bad.

It's also not true that we say that Protestantism is nothing but pure speculation. Once more you have answered my claim with ad hominem: you in effect reply that I have nothing but prejudice against Protestants and thus what I write need not be taken seriously.

You have once more borne false witness. Please show me where I ever said that no Protestant ever says anything except speculation from his own brain?

I have and do say that Protestants interpret Scripture, as do Catholics and that the debate among them boils down to interpretation of Scripture. But that does not mean that all Protestant or all Catholic interpretations of Scripture spring merely out of speculation. Both Catholic and Protestant interpretations are based on a wide variety of evidence and reasoning. Sometimes they are based on speculation. Speculation is not in and of itself bad. It's when it is presented as fact or when it does not serve helpfully to figure out something that could not readily be figured out with the aid of speculation that it is bad.

Harley, I made a specific accusation against you, namely that your interpretation of Cajetan's motives was not based on evidence but was pure speculation. To be fair, you cited the supposed fact that he was named a cardinal at age 21. Then you deduced that he was a fast riser in the church, then deduced from that that he was motivated in his dealings by ambition for power, ambitions to be come pope. You have one purported fact followed by wild speculation.

Now, Harley, please read carefully: Cajetan was named a cardinal not at age 21 but at age 48 or 49. He was born in 1469, named a cardinal in 1517, after a distinguished career in the Dominican Order, including being head of the order.

So the one tiny piece of evidence upon which you built your huge tower of speculative calumny was based on a false statement that you could have checked out easily. On that you built speculation that accused Cajetan of being and evil man. This, Harley, is an evil thing that you did. There is no getting around it. It is despicable. And that is not merely ad hominem. I do not use the term despicable lightly. But what you did is dishonest and despicable.

Where did you get this factoid about Cajetan being 21 when he was made a cardinal? Did it appear in the earlier sermons by this Presbyterian hack you've been posting or did you mistranscribe it? In any case, on this ludicrous fact (it should have aroused your suspicion so that you checked it out), which I mercifully did not rub in your face in my posting, you build your whole case.

And then when I challenge your case, you come back with an ad hominem toward us Catholics as a whole, which does not apply to anything I have ever posted.

You have now not only vilified Cajetan but you have calumniated me. Once more, I ask you respectfully to admit that you have wronged both of us and retract your falsehoods.

Also, as a Protestant viewing the Catholic Church, I can say with some degree of confidence that most of us Protestants see the same sort of splintering and divisions within the Catholic Church as with the Protestants. The problem is Catholics don't want to admit it.

I can say with some degree of confidence that most of us Protestants see the same sort of splintering and divisions within the Catholic Church as with the Protestants.

There are divisions and differences among people, particularly in the wake of Paul VI's Encyclical Humanae Vitae, after which it became stylish to publically dissent. The difference is that, with the exception of a couple of relatively small sedevacantist groups, the dissenters, at least, consider themselves in communion with the Holy See...and they all consider themselves Catholic.

The problem is Catholics don't want to admit it.

Oh no, we admit what exists and discuss it on a regular basis; otherwise, you would never have heard of it to begin with.

I’ll tell you what. I will retract that Cajetan was made a Cardinal at 21 (which means he would have had to enter a monastery when he was 2) and my speculations about Cajetan (which I stated as “probably”) if you’ll retract the slurs you posted about me in the following posts.

”You do no research to evaluate my claims. You simply speculate solely out of your own brain and place the blame entirely on Cajetan, whom you portray as a venal and evil man.” – Post 14

”…you in effect reply that I have nothing but prejudice against Protestants and thus what I write need not be taken seriously.” – Post 14

You have now not only vilified Cajetan but you have calumniated me.” - Post 14

You have no idea about my reasoning, research or readings any more than I have of Cajetan’s reasoning. You’re speculating about me just as much as I'm speculating about Cajetan. To suggest I'm trying to "vilified" Cajetan is spurious. The only difference is that Cajetan is dead and I'm, well, alive. I can speculate about Cajetan motives which is what history is about. (BTW-I'd like to know of one Cardinal who never entertained the idea of being Pope.)

Your retraction will be welcome at your convenience. Then mine will be forthcoming or you can simply refer to the first paragraph.

You sure have gall. I outlined step by step your speculations. That you tossed in a "probably" makes no difference because if you now are saying, "I didn't really mean what I speculated about Cajetan" then why did you offer it as your only argument to exonerate Luther? I took you seriously. Are you suggesting that in the future, anytime HarleyD writes "probable" we should skip over what follows because he wrote it but didn't mean it to be taken seriously?

Not to put too fine a point on it, Harley, when you wrote those things about Cajetan wanting to be pope and being ambitious, did you or did you not wish your readers to think negatively about Cajetan and to see him as dishonest and untrustworthy in his dealings with Luther?

Or did you merely toss them into the hopper for no reason at all? If so, what was the point of your posting?

And now to your "so's your old man" response: I did not speculate on your speculations, Harley. Honestly, you are incapable of understanding the words you use. I did not SPECULATE on your chain of reasoning. I outlined step by step exactly what you did. Your reasoning was in simple fact nothing but speculation based on an utterly false premise, a premise you now concede to have been false. I don't know everything about your research or reasonings or readings, Harley. I did not claim to know. But I can tell from what you wrote that you did not research Cajetan or you would not have built a tower of speculation on a false (on its face improbable) premise. From what you wrote it's obvious your reasoning was flawed, as even you admit. So my claim that you did no research is based on what you wrote and is not speculation. If you prefer, I will change my charge from "no research" to "incompetent research." That much is evident from the results of your "research." That your reasoning is incompetent is evident to everyone but yourself and Dr. Eckleburg. And my question to you about how much of Cajetan you've read remains unanswered. Surely if you have read Cajetan's writings you would have trumpeted it by now. So, is my surmise that you have not in fact false or is it perhaps (speculation) accurate?

Harley, what you just did was to admit that you were wrong on your premise and you then claimed to withdraw your speculations. Then you called on me to retract my claim that you vilified Cajetan. Now, if you were wrong about his age and wrong about your speculations that he was ambitious, mistreated Luther because he was ambitious etc., then you accused Cajetan of moral defects, accusations you now admit had no foundation in fact but existed solely in your speculation based on a falsehood about Cajetan's age. You did brand Cajetan venal when you attributed his actions to desire for power. You did vilify Cajetan. Truth is a good defense against libel. But your claims were false, as you admit. So my claim that you vilified Cajetan stands. So take your all for my retraction and stuff it.

I have nothing to retract Harley. I wish I could thank you for your retraction but you cannot even admit that you made a foolish mistake without immediately flinging new abuse. That's what I mean by calumny. You admit you were wrong but falsely accuse me of the same thing. You respond like an 11-year-old. I hope it made you feel better.

I can speculate about Cajetan motives which is what history is about. (BTW-I'd like to know of one Cardinal who never entertained the idea of being Pope.)

HarleyD, I'm sorry to inform you that history is not all about speculation. It employs speculation, yes. But all legitimate speculation must be based on some evidence. Your sole evidence was completely false as you admit.

And now you give yourself license to speculate about all the cardinals that ever existed. I would never be so foolish as to think I would know what goes on in the minds of even a handful of cardinals or of the two I happen to know by slight acquaintance. In the case of the one I have met and conversed with a few times (that's the evidence for the following speculation), I would have to speculate that he would very much not want to be pope even though, were he not an American, he would have been very much in the running at the last conclave. On the evidence of the writings of Gregory the Great, I would not need to speculate but can state categorically that he abhorred the idea of being pope. But he wasn't a cardinal, so, I guess he doesn't count.

Let's examine your speculation here about cardinals. What underlies your speculation is the same calumny you hurled at Cajetan: you assume that to be a cardinal is to be ambitious and eager for power, power in the Church. This certainly has nearly always been true of some although I doubt that it was true of very many bishops in the early centuries, since to be a bishop was to risk death in many cases.

You start from an implied premise--that most cardinals are ambitious (before you protest, yes, I know you implied it the other way around--that you doubt any were not--and yes, it is implied, but the implication is very clear--please spare me the specious rejoinder that you merely implied this and didn't mean it, please). What's your evidence for this implied premise? What have you read or studied about the lives of individual cardinals over the 1000 years in which they have functioned as papal electors? How many bishops have you known--really known, either in the present or by reading history? What do you know about the degree to which they are venal or ambitious or power hungry as compared to humble and compassionate and holy? I have studied a good bit of church history and I can name examples of both types. I would never be so foolish as to claim that all cardinals were of either type. If you believe that history legitimately composed of this sort of speculation, then you don't know much about historical research.

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.