The saint who opposed Luther

Catholic Herald ^ | August 7, 2012

[NYer]

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.

[Belteshazzar]

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?

[vladimir998]

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.

[vladimir998]

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.

[vladimir998]

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.

[vladimir998]

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.

[Belteshazzar]

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.

[Natural Law]

"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

[Running On Empty]

Thanks for this post.

[Alamo-Girl]

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.

[Natural Law]

"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

[vladimir998]

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.

[Belteshazzar]

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.

[Natural Law]

"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

[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.

[Belteshazzar]

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.

[Natural Law]

"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.

[Belteshazzar]

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

[Natural Law]

"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?

[Belteshazzar]

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?

[Natural Law]

"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