Luther Thought Purgatory was an Open Question?

Beggars All Reformation and Aplogetics ^ | May 04, 2013 | James Swan

[boatbums]

Luther Thought Purgatory was an Open Question?

I came across this link posted on the Catholic Answers Forums: The Hope of Eternal Life. The link is ecumenical in nature, an attempt to smooth over the edges between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. This is the excerpt that was posted on CAF:

181. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice "has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries" (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, "with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article..." (§12). Behind Luther's typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. "Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen], even if it were neither error nor idolatry" (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. "When they have given up their purgatorial 'Mass fairs' (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine's word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers' works or words" (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.

This excerpt is fascinating because it argues Luther believed:

-Purgatory isn't taught in Scripture, but yet may exist.
-Purgatory is only to be avoided because of its associations with "unacceptable practices."
-If these practices were removed, a proper discussion on purgatory could occur.

According to this article here is Luther's view of purgatory: "A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations." In other words, purgatory, for Luther, was an open question. Get rid of the abuses attached to it, and then it could be discussed.

In regard to the Smalcald Articles, LW states, "Under these circumstances the elector of Saxony instructed Luther in a letter of Dec. 11, 1536, to prepare a statement indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made for the sake of peace and the articles in which no concessions could be made."

Here are the two statements from the Smalcald Articles alluded to above. Read them for yourself and see if Luther is willing to make a concession on purgatory for the sake of peace:

Luther states in Article 12:

12 The first is purgatory. They were so occupied with requiem Masses, with vigils, with the weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of requiems, with the common week, with All Souls’ Day, and with soul-baths that the Mass was used almost exclusively for the dead although Christ instituted the sacrament for the living alone. Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls. Besides, nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us with reference to the dead. All this may consequently be discarded, apart entirely from the fact that it is error and idolatry.

Luther states in Article 13:

13 The papists here adduce passages from Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written about purgatory. They suppose that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end the authors wrote these passages. St. Augustine (tr-467) does not write that there is a purgatory, nor does he cite any passage of the Scriptures that would constrain him to adopt such an opinion. He leaves it undecided whether or not there is a purgatory and merely mentions that his mother asked that she be remembered at the altar or sacrament. Now, this is nothing but a human opinion of certain individuals and cannot establish an article of faith. That is the prerogative of God alone. 14 But our papists make use of such human opinions to make men believe their shameful, blasphemous, accursed traffic in Masses which are offered for souls in purgatory, etc. They can never demonstrate these things from Augustine. Only when they have abolished their traffic in purgatorial Masses (which St. Augustine never dreamed of) shall we be ready to discuss with them whether statements of St. Augustine are to be accepted when they are without the support of the Scriptures and whether the dead are to be commemorated in the sacrament. 15 It will not do to make articles of faith out of the holy Fathers’ words or works. Otherwise what they ate, how they dressed, and what kind of houses they lived in would have to become articles of faith — as has happened in the case of relics. This means that the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel.

The reading given to these statements by The Hope of Eternal Life downplays the first explicit rejection of purgatory, and sees the real Luther in his willingness to discuss what Augustine meant when "purgatorial masses" are abolished. The problem as I see it, is this reading of the Smalcald Articles isolates these statements from Luther's total written corpus, particularly any writings after the Smalcald Articles.

For instance, in his later sermons on Genesis, Luther states something with similar characteristics to the Smalcald articles. Note particularly the reference to Augustine:

The pope invents four separate places for the dead.The first is the hell of the damned. The second is purgatory, and Thomas Aquinas says that hell is the middle point, so to speak. It is surrounded by purgatory. But around this there is a third circle. It is for unbaptized infants. The fourth circle is the limbo of the fathers. Here the godly dwelt before the resurrection of Christ. These are nothing but dreams and human inventions. Peter and Paul state clearly that the demons move about in the air. With regard to what Paul says see Eph. 2:2, and in 2 Peter 2:4 it is stated that “God did not spare the angels when they sinned but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment.” With these statements I rest content, and I do not inquire into things higher than those handed down by the apostles. Of purgatory there is no mention in Holy Scripture; it is a lie of the devil, in order that the papists may have some market days and snares for catching money. The sophists agree with the pope because of Thomas. But Thomas does not concern us. Augustine makes mention of purgatory somewhere, but he speaks very obscurely. Therefore I do not believe that those four separate classes really exist; for Scripture does not speak this way but testifies that the dead saints are gathered to their people, or to those who believe in the Messiah and awaited His coming, just as Adam, together with all his descendants, died in faith in Christ. But how these saints are kept in definite places, we do not know. [Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 8: Luther's works, vol. 8 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 45-50 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (8:316). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Here again Luther explicitly denies purgatory, then mentions the obscurity of Augustine. He then goes on to deny that "four separate classes really exist." In the same volume, Luther refers to "Masses, purgatory, indulgences, and prayers to the dead" as false forms of worship (LW 8:230). Elsewhere in Luther's lectures on Genesis he states,

[P]urgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

And here:

The third sphere is that of purgatory, into which neither the damned nor infants enter; it is for those who, while they believe, yet have not rendered satisfaction for their sins. The souls of these are ransomed by means of indulgences. From this source comes the hogwash of indulgences and the entire papistic religion.The fourth place is the limbo of the fathers. They say that Christ descended to this place, broke it open, and set free—not from hell but from the limbo—the fathers who were troubled by the longing and waiting for Christ but were not enduring punishment or torments. With these silly ideas the papists have filled the church and the world. We have overturned all this completely and maintain that unbaptized infants do not have such a sphere. But in what state they are or what becomes of them we commend to the goodness of God. They do not have faith or Baptism; but whether God receives them in an extraordinary manner and gives them faith is not stated in the Word, and we dare not set down anything as certain. To be deprived of the vision of God is hell itself. They admit that they have will and intellect, especially concerning the vision of God and life; but these are falsehoods. And purgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Comments from Luther similar to these could be greatly multiplied, which is why some Lutherans see any affirmation that Luther held purgatory was an "open question" as a lie of the Devil.

[boatbums]

Purgatory IS the last stage of the purification through the blood of Christ. The last stage to strip you 9of the sin of earthly realm before you enter heaven It is not some additional punishment. it is not done or reduced by any deeds or prayers or words you or others do. If at all it is "reduced" it is done by God through the blood of the Christ Nothing besides the blood of Jesus is needed to finish the work of purification -- purgatory is a stage of purification through the blood of the Christ.

So, let me get this straight...according to your beliefs, Purgatory is NOT a place of punishment, it is NOT reduced by ANY deeds or prayers or words of you or others. Please explain how this doesn't contradict Catholicism's doctrines about prayers for the dead, masses and indulgences to lessen the suffering of those in purgatory. While you're at it, explain how you aren't guilty of the same problem of setting up your own self to judge what is truth and avoid that slippery slope you seem so eager to accuse non-Catholic Christians of falling down.

[Cronos]

It's not just my beliefs
III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned

Do you belief in the process of purification through the blood of The Christ?

The Church prays for those going through Purgatory, first and foremost, because we are instructed to pray for each other - those on Earth and in Purgatory.

Secondly, we pray TO God to lessen the sufferings. The prayers can't save of themselves, but through the power of God -- namely that God saves, we just pray to Him as we are bade and wont to do

Remember that Purgatory is salvation. It is not Hell, which is when someone is eternally damned. Purgatory is basically a period of purification so that they can withstand God's goodness; after all, God is described as a "consuming fire", and Jesus instructs us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven is perfect. What better way for perfection than for a short time out being purified like gold?

From Hebrews 10: 26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.

St. John Chyrsostom wrote, “Let us help and commemorate [the dead]. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation?”

[Cronos]

No, I am correct.

Pride goeth before the fall

The Councils of the 4th century defined canon. The Council of Trent made dogmatic articulations about why the Church had the same canon for 1200 years prior to Luther’s questioning.

Devoid of a canon why would Lucifer rail against the canon and doubt about the validity of the book of the Apocalypse in canon?

No, the fact is that Biblical canon was closed in the 4th century and it included Maccabees and Sirach et al

[Cronos]

So you repeat once more that the canon you hold is the Book that Rome assembled. - wow, that's quite an admission.

It is clear as in the wheat and tares example that you brought up that the various ideas that arose outside the Church in the past 500 years were tares, falling away and dying, while the wheat (the Church) was protected by God through the past 2000 years.

[Cronos]

So do you believe that Jesus is the Word of God?

[Cronos]

Acts [15:1–35] The Jerusalem “Council” marks the official rejection of the rigid view that Gentile converts were obliged to observe the Mosaic law completely. From here to the end of Acts, Paul and the Gentile mission become the focus of Luke’s writing.

Paradosis or tradition falls into two categories. The difference can be seen in Acts 15. Besides the issue of following the Mosaic Law for gentile converts, which meant primarily circumcision, the Council of Jerusalem also decreed that converts had "to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood" (Acts 15:20).

There are clearly distinguished paradosis or traditions which are considered irrevocable, unchangeable, even to our day, e.g. circumcision is not a requirement for new Christians. On the other hand, today we would not be concerned with "pollution from idols," how an animal is killed for meat, or whether blood is in our food. These appear to be different traditions from the former--changeable and not binding in the same way as non-circumcision.

The Roman Catholic Church also follows this biblical model in her approach to paradosis/traditions.

Hence, there are paradosis/traditions which are unchangeable, capital letter "T", "Traditions." These are the defined faith or moral teachings based on the Bible but revealed by the Holy Spirit as an authority in the Church (Acts 15:28).

==============================================

As to the council itself,

However, whereas it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas “fall silent,” allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly “falling silent” after Peter’s teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is “sigesai” (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it’s “esigese” (past tense aorist usage — meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter’s address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.

So, why does James speak? We think there are three reasons:

1. He’s the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was just a visitor. What he says, he …like Paul and Barnabas …ties into Peter’s declaration: “Brothers, listen to me. SYMEON has described how God…” etc.
2. And, most importantly, because James was the leader of the Church’s “Jewish wing.” Remember, in verse 1 and 2 how Acts 15 describes: “Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.

They were coming FROM JAMES! They were HIS disciples! Therefore, he renders judgment on the matter for his Jewish party, not as a superior or equal of Peter at all. And, this is MOST clear in verse 19, where it says: “It is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.”

Who was “troubling” the Gentiles? Not Paul and Barnabas. Not Peter and his disciples, who Baptised the first Gentiles without circumcision. So, who? ONLY the Jewish Christians under James. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the “Jewish party” that James is giving a “judgment” to.

And so, at Jerusalem, we see Peter as Head of the Church, speaking for the Church, making decisions for the Church, acting unilaterally on behalf of the Church. He does not share this authority with other bishops. He does not participate in the debate. Rather, it says: “After much debate had taken place, Peter got up …” His teaching ENDS the debate. He acts as father (Pope) to all.

It is interesting to note that, in Acts 15, Peter does not act as a bishop of a see. Rather, he is merely a visitor. Yet, his Petrine office and teaching authority are in place — even over the resident reigning bishop (James).

Btw, I didn't know you, Elsie, held to the Council of bishops!

n ecumenical councils, "there is much discussion" among the bishops; the pope, typically, only confirms the decision

with respect to the interplay between James and Peter, it can be pointed out that James is making a decision about how to put Peter's beliefs into practice, while Peter is laying down what 'we believe' (which is exactly what a Pope would do). Note that in verse 14 he says:

"Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written ..."

Acts 15:14

In other words, James is not settling the theological argument, he is turning to how to enforce what Peter has declared.

[Cronos]

If Matthew 23:9 is a problem, Matthew 23:10 is a hugh problem for you, elsie.

New International Version
Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

International Standard Version
Nor are you to be called ‘Teachers,’ because you have only one teacher, the Messiah!

New American Standard Bible
“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

King James Bible
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

Young’s Literal Translation
nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director — the Christ.

Should nobody be called instructors, or Teachers, or leaders, or masters, or directors? So you don't call anyone Father, Teacher or Leader?

[Cronos]

In the case of the book of the Apocalypse, why do you accept it as canon? Luther thought it shouldn’t be included in canon. on what basis do you think that it is canon and on what basis do you think that the John of Patmos is the same as the Apostle John?

[Elsie]

BB; you waste your breath (or ink - no; your ELECTRONS)

He ain’t gonna EXPLAIN nuttin’!

But you WILL get a barrage of non-related questions slung your direction.

[Elsie]

Do you belief in the process of purification through the blood of The Christ?

See??

[Elsie]

So you repeat once more that the canon you hold is the Book that Rome assembled. - wow, that's quite an admission.

So you repeat once more that the Book that Rome assembled can either be ignored or followed. - wow, that's quite an admission; but then again; a priest will punish you by making you repeat Hail Marys or Our Fathers to atone for it.

(As long as the 'father' being mentioned is not in the context of... oh; never mind.)

[Elsie]

So do you believe that Jesus is the Word of God?

[Elsie]

Acts [15:1–35] The Jerusalem “Council” marks the official rejection of the rigid view that Gentile converts were obliged to observe the Mosaic law completely.

Really?

From CATHOLICS??

---

Acts 15:28-31

²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

   Farewell.

 ³⁰ So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. ³¹ The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message.

[Elsie]

Most folks can READ what it says; no need for you to use up your precious time here on Earth trying to ‘explain’ a different scenario.

[daniel1212]

Which means that Christians go from being forgiven, regenerated, and made to spiritually positional set together with Christ in Heaven, and having immediate access into the holy of holies to meet with God, (Eph. 2:6; Heb. 10:19) to being excluded from entering Heaven after they ceased from sin at death. (Romans 6:7)

No, you are extrapolating,

Which you simply cannot show is the case in the light of Scripture in contrast with RC teaching. See further below.

which is why I say making judgements based on just one's person's interpretation of what is or isn't scripture, as you or the Unitarians or Oneness Pentecostals do, is wrong

Which recourse is also false. Besides interpreting their interpreter, RCs interpret Scripture all the time based on their interpretation of it as supporting Catholic teaching, or their argument for it - and which they have a great deal of liberty to do (according to at least one RC apologist), for while there are parameters which limit the scope of interpretion, there simply is no official commentary on all the Bible (and the CCC is not it). Meanwhile, the required notes in her official American Bible have (and do) often taught liberalism for decades .

You simply cannot escape the problem of varying degrees of interpretation, nor the need for the magisterial office to settle controversies, or the deficiencies of it. For this not settle the problem of disagreement , which is frequent in Catholicism, and would be most manifest if they were doctrine-intensive, for very little has been infallibly defined according to Rome, and which class requires the highest degree of assent ("of faith"), and while the assent of mind and intellect ("religious assent) is required for the next, and a lesser degree for the next level, there is disagreement upon which level many teachings belong to, and even how many levels of magisterial teaching there are, as well as their meanings, to varying degrees.

What canon law teaches is subject to variant interpretations, including based on what Rome does, which manifest what it truly believes, and even in dealing with the issue of what constitutes heresy, and the different types of heretics (and which, among other things, requires defining the precise phrase “divine and Catholic faith"), a canon law lawyer states , "it’s not always immediately clear to anybody which category a particular tenet of our faith falls into."

And rather than creating unity, the magisterial office can make things worse, or at least make latent disagreements more evident. As one poster wryly puts it,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” (Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html0.

Thus while there certainly must be and are parameters that limit the scope of disagreement (which is manifest in your typical Bible church, at least are regards known public teaching, and thus liberals are less likely to call such home rather than Rome), yet even the magisterial office of Rome is subject to interpretation.

But while the need for the magisterial office must be acknowledged ( and "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - Westminster Confession XXXI) this is conditional, as it presumes it is sound, as in Acts 15.

Which condition is the issue, that of the basis for the veracity of conciliar decisions, that of the collective weight of Scriptural substantiation, as we see in Acts 15, or the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

Tell me how the NT church began: on the basis of the veracity of the valid historical magisterium, or Scriptural substantiation in word and in power as demonstrated by some itinerant preachers and their Leader? Based upon the Catholic model, they should have submitted to the historically valid magisterium in all judgments.

And in RC theology, being completely sinless is not enough, but instead they must become actually good enough to be with God, which is how they are said to be justified in the first place, despite yet having a sinful nature.

You are wrong tos ay that Christians are excluded from entering Heaven.

You are wrong to say I said that, for what i said was they must become actually good enough to do so.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc. (City of God XXI.24.)

And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness".

One "cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory)

CCC 1023: Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ...(provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .)

"Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected." - John Paul II, Audiences, 1999.

Catholic professor Peter Kreeft states,

"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224

"The purpose of purgatory is to bring you up the level of spiritual excellence needed to experience the full-force presence of God." (Jimmy Akin, How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants).

The Believers are "already washed, sanctified and justified" - and that is the process of purification, which includes the stage of purgatory.

No, you are extrapolating support for purgatory out of a text which speaks of what they presently positionally are by effectual fait, and as said, are already accepted in the Beloved on His account, and made to spiritually sit with Christ in Heaven, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and by Him have direct access to God in the holy of holies in prayer. (Heb. 10:19) And who, if they die in faith will go to be with the Lord at death. (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)

[daniel1212]

btw, thanks for sharing the source of your comments. It is funny in its inaccuracy. Id's suggest you read the Didache, a 1st century book that will show you Catholic-Orthodox practices

The source is the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, in which distinctive Catholic doctrines are not taught . Thus the Catholic recourse to the uninspired words of men which often attest to the incremental accretion of traditions of men, though the Didache is not much help to you here.

[daniel1212]

What attack on Jewish culture in the 16th century are you talking about? Jewish culture at that time was not unusual compared to other cultures in multi-cultural Europe. Only in the later periods was Chassidism developed which showed a large difference

If so then it seems we must relegate all (not some of the fantastic ones) of the charges against them, including by Luther, to Medieval antisemitism or anti-Judaism

[Elsie]

Just cannot help your self; can you?

Why do YOU use Prot translations to try to make your case??

---

Why have you NOT included ANY of these??

 

 

Abbreviation	Name	Date
DRB	Douay-Rheims Bible	1582, 1609, 16101
DRC	Douay-Rheims Bible Challoner Revision	1749-1752
WVSS	Westminster Version of the Sacred Scripture[7]	1913–19352
SPC	Spencer New Testament[8]	1941
CCD	Confraternity Bible	19413
Knox	Knox Bible	1950
KLNT	Kleist–Lilly New Testament	19564
RSV–CE	Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition	1965–66
JB	Jerusalem Bible	1966
NAB	New American Bible	1970
TLB–CE	The Living Bible Catholic Edition	1971
NJB	New Jerusalem Bible	1985
CCB	Christian Community Bible	1988
NRSV–CE	New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition	1991
GNT–CE	Good News Translation Catholic Edition5	1993
RSV–2CE	Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition	2006
CTS–NCB	CTS New Catholic Bible	20076
NABRE	New American Bible Revised Edition	2011/1986 (OT/NT)
NCB	New Community Bible[9]	2013
NCV	St. Joseph New Catholic Version New Testament and Psalms[10]	2016/2002
NLT-CE	New Living Translation Catholic Edition[11]	2017
ESV-CE	English Standard Version Catholic Edition[12]	2018
RNJB	Revised New Jerusalem Bible[13]	2018

[daniel1212]

Actually you are wrong — I would suggest some reading the Council of hippo as well as the council of Trent — the Council of Trent just made dogmatic articulations about why the Church had the same canon for 1200 years prior to Luther’s questioning.

It remains that scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon  after the death of Luther. Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.

Furthermore, the (standard) RC objection against the Protestant lack of an assuredly true and reliable complete canon via an infallible magisterium would also apply to the majority of RC history,

But rather than needing an infallible magisterium to ascertain what writings are of God, as Catholics argue, the fact is that an extensive authoritative body of inspired writings has been established by the time of Christ, as evident by the Lord and disciples apostles so many OT writings as as being the word of God, as being Scripture, which the opposition which sat in the seat of Moses never contended against as being Scripture.

[daniel1212]

Nonsense. Rather than distinctively being the one true church, tan as said, it is distinctive Catholic beliefs that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels).

264 posted on 11/8/2018, 8:31:57 PM by daniel1212

Nonsense? On what basis do you hold that the Tirthankaras are less old? The traces date to the 6th century BC

My response addresses the premise of post 91 that your post 199 flowed from, that the Catholic church is distinctly that of antiquity, which is distinctively not what we see manifest in only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.