Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by NYer
Bl. John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” History paints an overwhelming picture of St. Peter’s apostolic ministry in Rome and this is confirmed by a multitude of different sources within the Early Church. Catholic Encyclopedia states, “In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure.” Protestantism as a whole seeks to divorce Christianity from history by rending Gospel message out of its historical context as captured by our Early Church Fathers. One such target of these heresies is to devalue St. Peter and to twist the authority of Rome into a historical mishap within Christianity. To wit, the belief has as its end the ultimate end of all Catholic and Protestant dialogue – who has authority in Christianity?
Why is it important to defend the tradition of St. Peter and Rome?
The importance of establishing St. Peter’s ministry in Rome may be boiled down to authority and more specifically the historic existence and continuance of the Office of Vicar held by St. Peter. To understand why St. Peter was important and what authority was given to him by Christ SPL has composed two lists – 10 Biblical Reasons Christ Founded the Papacy and 13 Reasons St. Peter Was the Prince of the Apostles.
The rest of the list is cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia on St. Peter and represents only a small fraction of the evidence set therein.
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ’s prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — “And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
St. Peter’s First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.
Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5):
“Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory”.
He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us” (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.
In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Epistle to the Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says:
“You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).
Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
In his “Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, Church History IV.14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above).
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Præscriptione 36, he says:
“If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John.”
In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Against Marcion 4.5).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25) directed against the Montanists: “But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church”.
By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there” (i.e. at Rome).
There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment (“Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat”, ed. Preuschen, Tübingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter’s death in Rome.
The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.
So is it your contention that the conversation was not only recorded in Greek 30+ years after it occurred but actually took place in Greek?
Satana, “Satan,” derives from the Aramaic root sata, and means “to slip,” “to slide,” “to deceive,” “to miss the mark,” and “to cause one to be misled or go astray.” In Aramaic, calling an individual a “satan” means that the person is going astray or misleads. To use your reasoning, if Jesus had intended to refer to St. Peter as the devil the words he could have used were Lucifer, Beelzebub, Ahriman, Mephistopheles, or Phosphoros.
Peace be with you
That meme is getting so old. God used Judas, He used many pagan Kings to effectuate His plan. He will use many evil nations to come against Israel in the future to show His power and will. Using those old warn out reasoning’s of the age of the RCC or the size of the RCC or the world wide reach of the RCC is empty.
God preserved His word. Catholics bragging about doing it is in direct conflict with scripture itself.
Search the scriptures for terms like "puffed up", "high minded" or "think not more yourself".
Even Peter?
Is Protestantism now denying fetal cell microchimerism or is that just your learned opinion?
Peace be to you
All Popes are the Bishop of Rome. They are the first among equals within the episcopacy of the Church as Peter was the first among Apostles.
Peace be to you.
" Catholics are no strangers to contraceptives."
More bologna.
There are uncatechised Catholics, former Catholics ashamed to admit they’re no longer Catholic, and Catholics in name only, who are no strangers to contraceptives. Their adopting the doctrines of devils preached by the crew of anti-Catholic wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15) who preach Self-Worship, by definition, separates them from the Catholic Church.
Unlike the anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, Self Alone, crew who each and every one have their own personal church of Self, when someone refuses walk the walk they're no longer in communion with the Catholic Church no matter what sort of talk they talk or what they call themselves. Until they repent, do penance, and take up their cross of obedience to Christ once again, they’re people who the Scripture describes as having believed for a while but who when tempted fell away (Luke 8:13).
Anyone who honestly believes the Bible knows that those who the Scripture says have fallen away are no longer Christian just because they claim to be. They’ve accepted what those around here who so obviously worship their own, Most High and Holy Self preach, the doctrines of devils who assure them that no matter what they do, “No, you shall not die the death”.
Of course, anyone who had once been Catholic would know all this. Therefore were someone who claims to have once been Catholic to assert that people who abandon their Catholic faith are still Catholic with no qualifications whatsoever, it would be solid evidence that such a person was deliberately trying to deceive others. Posters of that sort claim all sorts of things, often under multiple posting names, in hopes of making their anti-Christian and anti-Catholic propaganda seem more believable.
Wherever you find anti-Catholic propagandists who believe, or pretend to believe, and quote Hislop along with his plagiarizing echo, Hunt, or any other garbage that can be traced back to Hislop’s lies, you find ignorant dupes, liars, con men, and cultists, spreading anti-Catholic lies. Their goal is always the same, they want to divide Christians against one another to support the anti-Christ society that hates those who don’t go along to get along with the pagan society the same way the anti-Catholic propagandists do.
People who are "no strangers" to contraceptives are just like Pelosi who the Self Alone crowd like to pretend is still Catholic in spite of the fact that she has publicly and clearly stated she believes exactly the same go along to get along, please everyone, “Christian Liberty” garbage the anti-Catholic crowd and the majority of churches other than Southern Baptists and Catholics preach these days.
Why the coy “Catholics are no strangers to” pretense anyway from folks who should be proud to have Nancy Pelosi publicly agree with them and so clearly espousing the same thing they teach?
Having Catholics abandon their faith to enjoy the fruits infanticide with contraceptives and other Self Alone doctrines is what the anti-Catholic propagandists say they want. Why the shyness from that same anti-Catholic crew when it’s time to take credit for helping to increase the number of infants who are murdered with contraceptives?
Proof that folks who some here like to pretend are Catholic have accepted the anti-Catholic crowd doctrine of Self Alone is that they’re so secure in their new found “Christian Liberty”, that they don’t give murdering their infants in the womb and flushing them down the toilet a second thought.
Clearly such a relaxed disregard for anything but their Self only comes from total agreement with the Self Alone doctrine espoused by the anti-Catholic Self Worshiper crowd. Whether it’s the individual who is guilty of such murders or some poster blabbing, “everyone’s doing it”, anyone who says those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are Catholic in any real sense of the word just because they claim to be either knows nothing about Catholic teaching or is a liar.
The anti-Christian anti-Catholic propagandists believe the murder of infants with contraceptive drugs is something trivial unless someone dares to point out that what they preached as the truth with regard to contraception for centuries is the exact opposite of what they preach as the truth with regard to contraception today.
As their total reversal with regard to contraception proves, Self Alone Self Worship interpretations are not guided by the unchanging Holy Spirit. They’re guided by the go along to get along "Christian Liberty", sales pitch the Self Alone anti-Christian anti-Catholic crowd prefer to both the Holy Spirit and Christ Himself. Otherwise, they would at least be as honest as Luther and admit that when Christ said, “this is my body”, there’s no way to hide from the fact that His body and His blood are present in the Eucharist.
If Christ is not present in the Eucharist, then Jesus Christ Himself, God from God, only begotten Son of God is a liar, or Scripture is in error and misquotes Christ. Every other alternative the Self Alone crowd weaves is an attempt to delude the gullible by claiming that Scripture requires the very linguistinc skills the the same Self Alone people insist is not required to understand Scripture.
Unfortunately for those who have fallen away from the Church, those who have struggled out of one cult only to join the anti-Catholic Self Alone cult, and anyone else who accepts the Self Alone doctrine, Scripture makes it clear Jesus Christ expects us to walk according to His will and as He told us to walk rather than according to the Self Alone, Self satisfying, go along to get along, fantasy the anti-Catholic crowd preach:
Romans 11:21 For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee.
Romans 11:22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God,if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
John 15:6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and: they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.
John 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you.
James 2:17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
James 2:18 But some man will say : Thou hast faith, and I have works : shew me thy faith without works ; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well : the devils also believe and tremble.
James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?
James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.
James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
James 2:25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?
James 2:26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.
God is not mocked. Not by those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” but claim to be Catholic, and not by those who refuse to accept His Word, even the clear words of Jesus Christ Himself.
Luke 6:46 And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?
I Corinthians 9:27 But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection : lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.
I Corinthians 10:16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
- 1 Corinthians 10,16
God can always see more within us than we can see for ourselves. So, why did He choose not to use others? Can you explain for me the paucity of miracles, private revelation, saints and the absence of exorcisms performed within Protestantism and your little sect?
Peace be with you
ROFL Make it up as you go is not “oral tradition”. The apostles wrote down everything that the Holy Spirit “brought to their remembrance” and nothing was to be added to it.
>>Say Thanks Catholics!!!!<<
Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall
Isaiah 2:11 The haughty looks of man shall be brought low, and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled, and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day.
Isaiah 5:15 Man is humbled, and each one is brought low, and the eyes of the haughty are brought low.
James 4:6 But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
2 Chronicles 26:16 But when he was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to the Lord his God and entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense.
2 Chronicles 32:25 But Hezekiah did not make return according to the benefit done to him, for his heart was proud. Therefore wrath came upon him and Judah and Jerusalem.
Yeah, that’s why James was the one who made the final decision and declaration at Jerusalem.
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
What makes you think non of those things happen outside the Catholic Church? God didn’t say go out and brag about it. The haughty spirit is not looked well upon in scripture.
St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem spoke up to affirm the declaration made by St. Peter because the disagreement had arisen within his diocese (Judea). Look to the preceding versus to your citation for the entire truth:
"After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” - Acts 15:7-11
Lack of evidence for one......
I wouldn't say "low opinion" or "pessimistic view". Rather I would call it a realistic assessment. All one has to do is be honest with themselves in relationship to how much they like to read of God's word, how much they like to pray, or even how much they like to tithe (to name but a few things). If one takes an honest appraisal of themselves, the depths of our sinfulness becomes readily apparent.
But it's a funny thing. The more we understand about and admit to our sinfulness, the more we understand the depths of the love of God.
Well said.
Peace be with you
Jesus was saying that while you Peter are a rock, solid as a rock, albeit a little rock, I will build my church on this massive mountain of a rock, ME...He did, in his own way:O.K., now I understand it...why didn't He just say shut up?
...he turned, and said unto Peter, Get you behind me, Satan: you are an offense unto me: for you consider not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.And the Popedom continues to this day.
Of course Peter was the one to speak about the Jews. He was the apostle to the Jews. It was still James who was the obvious leader of that meeting.
The comment to which I reply:
”The authority of the Catholic church is not universally accepted".
Step 1
First, you have to understand the ancient meaning of the word, “authority”
It is a contraction of the words, “author”, and “ittybitty”. It evolved into the use we accept today because most Caesars were short and what they wrote was law.
So we see the first portion of that comment means,
“The short author”
Step 2
That’s followed by “of the Catholic”. Of course, Catholic means “universal” so this portions means, ”of the universal” which due to being associated with a particular individual or type of individual (the short author) clearly means that we have to consider the word “author” as being a male gender noun.
”The short author of the universal . . . "
Step 3
Since “author” is not a specific author, it is informal and therefore means any carpenter, stone mason, craftsman, metal worker, or writer. Therefore, since a “universal” is a type of coupling, and since this is a male gender noun preceding a female gender noun, (according to the rule, "male and female made he them"), and associated with a size related noun, we know this is a metal worker because metal was carefully measured, giving us
"The short metal worker who cast the universal joint"
Step 4
Since "church" has to be informal to match "author", and author in this case is a male noun, "church" obviously is female which demands we use the less common but totally acceptable definition for the word "church" that means, “to perform a church service of thanksgiving (for a woman after childbirth)". Now the true meaning of the comment is becoming clear thanks to the application of the Self Alone interpretation method,
The short metal worker who cast the universal joint thankfully took his wife and newborn child to church . . .
Step 5
The Self Alone method tells us “universally” in this context means, “this universe and all similar universes”, due to the fact that the preceding use of "Catholic" in the same sentence, but modified by refering to a general class of individuals. Everyone knows that when such duplication of a noun occurs in a single sentence, each succeeding repetition refers to something smaller than the preceding use of the same word.
Therefore "Catholic" in the first instance being limited to a single type of joint or coupling, the second use of the word must mean something still more narrowly defined and more specific.
Rather than being the entire universe, then, and in keeping with the preceding usage and "male and female made he them", we know for sure that in the second instance "universal" applies to a small area, without a doubt an area which at the time would have been only the immediate area around the individual "author", or what we would today call a neighborhood.
Step 6
The beauty of the Self Alone method of interpretation is obvious now that we can, beyond the shadow of a doubt, properly interpret the comment to which I refer. We now know the real meaning of the comment as the author obviously intended it to be understood rather than the superficial meanings so many people are probably misled into believing.
Step 7, what the comment to which I reply really means:
“The short metal worker who cast the universal joint is thankful he could take his wife and newborn child to coming out party at the local church, but only invited people from his own neighborhood.”
Isn't it nice that someone shared with us the fact that a foundry worker with the means to throw a party is thankful that both wife and child are fine?
What kind of "research" do you believe Luther needed to do to TRANSLATE from one language to another twenty-seven books - many of which were only a few chapters long??? I don't think one year is at all an impossible task to do this but I'm not a Bible translator. The sources do show that he continued to work on the ENTIRE Bible with the help of other scholars, refining and correcting it for at least another dozen years.
As to your continued FALSE assertion - in the face of evidence to the contrary - go ahead and PROVE that Luther removed ANY books from the Bible he translated. I'm not talking about books he made have had "personal issues" with nor the books that he, along with many others, did not accept as canonical (the Apocrypha), because he still did NOT omit them even with his concerns. This is additional info:
While he was sequestered in the Wartburg Castle (1521–1522) Luther began to translate the New Testament from ancient Greek into German in order to make it more accessible to all the people of the "Holy Roman Empire of the German nation." He translated from the Greek text, using Erasmus' second edition (1519) of the Greek New Testament, known as the Textus Receptus. Luther did not translate from the Latin Vulgate translation, which is the Latin translation officially used by the Roman Catholic Church. Both Erasmus and Luther had learned Greek at the Latin schools led by the Brethren of the Common Life (respectively in Deventer (Netherlands) and in Magdeburg). These lay brothers added late 15th century Greek as a new subject to their curriculum. At that time Greek was seldom taught even at universities.
To help him in translating into contemporary German, Luther would make forays into nearby towns and markets to listen to people speaking. He wanted to ensure their comprehension by translating as closely as possible to their contemporary language usage. His translation was published in September 1522, six months after he had returned to Wittenberg. In the opinion of the 19th century theologian and church historian Philip Schaff,
As to Luther's view of the canon, we read:
Initially Luther had a low view of the Old Testament book of Esther and of the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation of John. He called the Letter of James "an epistle of straw," finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the Revelation of John, saying that he could "in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it."[11] In his translation of the New Testament, Luther moved Hebrews and James out of the usual order, to join Jude and the Revelation at the end, and differentiated these from the other books which he considered "the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."[12] His views on some of these books changed in later years.
Luther chose to place the Biblical apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. These books and addenda to Biblical canon of the Old Testament are found in the ancient Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text. Luther left the translating of them largely to Philipp Melanchthon and Justus Jonas.[13] They were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament, and in the 1534 Bible they were given the well-known title: "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read".[14] See also Biblical canon, Development of the Christian Biblical canon, and Biblical Apocrypha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
So, NL, you and others can certainly continue to stubbornly hold to your belief that Luther removed books from the Bible, but you will continue to look foolish and obstinate in light of the truth. It's your choice. But, by all means, if you have some special resources that back you up in your view, now's the time to show them.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
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.