Here's one compliments of the Catholic Answers Forums. It's another opportunity to explore what reading in context is all about.
Originally Posted by Topper17
This Achielies Heel was built into Lutheranism (and Protestantism) by none other than Martin Luther. 16th century Catholics understood this problem full well:
“One Catholic practice to which the reformers took particular exception was that of praying for the dead. To the reformers, this practice rested on a non-biblical foundation (the doctrine of purgatory), and encouraged popular superstition and ecclesiastical exploitation. Their catholic opponents were able to meet this objection, however, by pointing out that the practice of praying for the dead is explicitly mentioned in Scripture, at 2 Maccabees 12:40-46. The reformers, on the other hand, having declared that this book was apocryphal (and hence not part of the Bible), were able to respond that, in their view at least, the practice was not scriptural. This merited the obvious riposte from the Catholic side: that the reformers based on their theology on Scripture, but only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 151-2 We should notice that McGrath calls the Catholic response an ‘obvious riposte’. The reason that the Catholic response was ‘obvious’ is their response makes so much sense and is so logical. Of course they would make that criticism, because it was so obviously reflected the truth. What I find interesting is that Protestants are still denying that the Reformers based their theology on a version of Scripture which had been ‘cleansed’ of those ‘pesky’ books which refuted their theology, like James and 2 Maccabees. Of course, the Reformers said that that was not so, but I would suggest that it is NOT coincidental that 2 Maccabees speaks of praying for the dead and that James refutes Salvation by Faith Alone. |
Originally Posted by Topper17
My point is (reinforced by McGrath), that the reformers “excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict [their] theology”, and THEN proclaimed that their theology was ‘Scriptural’. This charge is most applicable to Martin Luther, and thus to the theology which bears his name. This refers directly to my contention that Luther's 'problem' with James had primarily to do with the Apostle being so obviously against Luther's radical teaching of Salvation By Faith Alone.
|
Topper17 uses McGrath to prove the following:
1) McGrath says the Roman Catholic response to Luther was ‘obvious’ because it "makes so much sense and is so logical."
2) McGrath is saying the Reformers deemed certain books non-canonical in order to reject Roman Catholic teaching.
This section of McGrath's book is available via Google Books. The first thing to notice is the reference given is to pages 151-152. Unless a different edition is being utilized, the quote is actually from page 98.
On page 96, McGrath documents the errors in the Latin Vulgate discovered by the humanists. On page 97, McGrath begins his treatment of Protestantism and the canon. McGrath notes that medieval theologians held Scripture meant= the Latin Vulgate. He then says the Reformers "felt able to call this judgement into question." The Reformers doubts on certain Old Testament books were based first on the fact that some were not found in the Hebrew Bible, but only found "in the Greek and Latin Bibles (such as the Vulgate)." Then, "some of the reformers allowed the apocryphal works were edifying reading" but "there was general agreement that these works could not be used as the basis of doctrine." McGrath's basis for the Reformers then is that the medieval church (and Trent) defined the canon according to the Greek and Latin Bibles while the Reformers defined the Old Testament canon according to the Hebrew Bible. With that basis set up, McGrath then explains the relevance of the canon dispute.
Then comes the quote as used by Topper17.
One Catholic practice to which the reformers took particular exception was that of praying for the dead. To the reformers, this practice rested on a non-biblical foundation (the doctrine of purgatory), and encouraged popular superstition and ecclesiastical exploitation. Their catholic opponents were able to meet this objection, however, by pointing out that the practice of praying for the dead is explicitly mentioned in Scripture, at 2 Maccabees 12:40-46. The reformers, on the other hand, having declared that this book was apocryphal (and hence not part of the Bible), were able to respond that, in their view at least, the practice was not scriptural. This merited the obvious riposte from the Catholic side: that the reformers based on their theology on Scripture, but only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.
McGrath isn't taking one side or the other in this quote, at least in this context. He isn't saying the Roman Catholic response to Luther was "obvious" because it "makes so much sense and is so logical." He's saying that this was the quick and clever reply by the Roman Catholic side. Nor is McGrath conceding the Reformers deemed certain books non-canonical primarily in order to reject Roman Catholic teaching. The entire discussion on pages 97-98 as to the rejection of the apocryphal books was based on criticism of the tradition and errors of the Latin Vulgate.
See the definition of "Vulgate" in McGrath's book on page 274:
The Latin translation of the Bible, mostly deriving from Jerome, upon which medieval theology was largely based. Strictly speaking, "Vulgate" designates Jerome's translation of the Old Testament (except the Psalms, which were taken from the Gallican Psalter), the Apocryphal works (except Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, which were taken from the Old Latin Version), and all the New Testament. The recognition of its many inaccuracies was of fundamental importance to the Reformation. see pp. 94-95.
Addendum
| |||
 Re: The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism
Quote:
What I find interesting about the repeated citation from McGrath is that it raises an important methodological question. Why or when should something be cited? In its original context, McGrath isn't intending to make the point Topper17 is making. Rather, he's describing an historical situation and how Catholics responded to Luther. to cite McGrath correctly, one should say: McGrath described the 16th century Catholic response to Luther, and that's my response as well. Why not just simply make the point without citing McGrath? Simply by adding McGrath's name and words out-of-context to a point one is making doesn't give an argument more force. Quoting a book out-of-context actually works against the point being made. Those arguments I find most compelling from those I disagree with are those that present historical research in context and with integrity. Those arguments I find least compelling are those that use quotes in the style of propaganda (information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.) Continue on weary warriors. |
Posts
3 comments:
Also it's terribly poor exegesis to contend that 2 Macc 12 endorses the practice of prayer for the dead in the Romanist way of thinking.
38 So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the place.
39 And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers.
40 And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.
41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.
43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)
45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
The dead in this case were idolaters, and that's why the text implies God put them to death. Idolaters go to hell, not Purgatory.
Further, the text only tells us that Judas thought it was a good idea to pray for them, but no mention of Purgatory.
Also, the narrator elsewhere in his book tells us that he's not sure that he got right all the stuff he wrote in his book. Thus his opinion about prayer for the dead in v44 and v46 is neutered.
Rhology, you beat me to it. Thank God.
And of course, despite the propaganda RCs believe, there was no infallible, binding canon for Luther to dissent from while he was still alive, nor was he alone in questioning or rejecting some books as Scripture proper.
In addition, French historian Jacques Le Goff states,
“It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus - around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period - prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” -Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p.45; http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/purgatory_history_1.htm
Post a Comment