Luther: Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul

Over on the Catholic Answers boards, a person asked for information about a few Luther quotes:

Does anyone know what the original date and source for these quotes by Martin Luther? I see them quoted often in books and on line, but haven't reference seen the original source materials (i.e., one of his letters, books, speeches or sermons). Thanks in advance!

Quote:
"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet"(citation: De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, The Facts About Luther, 208.)

"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers." (citation: Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O'Hare, Ibid, 209.)

As to the first quote, The source is to the Christians at Antwerp April, 1525. I took a look at a while back here: Luther: "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads...".

The second quote is a bit more obscure. O'Hare cites it here. First, for information about Walch's version of Luther's works (cited by Father O'Hare), see this link, page 239.

The quote is: "Die Bauern und der Adel kennen das Evangelium besser denn St. Paul und Dr. Martin Luther, sie sind klug nnd dunken eieh heuser denn alle ihre Pfarrherrn."

Some translations are as follows:

"Peasants and nobles know the Gospel better than St . Paul or D. M. Luther; they are wise and they think themselves better than all their clergy." [source]

"He once said, " Nobles, citizens, peasants, I might add almost all men, think they know the Gospel better than Dr. Luther or St. Paul himself; and look down on pastors, rather on the Lord and Master of pastors. . . . The nobles seek to govern, and yet know not how. The pope knows how to govern, and does govern. The least papist is more capable of governing than—I cry them mercy—ten of our court nobles."[source]

"On one occasion he said, " Nobles, citizens, peasants, everybody, anybody, knows the gospel better than Dr. Luther, or even St. Paul himself. They all despise the pastors of God, or rather, the God and master of pastors."2' Tischreden, 5[source]

" Our nobles, citizens, peasants, nay, every man, believe That they understand the Scripture much better than Dr. Luther, or than St. Paul himself! They despise their teachers, or, rather, the Lord, who is the teacher of all."[source]

"Now everybody, anybody, knows the Gospel better than Dr. Luther, or even St. Paul himself. Nobles, citizens, peasants, despise the pastors of God, or rather the God and Master of pastors." "[source]

"Peasants and noblemen know the Evangelium better than St. Paul and Dr. Martin Luther, they are clever and think themselves better than their pastors"[source]

The Source
The quote appears to be from D. Martin Luthers Brophezeiung mach dem Ubfcheiden des Churfurften Johannes August 1532. I'm fairly sure that even though the page numbers are different than the version used by Father O'Hare, it's the same source (note in the upper corner to the left of page 789 it says "Walch XIV, 1360").

The Context?
It looks like a list of prophetical utterances, possibly even a Tabletalk (see the footnote at the bottom of page 789). I don't know German, so I can only speculate a bit. Previous to the quote, Luther says something like, "Denmark will now be punished, including Venice, the Frankish nobility also been punished." The punishment appears to be for the people despising any authorities who have knowledge of the scriptures.

The beginning of the document is about Luther's concerns for the newly in charge John Frederick over Electoral Saxony. It is easily documented that Luther had serious concerns for the church and political front when John Frederick came to power. During these months of 1532, Luther was very concerned for the state of the church, and expressed this to John Frederick. Pastors were being treated poorly (including financially). The nobles as well as the peasants showed little respect for the pastors. Luther interpreted this lack of respect as an evidence for the last days. The gospel would be attacked on all fronts. The gospel will be abused and attacked, and then end will come. A remnant though, faithful to the gospel will be saved. The document, as far as I can ascertain reflects these concerns. The people treating pastor's poorly was simply another sign of the immanent end of the world.

The Polemical Arena
If you do an Internet search on the use of this quote, you'll note it's polemically used to describe the devastating results of sola scriptura. O'Hare uses it to prove, "...Luther himself testifies to the utter failure of the cardinal principle of his so-called Reformation." What O'Hare fails to do though, is interpret Luther's understanding of the Gospel and sola scriptura in his eschatological framework. O'Connor uses the quote as an example of people having "contempt for the word of God"-

Every reasonable person will agree with me, that Luther can only have been a Reformer chosen by Almighty God, if his teaching caused an increase of virtue and a decrease of vice. If, however, it can be plainly shown, that in consequence of his teaching there was, on the contrary, an increase of vice and a decrease of virtue, we must come to the conclusion, that Luther had not the sanction of God for the worlc which he undertook.

Now, under different headings, I quote forty-five passages from his writings, all of which disclose a sad state of morality among the followers of the new Gospel; but in no less than fifteen of these passages, Luther tells us in plain words that people have become worse than they formerly were under the Pope. It is to these passages that I wish to direct the special attention of the careful reader.

Again though, such a line of argumentation caricatures Luther's theology. Luther often expected the gospel to have a devastating effect on society. He was not a postmillenialist. One could likewise apply the same argumentation to Rome's preaching of her "gospel," and likewise come up with negative "moral results."

If someone wants to translate it a bit for me, that would be great. I don't trust the online automatic translators. It's a short document. If it actually says anything more than what I've described above, I'd be amazed.

Setting the Record Straight: the Instability of "the Conversion Story"

I wish I had more time today to write an extensive blog article on "conversion stories." I've recently been in a few squabbles with close friends on my "radical views" on why I don't think much of them, and I strongly oppose having them as part of a church service.

David Waltz has provided yet another example of the instability of using "the conversion story"- "Setting the Record Straight" - A Public statement by Ken Guindon. I have nothing against Ken, - he's a nice guy, and we've had some pleasant conversations. Converts to Romanism and Orthodoxy love using the "story" as an apologetic tool. I've written about this here. I consider them nothing more than examples of the theology of glory.

As to conversion stories, I don't approve of them being used as apologetic tools, for the simple reason they are based on subjective experience. Someone else's experience is not the Gospel. God doesn't need the help of your "story" to evangelize.

Often, if you boil down a "conversion story" people like talking about themselves. They like the attention. I know one particular person who will launch into her "story" at any minute, especially with a new acquaintance.

In the worship service, I don't approve of someone bringing attention to themselves and their "story"- I don't really care about their story. I want Christ's story. Some people hold that at baptism, it's good for the person to tell their "story"- I disagree. Perhaps it's because I'm embarrassed at the sins I've committed against Christ. When I bring them up...it's like reminding the person you love how awful you've been against them.

As to dramatic conversion stories, I believe that "dead in sin" is "dead in sin." Each person, before regeneration is equally dead in sin. God then raises a person to spiritual life. Some people aren't more "dead" than others because they were a worse sinner. This pops their "conversion story balloon." Suppose Christ called Lazarus to life from the tomb, along with another person who was a bit more sinful. Which person being called forth from the tomb has the more dramatic testimony? Neither! Both are equally miraculous.

On a positive note, I have no problem with getting to know someone and hearing their "story". This is fine over a cup of coffee. But please, keep your "story" out of the spotlight. If you want to tell a "story"- tell Christ's story.

Again, I wish I had more time to write about this. I'd like to thank David Waltz, Ken Guindon, and all my Roman Catholic "conversion story" sages for providing so many examples of the instability of "the conversion story." For me, I'll stick with the Scriptures and their story.

Now you see it...now you don't

Soundtrack to this blog post available here

And now...a brief excursion into the world of the sublime....

DA has compiled an interesting overview of the blog entries in which I've either responded to him, or mentioned him. Here's a little DA magic.

Now you see it:

The illustrious, inimitable anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist Bishop James White is utterly obsessed with Steve Ray, as I have shown. Likewise, anti-Catholic Reformed Prebyterian [sic] John Q. Doe (a White wannabe if there ever was one) is obsessed with my apologetics (specifically my Luther research, which is only one small part of my overall work).

Now you don't:

The illustrious, inimitable anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist Bishop James White is utterly obsessed with Steve Ray, as I have shown. Likewise, anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant John Q. Doe is obsessed with my apologetics (specifically my Luther research, which is only one small part of my overall work).

Well, I've never been a Presbyterian. I'm not a Reformed Baptist either, nor do the folks over at aomin.org spend much time looking up Luther quotes.

Mr Armstrong asks for the logic of why I don't take him seriously, yet I've responded to him over the years. I might not take him seriously, but unfortunately others do. For the most part, I've interacted with his Luther information and misinformation, and I'll probably continue to do so. Other times I've responded to the typical insults or charges he throws either at me or others.

Here's another interesting tidbit:

It's rather odd for someone to be obsessed with a person (way more than all other individuals of an opposing position, by far; probably put together) one claims to not even take "seriously." No one should take me seriously, as Our Man Doe informs one and all. Ironically, he once took me so extraordinarily seriously that he wrote a 54,000-word, book length treatise with 202 footnotes, written in a graduate school seminary class, entirely devoted to an attempted refutation of my take on Luther's Mariology (first entry below). When I answered that too quickly, thus puncturing his pride and (apparently) fragile ego, alas, he stopped taking me seriously (he has himself verified this).

As to "a 54,000-word, book length treatise with 202 footnotes, written in a graduate school seminary class," I did write a response to DA's misuse of Luther's Mariology, but it was not written in or for a graduate school seminary class. Perhaps DA will work his magic again...now you see it, now you don't.

Update: The magic continues:

The illustrious, inimitable anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist Bishop James White is utterly obsessed with Steve Ray, as I have shown. Likewise, anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant John Q. Doe (a White wannabe if there ever was one) is obsessed with my apologetics (specifically my Luther research, which is only one small part of my overall work.

...Likewise, anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant John Q. Doe (a White wannabe if ever there was one) is obsessed with my apologetics...

Good 'ol Dave... He was busy today working out this paragraph to make sure he dishes out the best insult.

Luther: I have so much to do that I shall have to spend the first three hours in prayer

A recent email asks,

I know you love chasing sources for Luther quotes. I know he's widely quoted as saying "I have so much to do that I shall have to spend the first three hours in prayer", but I can't find a source for it. I thought I'd flick you an email to see if you've ever tried tracking a source for this one down. Have you?

If you Google search it, you'll get numerous hits, some citing the quote as follows:

Work, work, from morning until late at night. In fact, I have so much to do that I shall have to spend the first three hours in prayer. – Martin Luther

I don't like reinventing the wheel. Someone else actually did a good review of Luther on prayer: Martin Luther on Prayer. This webpage notes some of the sources using the quote :

Marva J. Dawn, Morning by Morning (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 242. A variant appears on page 280 of John R. Rice’s Prayer: “Martin Luther said that he had so much work to do for God that he could never get it done unless he prayed three hours a day!” Neither author cites a source for this saying.

The entire article is worth reading, as the author presents a detailed look on Luther's view on prayer. It's probably the case that Luther did not utter this saying, but it would in fact be in harmony with his view of prayer.

It's not just Protestants that recognize Luther's profound attitude on prayer. German Catholic historian Anton Fischer puts forth an image of Luther as a “man of prayer."

“Fischer makes a distinction in Luther between the fighter and the man of prayer. The former, to his mind, is the concern of only a part of Christianity; all Christian denominations can, how ever, lay a claim to the second. In so far as he was a man of prayer, Luther was truly ecumenical. Even a Church rich in believers who are devoted to prayer (he means the Roman Church, of course) has much to learn from him.

And what can Luther teach all Christians about prayer? Two essential truths. The first is that prayer has only one valid criterion—the Word and the Holy Spirit who reveals Himself through Scripture. Luther drew all his strength from the Bible and took all his instruction about prayer from the Bible. In the same way, all believers are exhorted to nourish themselves on the Old and New Testaments, if they wish to pray effectively; there they too will meet with God. The second truth is that the Pater noster constitutes the very heart of the Christian life, and for this reason should be pronounced with the reverence and fervour due to Christ's own words. If it is said in the spirit of the great masters of prayer like St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assist and Martin Luther (so Fischer ends his article), the Lord's Prayer can bridge the gap which really separates Roman Catholics and Protestants.”
Source: Richard Stauffer, Luther As Seen By Catholics, 38-39.

James Atkinson similarly states:

“Anton Fischer, drew attention to Luther's spirituality by describing him as a man of prayer, and showed that this is a matter of some ecumenical significance: The praying Luther belongs to us all. He is a truly ecumenical man. He has something to say and to give to all Christian communities. Luther's first emphasis on prayer was to meet God in his Word by the operation of the Holy Spirit, and this is common to us all, Fischer argues. He even goes on to say that the Pater Noster is at the heart of our prayer life, and that if we could use Christ's own words of prayer in the spirit of such great masters of prayer as St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther, the Lords Prayer could bridge the gap that separates Roman Catholics and Protestants. That Fischer would put Luther in the company of Augustine and Francis is indicative of progress indeed” [Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic, 22].

I've Been Refuted by DA, Once Again

And now...a brief excursion into the world of the sublime....

At this point, I don't really recall why Dave Armstrong no longer mentions my name on his blog, but rather writes about me using an insulting name he's created. I think, if I recall correctly, he's doing it as some sort of punishment. I'm a little fuzzy on all the facts at this point, but if I recall, after his negations via the telephone with Tim Enloe, they both decided to play nice together, and both removed the "Dave is [insert slander] " and the "Tim is [insert slander]" posts from their respective blogs. Of course, that peace only lasts as long as Dave can tolerate. He's recently re-posted his "Tim is [insert slander]" diatribes from long ago. Yes, turning the other check only can last so long in the world of DA. It is very reminiscent of junior high school.

A while back, Armstrong offered the same olive branch to me. He asked that I go through my entire blog, and remove any nasties I may have uttered against the DA empire. Go through my entire blog and edit? That's stuff for people with time to do. Perhaps a full time professional Catholic apologist sitting in his attic all day tapping away on his computer somewhere in Michigan has time for that, but I don't. No, I have a job and responsibilities. But Dave, the spiritual superior in sanctification he is, decided to take the high road, and began to delete all the "James Swan is [insert slander]" material from his blog. I recall at the time being both amazed and perplexed by his efforts. Amazed that he had the time to do it, and perplexed because, well, Dave has a hard time playing nice. Some kids can promise to be good, but that big pile of mud is just too tempting not to throw at someone.

Yes, the great efforts of the superior Catholic showed me the great moral high road... for a little while. He then began using an insulting name for me he made up..."John Q. "Deadhead." Now maybe he explained this ostensive title, if he did, I don't recall what the point is. So, he continued writing the same nasties against me, though without using my real name. Such is Catholic morality 101. This to me seems even worse than before he edited his nasty posts about me and sent me candy and flowers.

Now recently Dave Armstrong stopped by and left a few comments, which surprised me as well, because he vowed to never waste his time over here with me. I admit, I did leave a stray comment on one of DA's recent Luther entries when he posted he had recently "discovered an entire online translation of Martin Luther's tract, Against Henry VIII." I think my comment was "LOL". Discovered? No, he found it....by reading my blog. LOL.

But then DA appeared over here, which was very surprising.

Anyway, both he and Paul Hoffer seemed a bit befuddled by my comment about Gregory of Nyssa: "his language reflects his understanding of sacred scripture. The arguments I would have with him would be over his interpretation of the Biblical text, not his use of words that may not be found in the Bible." Both Dave and Paul thought this comment implied that in some sense, a modern day Roman Catholic (like Dave or Paul) could be considered as to adhering to sola scriptura. I was actually amazed by this sentiment- because, at least with these guys, I assumed each understood sola scriptura. I then recommended a few books for these guys to pick up.

This though was another opportunity for Dave to continue breaking his vow to never interact with me again. He posted, yet again, another one of those "James Swan is [insert slander]" posts. I actually tried to listen to it via his new MP3 feature, but it says "Sorry, this article is not available yet." I can only speculate it's a technical issue, or Dave isn't quite finished either adding or deleting more nasties to it. He tends to post and then edit. Anyway, I didn't save a copy, so whatever form it takes-mudless or mud throwing, is all up to Dave.

Anyway, this isn't all too difficult to explain. One aspect of Sola Scriptura says that the Scriptures are the sole infallible authority for the church. That is, the only evidence of God's infallible special revelation extant in the world today are the sacred scriptures. When Hoffer and Armstrong thought my comments in regard to Gregory of Nyssa's interpretation of the Bible could likewise be applied across the board to all Catholics, they in essence, missed this fundamental point. To my knowledge, Armstrong and Hoffer believe that God's infallible voice of special revelation is not only found in the Bible, but in the teaching magisterium and Sacred Tradition. My math isn't that good, but that's 3 vehicles of infallible special revelation, not 1. Therefore, it would be impossible to say any modern Romanist holding to 3 vehicles of infallible special revelation in any sense held to sola scriptura.

The counter to comment about Gregory of Nyssa would be to prove Gregory of Nyssa held that God's infallible voice of special revelation was found elsewhere. All the material I've seen so far shows that Gregory of Nyssa considered the Scriptures to be the infallible voice of God. I'm no expert on Gregory of Nyssa. Perhaps one could present interesting counter evidence showing at least, Gregory of Nyssa was inconsistent (recall he wasn't infallible). I'm sure Gregory of Nyssa believed the church has authority, well so do I. Sola scriptura does not deny the church has authority. I bet Gregory of Nyssa thought that there have been times in which God's infallible revelation was transmitted orally, well, so do I. Sola Scriptura does not deny there have been such times. I bet Gregory of Nyssa believed in tradition. Well, so do I. Sola scriptura is not a denial of all tradition. Some traditions can be God honoring and useful in the church. They are though, not infallible, and must be tested and scrutinized by the Scriptures. I bet Gregory of Nyssa believed the Holy Spirit guides the church, well so do I. The Holy Spirit can guide the church without her being infallible.

An Ancient Voice For The Day #28

Ambrose (c. 339-97):

"Let God Himself, Who made me, teach me the mystery of heaven, not man, who knew not himself. Whom rather than God should I believe concerning God? NPNF2: Vol. X, The Letters of St. Ambrose, Letter 18, § 7.

Many times have the clergy erred; the bishop has wavered in his opinion; the rich men have adhered in their judgment to the earthly princes of the world; meanwhile the people alone preserved the faith entire. John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856), p. 197.

Latin text: Plerumque clerus erravit, Sacerdos mutavit sententiam, divites cum saeculi istius terreno rege senserunt; populus fidem propriam reservavit. In Psalmum David CXVIII Expositio, Sermo 17, §17, PL 15:1446.

On Psalm 1: Be not alarmed because the cup of Babylon is a golden cup, for you drink out of the cup of wisdom, which is more precious than gold and silver. Drink of each cup, therefore, of the Old and New Testament, because you drink of Christ from each. Drink Christ, that you may drink the blood with which you are redeemed: drink Christ, that you may drink his discourses. His discourse is the Old Testament; his discourse is the New Testament. The Holy Scripture is drunk and devoured, when the juice of the eternal Word descends into the veins and energies of the mind. Lastly, man lives not by bread alone, but by every word of God. Drink this word, but drink it in its right order. First drink it in the Old Testament, and make haste to drink it in the New Testament. George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), pp. 220-222.

Latin text: Nec te moveat quod Babylonis aureum poculum est; quia et tu bibis poculum sapientiae, quae sit auro argentoque pretiosior. Utrumque ergo poculum bibe veteris et novi Testamenti; quia in utroque Christum bibis. Bibe Christum, quia vitis est, bibe Christum, quia petra est quae vomuit aquam; bibe Christum, quia fons vitae est, bibe Christum, quia flumen est, cujus impetus laetificat civitatem Dei; bibe Christum, quia pax est; bibe Christum, quia flumina de ventre ejus fluent aquae vivae; bibe Christum, ut bibas sanguinem quo redemptus es; bibe Christum, ut bibas sermones ejus; sermo ejus Testamentum est vetus, sermo ejus Testamentum est novum. Bibitur Scriptura divina, et devoratur Scriptura divina cum in venas mentis ac vires animae succus verbi descendit aeterni. Denique non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo Dei. Hoc verbum bibe, sed ordine suo bibe. Primum bibe in veteri Testamento: cito fac ut bibas et in novo Testamento. Enarrationes In XII Psalmos, In Psalmum Primum Enarratio, §33, PL 14:939-940.

Commenting on ‘And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide.’ (Lk. 9:4): So the faith of the Church must be sought first and foremost; if Christ is to dwell therein, it is undoubtedly to be chosen. But lest an unbelieving people or heretical teacher disfigure its habitation, it is enjoined that the fellowship of heretics be avoided and the synagogue shunned. The dust is to be shaken off your feet [cf. St. Luke 9:5], lest when the drynesses of barren unbelief crumble the sole of your mind it is stained as if by a dry and sandy soil. For a preacher of the Gospel must take upon himself the bodily weaknesses of a faithful people, so to speak, and lift up and remove from his own soles the worthless actions like to dust, according as it is written: “Who is weak, and I am not weak?” [II Corinthians 11:29]. Thus, any Church which rejects faith and does not possess the foundations of Apostolic preaching is to be abandoned, lest it be able to bespatter some stain of unbelief. This the Apostle also clearly affirmed, saying, “A man that is an heretic after the first admonition reject” [Titus 3:10]. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book VI, §68, pp. 216-217.

For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture:The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.

Will The Real Gregory of Nyssa Please Stand Up?

Check out Turretinfan's What Gregory of Nyssa Considered Inspired.

Gregory of Nyssa's Unwritten Traditions....

Here's an interesting tidbit I didn't find, but is well worth pointing out why one should check sources and references, particularly those put forth by the advocates of Romanism. Sometimes when they mine nuggets from the church fathers, what they weigh on the scale of truth is Pyrite, fool's gold.

The following is from Revds. J. Berington and J. Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Confirmed by Scripture and Attested by the Fathers of the First Five Centuries of the Church, three volumes, Third Enlarged Edition, with Preface, Corrections, and Additions by the Rt. Rev. Monsignor Capel, D.D. (New York: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1909), on page 414. He cites Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395) stating:

"Let Eunomius tell us whence he derives this assurance? From what inspired declaration? Which of the evangelists, which of the Apostles has uttered any such declaration? What prophet, or lawgiver, or patriarch, or which amongst the others whom the Holy Ghost has inspired, whose declarations are unwritten,' introduced any such term. Whether have we learned in the tradition of the faith from the truth that we ought to believe Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, or that He is a creature? How happened it that the Truth, whilst transmitting to us' the mystery, gave as a law faith on the Son, and not on the creature?"

So there you have it, a quote from Gregory of Nyssa to support Rome's claims of inspired unwritten traditions. The author even provides the Greek text to substantiate his claim.

When one checks the Greek, the word Gregory used was ἀνάγραπτοι. It does not mean “unwritten,” but the very opposite, “recorded” or “committed to writing.” The text should be rendered:

"Let him say, whence he derives the boldness to affirm this : from what divinely-inspired testimony? What Evangelist, what Apostle uttered such a saying? What prophet, or lawgiver, or patriarch, or any one else of those who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, whose words are committed to writing, taught such a phrase? We have learnt in the tradition of the faith by the Truth to believe in the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. Ought we to believe that he is created? How is it that the Truth when delivering to us the mystery has enjoined faith in the Son and not in a creature? And how is it that the divinely-inspired Apostle, while he worships Christ, declares that those who extend their worship beyond the Creator to the creature are idolaters?" William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, Vol. 3, (London: John Henry Jackson, publisher, 1853), p. 142.

Remember, all that is Google Books is not gold. I am grateful to the person who pointed this out to me. Old books from Google are wonderful, but not always accurate.

Scott Hahn and "Prima Scriptura"

This is a very interesting thread over on Catholic Answers:

Scott Hahn and "Prima Scriptura"?

"I was at a friend's for lunch today, and I made the mistake of mentioning Dr. Scott Hahn's name... To our collective surprise, my friend reacted both violently and vocally (?!). He is a graduate of Steubenville (both BA and Masters in Theology), and apparently had Dr. Hahn as a professor in the early 90s. He has some very harsh things to say about him, both personally and "professionally"...! One of his most vehement claims is that Dr. Hahn teaches "prima scriptura", explaining this to us as a belief that Scripture is a "higher" authority than Tradition. My friend says that because of this, Dr. Hahn is heretical and goes against the teachings of the Church, and that when he called Dr. Hahn on it in class, he was ignored."

The answers and interaction are quite fascinating, watching the Catholic participants dialog back and forth on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, agreeing and disagreeing. Some highlights:

"I would not say that traditions don't change. Some traditions do in fact change along a timeline and this is the reason for measuring tradition with scripture. If there is a contradiction between the two, scripture is right. I would not say that traditions don't change. Some traditions do in fact change along a timeline and this is the reason for measuring tradition with scripture. If there is a contradiction between the two, scripture is right."

"In describing prima Scriptura, Jimmy Akin writes, "Apostolic Scripture does have primacy over Apostolic Tradition (and the Church as well; see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11). We look to it first and foremost because it is inspired, giving us God's ipsisima verba. But we also look to Apostolic Tradition to help us understand Apostolic Scripture, since it conveys God's ipsisima vox."As Akin explains, the words of Apostolic Scripture are inspired, but "while the original giving of Apostolic Tradition was inspired, the words in which it has been passed down to us are not inspired."

"Sounds to me like the Church does not put the "prima" in "prima scriptura", but I would like to hear others that can find documentation to the opposite."

"The Catechism clearly states that Scripture and Tradition are equal. That being said, stating that Scripture has primacy does not necessarily mean that it is greater than Tradition"

"Prima Scriptura is excluded by "Dei Verbum," which iterates and reiterates the conjoining of Tradition plus Holy Scripture;"

"The underlying assumption of prima Scriptura must be examined: that Tradition as it was initially transmitted before the death of the last was inspired, but Tradition as we receive it today is not inspired."

"Only Scripture is inspired; Tradition is without error, but the theological notion of inspiration has always been applied to Scripture alone. In line with that, Hahn does not assert that Tradition was ever inspired."

"I think the point being missed is that neither scripture nor tradition is authoritative in the sense being discussed. The Pope and the Magesterium are authoritative. Both scripture and tradition are measured by that authority."

"There are three main points that I take issue with Dr. Hahn regarding Prima Scriptura. Here are the three points that he made. (please keep in mind that this was published in 1992, and I am using it to speak of Prima Scriptura and not Dr. Hahn personally for I do not know if he holds the same positions now) 1. God is not the author of Sacred Tradition. 2. Sacred Tradition is not Inspired. 3. The Magisterium is a channel of Divine Revelation along with Scripture and Tradition.If the different advocates of Prima Scriptura have something in common, which is essential James Atkins and Dr. Scott Hahn at this point, it is point #2, that Sacred Tradition is not Inspired. That is really what defines the term "Prima Scriptura". Thus Scripture is the only inspired source (though they still maintain that Tradition is infallible)."

"Tradition does not all come from Scripture. It predates Scripture and was the measuring stick by which works were judged for admission to the canon. Tradition also contains things not found in Scripture, which is in agreement with Paul, who tells us to adhere to all that has been passed on, whether orally or in writing."

"actually, no. scripture predates tradition. in the early church the first cue was taken from the old testament prophecies. the new testament was written with the old testament in mind. the early traditions came from the old testament and as the new testament was being written, tradition is the interpretation of the scriptures. this does not pit one against the other but instead causes them to go hand in hand, but we always begin with scripture because that is where we get tradition from (the church's infallible interpretation of scripture)."

...and so on.

Catholic Marketing 101

Mark Shea's living up to his blog subtitle: "Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!" in regard to his new three volume opus-

I'm happy to report that I have not yet seen a single negative review! Catholic response has been uniformly thumbs up, which makes Papa proud of his baby. (Of course, there will *be* negative reviews from guys like James White, Eric Svendsen, James Swan and the other nattering nabobs of anti-Catholicism, whose *job* is to give a negative review to stuff like this.) But once you get away from the anti-Catholic fever swamps, I will be interested to see how the book fares in place like Christianity Today, where you have honest Evangelicals who are serious about trying to engage Catholics, well, honestly.

Quotable Catholics #3: Mark Shea vs Liberal Catholicism

Question:
When a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court of the U.S. are Catholic and we still can't overturn Roe vs. Wade, we have a problem. When our leading Catholic University gives awards to pro-abortion politicians, we have a problem. When a pro-abortion President appoints Catholics to important positions within his cabinet and the pro-abortion stampede continues, we have a problem. When two leading Catholic intellectuals feel the need to have a debate over whether or not it is ok to support a pro-abortion President, we have a problem.

Mark Shea's (abridged) answer:
The first practical conclusion I draw from this is that we must fight sin and evil in the Church, but not waste time trying to figure out who is and is not "really" a Catholic or "really" a Christian. (I'm not saying you are doing this, only noting that it is an extremely common temptation and one to which the blogosphere is all too commonly prey.)

Question:
I have read through the Catechism (and Dr. Kreeft's wonderful simplification) and I don't see the problem. The Catechism is a lengthy read, but it's not hard to understand. The Church is very clear about what is right versus wrong and does a very good job of explaining why. And the thing that surprised me the most is that there are not a lot of basic rules to worry about (maybe rules isn't the right word. You're the wordsmith, not me). Actually, the Catechism reminds me a lot of the Rules of Golf. The rules themselves are very simply. It's the interpretations that get you in trouble.

Mark Shea's (abridged) answer:
One thing to bear in mind (which many of us converts overlook) is that many cradle Catholics do not encounter or experience their faith primarily as a body of doctrines to assent to, but as a family. That makes a big difference in perception. A convert knows he is going to be asked to say, "I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." A cradle Catholic never really quite has such a moment. So for a convert, it's a big deal to be able to say that honestly. While for many a cradle Catholic it's much more like the kid who grows up in the house and, when he hits adolescences says, "I love my Mom and Dad, but they think some crazy stuff and I don't buy it."

source: The good news about the Catholic Church is... it's like a big family. The bad news about the Catholic Church is... it's like a big family.

Luther tells us that it was Satan who convinced him that the Mass was not a true sacrifice

I was recently sent an article from a traditional catholic site entitled, The Insidious Tactics of Change. The article is about "the most insidious but subtle of assaults that have been perpetrated against Our Lord Jesus Christ's One True Faith by the scions of Vatican II have been against the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Savior in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist" (try saying that sentence with one breath, I dare you). In other words, the Traditionalist Catholics accuse the Vatican II minions of changing and attacking the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

The article has a few interesting Luther tidbits. The author cites Grisar to prove that Luther slowly introduced changes in the sacrament, just like those pesky Vatican II folks. I guess there's nothing worse than using the insult: Vatican II simply followed in the steps of Luther.

A curious quote is also given from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

"Luther's historical instinct is clearly proving itself right ... Both the Catholic and Protestant interpretation of Christianity have meaning each in its own way; they are true in their historical moment ... Truth becomes a function of time ... Fidelity to yesterday's truth consists precisely in abandoning it in assuming today's truth." "Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, in ibid., p. 436."

That text can be found here (and here), and unless the author is using a different edition, the sentences of this quote appear on very different pages. The first part is on page 141. The other parts are from page 16. In my meager mathematical calculations, that's 125 pages, not to mention the first part of the quote doesn't even follow the second in the text. I will though cover my bases and point out, the version I used was a limited preview, so if this quote is somehow on page 436 (which I doubt it is), save your bullets.

Well, I'm not one to defend the Pope, but this is a very poor method of citation, and even a pope shouldn't be so poorly cited. True indeed, the current pope has been more cordial to Luther, the author could've found numerous examples of that without the botched citation. I think Traditionalists do have a point that the attitude toward Luther now from the Vatican is not consistent with the attitude of previous generations of the Catholic Church. As an aside, I found this quote from Ratzinger's text quite entertaining:

"...[P]aradoxically, the Fathers have lost ground on both sides of the argument because, in the controversy about the fundamental basis for understanding Scripture, there is nothing more to be proved or disproved by reference to them" [pp. 141-142].

That's a keeper if ever there was one.

The real gem though is the following statement from the Traditionalist article in which the author quotes from "Audin's Life of Luther" to prove that " Luther tells us that it was Satan who convinced him that the Mass was not a true sacrifice, and that in worshipping bread, he was guilty of idolatry" and "Luther acknowledged at the close of this conference that he was unable to answer the arguments of Satan, and he immediately ceased saying Mass."

Audin can be found here. The section being quoted begins on page 354. This is a good opportunity to note all that is Google Books is not gold. In the introduction, Audin was said to have "zeal for the Catholic cause." Perhaps this zeal clouded his judgment about the narrative between Luther and the Devil, because he appears to think it is a narration of an actual event. The actual text from Luther is found in LW 38: The Private Mass And The Consecration Of Priests. This writing went through multiple revisions. The introduction points out,

The idea of a disputation with the devil occurred to Luther while he was working on this third draft. This verbal exchange with the devil does not reflect his personal experience but is employed as an effective literary device in the first part of the book. The fact that Luther’s plan for the book changed as he developed these three outlines in succession is reflected in the rather abrupt way in which he concluded his writing as well as the remark that the book had become longer than he had originally intended it to be.

It's too bad this article was so poorly documented. The article in question appears to be recently posted, so perhaps they'll see this blog entry and take it back into the workshop. I do have some sympathies for the Traditionalist cause against romanism. One may find these interviews with Gerry Matatics interesting. Gerry of course will make a good point, and then go on to say something wacky. If these guys ever get their act together, perhaps they can actually help demonstrate the Borg-like nature of Roman Catholicism.

Tim Staples Says It's Wrong to Clap and do "The Wave" at Mass

This type of stuff is always a head shaking irony.

Catholics often argue that using Scripture alone as an infallible authority produces doctrinal anarchy. In its place, their paradigm of Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium = doctrinal unity. Especially clear is the Eucharist... Priests have that one down, they're all marching in unison to the beat of the drum.

Note the following question and answer from the Catholic Answers "Ask an Apologist" board:

Question:
Is the Real Presence of Jesus in the sacrament separated from faith of the one who is receiving communion or is it dependent on his/her faith. A Priest I go to for mentoring has told me that the intention of Christ was to share himself fully but he is not truly present unless I (or the one who is receiving the communion is united with that intention) To prove his point he shared a fictional story about an Old Lady who received communion at home, this old lady had a Bird and while the priest was giving her the host the bird took it and ate it and he asked me, did the Bird have communion, was it really Christ in there. I had to admit that it was a valid point but I couldn't support it with any church documents. Please Advise.

Answer:
Dear friend,You need to find another mentor. What your priest is telling you is heresy! That story about the bird does not force anyone to admit that the host ceases to be the body of Christ if an animal receives it.

But well, at least Catholics don't have all those wacky problems Protestants do with Church services with communion... or do they? Here's an MP3 clip of Tim Staples explaining why it's wrong (in his opinion) to clap during mass. He then goes on to explain why he left a particular Catholic Church he attended because the priest had his congregation do "the wave."