Here is perhaps one of the best short overviews of Luther's character I've ever come across:
There is a great deal about Luther's character and history to call forth admiration and love; while there is also a good deal about him to afford an excuse to those who, from whatever cause, whether as papists or on some other ground, are disposed to regard him with opposite feelings. With many high and noble endowments, both from nature and grace, both of head and heart, which in many respects fitted him admirably for the great work to which he was called, and the important services which he rendered to the church and the world, there were some shortcomings and drawbacks both about his understanding and his temperament; the results and manifestations of which have afforded many plausible handles to his enemies, and have occasioned corresponding annoyance and difficulty to his friends.
Luther occupied a position, and exerted an influence in the history of the church, and altogether manifested a character, well fitted to secure for him the admiration of all who are interested in the advancement of Christian truth, or qualified to appreciate what is noble, magnanimous, fearless, and disinterested. We have abundant evidence of his continuing to retain the common infirmities of human nature, aggravated in some respects by the system in which he had been originally educated, by the condition of society in the age and country in which he lived, and the influences to which, after he commenced the work of Reformation, he was subjected; but we have also the most satisfactory evidence of his deep piety, of his thorough devotedness to God's service, of his habitual walking with God, and living by faith in the promises of His word. No one who surveys Luther's history and writings, and who is capable of forming an estimate of what piety is, can entertain any doubt upon this point.
The leading service which Luther was qualified and enabled to render to the church, in a theological point of view, was the unfolding and establishing the great doctrine of justification, which for many ages had been grossly corrupted and perverted; and bringing the truth upon this subject to bear upon the exposure of many of the abuses, both in theory and practice, that prevailed in the Church of Rome. His engrossment, to a large extent, with this great doctrine, combined with the peculiar character of his mind, led him to view almost every topic chiefly, if not exclusively, in its relation to forgiveness and peace of conscience, to grace and merit; and thus fostered a certain tendency to exaggeration and extravagance in his doctrinal statements. Besides this defect in Luther's theology, giving it something of one-sidedness, he had some features of character which detract from the weight of his statements, and from the deference to which otherwise he might have appeared entitled, and which we feel disposed to accord to such a man as Calvin. He was naturally somewhat prone to indulge in exaggerated and paradoxical statements, to press points too far, and to express them in unnecessarily strong and repulsive terms. And this tendency he sometimes manifests not only in speaking of men and actions, but even in theological discussions. He was not characterised by that exact balance of all the mental powers, by that just and accurate perception of the whole relations and true importance of things, and by that power of carefully and precisely embodying in words just what he himself had deliberately concluded, and nothing more, which, in some men, have so strong a tendency to persuade us to give ourselves up to their guidance, under a sort of intuitive conviction that they will not lead us often or far astray from the paths of truth. In Luther's works, with a great deal to admire, to interest and impress, we often stumble upon statements which remind us that we must be on our guard, that we must exercise our own judgment, and not follow him blindly wherever he may choose to lead us. The leading defects of his character may be said to be,— 1st, The impetuosity of his temperament, leading often to the use of exaggerated and internperate language, both in conversation and in writing; though, as has been frequently and truly remarked, very seldom leading him into injudicious or imprudent actions, amid all the difficulties in which he was involved : and, 2d, A certain species of presumption or self-confidence, which, putting on the garb of better and higher principles, sometimes made him adhere with great obstinacy to erroneous opinions, shutting his understanding against everything that could be brought forward in opposition to them; and made him indulge sometimes in rather ridiculous boasting. The result of all these qualities was, that he has left many statements of an intemperate and exaggerated description; which have afforded a great handle to his enemies, and which, when collected and set off by being presented in isolation from accompanying statements and circumstances, and in combination with each other, are apt to produce a somewhat uncomfortable impression.
And then consider how this extraordinary man, of so peculiar a mental character and general temperament, was tried and tested. He occupied a very singular position, and was subjected to very peculiar influences. He was tried in a very unusual measure, with almost everything fitted to disturb and pervert, to elevate and to depress, with fears and hopes, with dangers and successes. Let it be further remembered, that of this man, who was so constituted and so circumstanced, there have been preserved and published no fewer than about 2300 letters, many of them private and confidenrial effusions to his friends; and that a great deal of his ordinary conversation or table talk has been recorded and transmitted to us, without our having any good evidence of its being accurately reported.
It is surely not to be wondered at that it should be easy to produce many rash, extravagant, inconsistent, and indefensible sayings of Luther. And if, notwithstanding the tests to which he has been subjected, he still stands out as unquestionably a man of high religious principle, of thorough and disinterested devotedness to God's service, and of many noble and elevated qualities,—all which most even of his depredators, except the Popish section of them, will probably concede,—how thoroughly base and despicable is it in any man to be grasping at opportunities of trying to damage his character and influence, by collecting and stringing together (perhaps exaggerating and distorting), his rash and inconsistent, or it may be extravagant and offensive, sentiments and expressions. Papists, of course, are labouring in their proper vocation in trying, per fas aut nefas, to damage Luther's character. Popish controversialists are ever ready to sacrifice conscience, and every manly and honourable feeling, to the interests of the church ; and Tractarians, following in their footsteps, have imbibed a large portion of their spirit.
Friday, April 05, 2013
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Bloggers Using Sitemeter
I've used Sitemeter to see what sort of traffic comes into this blog. A few hours ago, it stopped working, and now the link goes to a different page. I searched around, and it appears "sitemeter.com was due to expire 03-April-2013" and it hasn't been renewed yet. If this is the case, that's too bad. Sitemeter has been an interesting look at the regular traffic here.
Jimmy Akin Goes Viral Over Pope's Foot-Washing
I followed a rabbit trail from The Bellarmine Report (Robert Sungenis) over to a story entitled,"Pope's foot-wash a final straw for traditionalists." The article states,
The church's liturgical law holds that only men can participate in the rite, given that Jesus' apostles were all male. Priests and bishops have routinely petitioned for exemptions to include women, but the law is clear. Francis, however, is the church's chief lawmaker, so in theory he can do whatever he wants. "The pope does not need anybody's permission to make exceptions to how ecclesiastical law relates to him," noted conservative columnist Jimmy Akin in the National Catholic Register. But Akin echoed concerns raised by canon lawyer Edward Peters, an adviser to the Vatican's high court, that Francis was setting a "questionable example" by simply ignoring the church's own rules.
Now, Google search the quote from Jimmy Akin, and notice that a lot of news sites picked it up. The quote in context can be found here. He states,
2. How does Pope Francis's decision relate to this?
Pope Francis's decision goes beyond what is provided in these texts in at least one respect: Instead of washing the feet of adult males, he decided to wash the feet of young women as well. The fact that one of them was a Muslim does not go beyond what the letter of the text specifies, since it does not indicate that the chosen men are to be Catholics (or other Christians). One would expect that they would be Catholics, and one could argue that this is implied in the text, but since Pope Francis is now the individual who is ultimately responsible for interpreting the text, if he judges that it does not prevent washing the feet of non-Christians then it doesn't. His decision does go beyond the text in the matter of men, however.
3. Can Pope Francis just do things that aren't provided for in the law?
Yes. The pope does not need anybody's permission to make exceptions to how ecclesiastical law relates to him. He is canon law's ultimate legislator, interpreter, and executor. And it's not uncommon, at least in recent decades, for a pope to make exceptions to the law in how papal ceremonies are performed.
John Paul II frequently held liturgies that departed from what the Church's liturgical texts provide, particularly when he was making a form of dramatic outreach, and Pope Francis seems to be following in his footsteps.
The church's liturgical law holds that only men can participate in the rite, given that Jesus' apostles were all male. Priests and bishops have routinely petitioned for exemptions to include women, but the law is clear. Francis, however, is the church's chief lawmaker, so in theory he can do whatever he wants. "The pope does not need anybody's permission to make exceptions to how ecclesiastical law relates to him," noted conservative columnist Jimmy Akin in the National Catholic Register. But Akin echoed concerns raised by canon lawyer Edward Peters, an adviser to the Vatican's high court, that Francis was setting a "questionable example" by simply ignoring the church's own rules.
Now, Google search the quote from Jimmy Akin, and notice that a lot of news sites picked it up. The quote in context can be found here. He states,
2. How does Pope Francis's decision relate to this?
Pope Francis's decision goes beyond what is provided in these texts in at least one respect: Instead of washing the feet of adult males, he decided to wash the feet of young women as well. The fact that one of them was a Muslim does not go beyond what the letter of the text specifies, since it does not indicate that the chosen men are to be Catholics (or other Christians). One would expect that they would be Catholics, and one could argue that this is implied in the text, but since Pope Francis is now the individual who is ultimately responsible for interpreting the text, if he judges that it does not prevent washing the feet of non-Christians then it doesn't. His decision does go beyond the text in the matter of men, however.
3. Can Pope Francis just do things that aren't provided for in the law?
Yes. The pope does not need anybody's permission to make exceptions to how ecclesiastical law relates to him. He is canon law's ultimate legislator, interpreter, and executor. And it's not uncommon, at least in recent decades, for a pope to make exceptions to the law in how papal ceremonies are performed.
John Paul II frequently held liturgies that departed from what the Church's liturgical texts provide, particularly when he was making a form of dramatic outreach, and Pope Francis seems to be following in his footsteps.
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Luther "interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was 'born of a woman' alone"
A Roman Catholic webpage states:
"Perpetual Virginity- Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone."
This is another quote from the propaganda piece, The Protestant Reformers on Mary. In terms of polemical value, there's really nothing about this quote that shows "...the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been 'covered up' by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." First, it's certainly common knowledge that Luther affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Second, Luther's interpretation of Galatians 4:4 isn't in regard to perpetual virginity, but rather the virgin birth.
Documentation
No Documentation is given.
Context
4. But when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the Law,
5. to redeem those who were under the Law.
That is: “After the time of the Law had been completed, and Christ was now revealed and had delivered us from the Law, and the promise had been spread abroad to all nations, etc.”
Note carefully how Paul defines Christ here. Christ, he says, is the Son of God and of the woman. He was born under the Law on account of us sinners, to redeem us who were under the Law. In these words Paul has included both the Person and the work of Christ. The Person is made up of the divine and the human nature. He indicates this clearly when he says: “God sent forth His Son, born of woman.” Therefore Christ is true God and true man. Paul describes His work in these words: “Born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law.”
It seems that Paul insults the Virgin, the mother of the Son of God, by calling her simply “woman.” This bothered some of the ancient fathers, who would have preferred that he use the title “virgin” here rather than “woman.” But in this epistle Paul is dealing with the most important and sublime subject matter: the Gospel, faith, Christian righteousness, the definition of the Person of Christ, the meaning of His work, what He undertook and accomplished on our behalf, and what blessings He brought to us miserable sinners. The magnitude of this awesome subject matter was the reason why he did not consider the matter of virginity. It was enough for him to proclaim the inestimable and infinite mercy of God, that God saw fit to have His Son born of the female sex; therefore he mentions, not the worthiness of this sex but merely the sex itself. By mentioning the sex he indicates that Christ Himself was made a true man by birth from the female sex. It is as though he were to say: “He was born, not of a male and a female but merely of the female sex.” When he merely mentions the female sex, therefore, his phrase “born of woman” is the same as though he were saying “born of a virgin.”
Luther, M. (1999, c1963). Vol. 26: Luther's works, vol. 26 : Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (26:367). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
"Perpetual Virginity- Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone."
This is another quote from the propaganda piece, The Protestant Reformers on Mary. In terms of polemical value, there's really nothing about this quote that shows "...the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been 'covered up' by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." First, it's certainly common knowledge that Luther affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Second, Luther's interpretation of Galatians 4:4 isn't in regard to perpetual virginity, but rather the virgin birth.
Documentation
No Documentation is given.
Context
4. But when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the Law,
5. to redeem those who were under the Law.
That is: “After the time of the Law had been completed, and Christ was now revealed and had delivered us from the Law, and the promise had been spread abroad to all nations, etc.”
Note carefully how Paul defines Christ here. Christ, he says, is the Son of God and of the woman. He was born under the Law on account of us sinners, to redeem us who were under the Law. In these words Paul has included both the Person and the work of Christ. The Person is made up of the divine and the human nature. He indicates this clearly when he says: “God sent forth His Son, born of woman.” Therefore Christ is true God and true man. Paul describes His work in these words: “Born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law.”
It seems that Paul insults the Virgin, the mother of the Son of God, by calling her simply “woman.” This bothered some of the ancient fathers, who would have preferred that he use the title “virgin” here rather than “woman.” But in this epistle Paul is dealing with the most important and sublime subject matter: the Gospel, faith, Christian righteousness, the definition of the Person of Christ, the meaning of His work, what He undertook and accomplished on our behalf, and what blessings He brought to us miserable sinners. The magnitude of this awesome subject matter was the reason why he did not consider the matter of virginity. It was enough for him to proclaim the inestimable and infinite mercy of God, that God saw fit to have His Son born of the female sex; therefore he mentions, not the worthiness of this sex but merely the sex itself. By mentioning the sex he indicates that Christ Himself was made a true man by birth from the female sex. It is as though he were to say: “He was born, not of a male and a female but merely of the female sex.” When he merely mentions the female sex, therefore, his phrase “born of woman” is the same as though he were saying “born of a virgin.”
Luther, M. (1999, c1963). Vol. 26: Luther's works, vol. 26 : Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (26:367). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
John Calvin Most Commonly Referred to Mary as "Holy Virgin"?
Here's an alleged John Calvin fact:
"John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was 'Holy Virgin'."
This is another quote from the propaganda piece, The Protestant Reformers on Mary. This article states, "...the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been 'covered up' by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." The quote from Calvin is supposed to suggest that Calvin most often called Mary, "Holy Virgin" while later Protestants do not. Keep in mind, "Holy Virgin" does not mean Calvin held to the immaculate conception (he did not). The phrase was simply a common way to refer to Mary.
Since no documentation is given, I'm not sure exactly where this fact came from. It's possible it came from David F. Wright (ed.), Chosen By God, Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), p. 175 via a Roman apologist like Peter Stravinskas. Wright states,
Calvin insists that Mary 'cherished the Son of God as much in her heart through faith as in her womb by conception... Mary's happiness in bearing Christ in her womb is not the fist thing — that honour actually is second in degree to [her] rebirth into newness of life by the Spirit of Christ' She was pronounced blessed in believing. 'It is quite absurd to teach tat we are to seek from her anything which she receives otherwise than we do ourselves.' Calvin commonly speaks of Mary as 'the holy Virgin' (and rarely simply as 'Mary' preferring 'the Virgin' etc), and also reasons that 'no great effort is required from us to clear her from all fault' when her response to Gabriel 'How will this be?' (Luke 1:34), appears to put a false limit on God's power. But even if Calvin rarely depicts Mary expressly as a sinner, he objected to her specific exclusion from the reach of original sin by the Council of Trent. he also argued that the Purification of Mary and Joseph in the temple (Luke 2:22-4) was necessitated by the universality of original sin — although even here his language is general rather than particular in its reference. Zwingli likewise often called Mary 'pure, holy, spotless', without offering an unambiguous commitment to either her immaculate conception or her sinlessness.
It appears to me that this comment from Wright that Calvin commonly speaks of Mary as the "Holy Virgin" turned into Calvin most commonly refers to Mary as the "Holy Virgin" at the hands of a Roman Catholic defender. I assume it's within the realm of possibility that someone has gone through Calvin's writings and kept score, but I doubt that any of the current Roman defenders have done so. While not meant to be conclusive, I did a basic search for the term "Holy Virgin" in my Ages Software, The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection. I counted approximately 30 instances of the phrase. When I searched for the term "Mary" (taking into consideration the various women named Mary in the Bible), I gave up counting, because the name was used so frequently. Unless the English translators of Calvin's writings have inserted the name "Mary" where it says in the original "Virgin" or "Holy Virgin," it appears to me David Wright is in error when he says Calvin rarely uses "Mary" preferring "the Holy Virgin" or "the Virgin."
"John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was 'Holy Virgin'."
This is another quote from the propaganda piece, The Protestant Reformers on Mary. This article states, "...the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been 'covered up' by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." The quote from Calvin is supposed to suggest that Calvin most often called Mary, "Holy Virgin" while later Protestants do not. Keep in mind, "Holy Virgin" does not mean Calvin held to the immaculate conception (he did not). The phrase was simply a common way to refer to Mary.
Since no documentation is given, I'm not sure exactly where this fact came from. It's possible it came from David F. Wright (ed.), Chosen By God, Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), p. 175 via a Roman apologist like Peter Stravinskas. Wright states,
Calvin insists that Mary 'cherished the Son of God as much in her heart through faith as in her womb by conception... Mary's happiness in bearing Christ in her womb is not the fist thing — that honour actually is second in degree to [her] rebirth into newness of life by the Spirit of Christ' She was pronounced blessed in believing. 'It is quite absurd to teach tat we are to seek from her anything which she receives otherwise than we do ourselves.' Calvin commonly speaks of Mary as 'the holy Virgin' (and rarely simply as 'Mary' preferring 'the Virgin' etc), and also reasons that 'no great effort is required from us to clear her from all fault' when her response to Gabriel 'How will this be?' (Luke 1:34), appears to put a false limit on God's power. But even if Calvin rarely depicts Mary expressly as a sinner, he objected to her specific exclusion from the reach of original sin by the Council of Trent. he also argued that the Purification of Mary and Joseph in the temple (Luke 2:22-4) was necessitated by the universality of original sin — although even here his language is general rather than particular in its reference. Zwingli likewise often called Mary 'pure, holy, spotless', without offering an unambiguous commitment to either her immaculate conception or her sinlessness.
It appears to me that this comment from Wright that Calvin commonly speaks of Mary as the "Holy Virgin" turned into Calvin most commonly refers to Mary as the "Holy Virgin" at the hands of a Roman Catholic defender. I assume it's within the realm of possibility that someone has gone through Calvin's writings and kept score, but I doubt that any of the current Roman defenders have done so. While not meant to be conclusive, I did a basic search for the term "Holy Virgin" in my Ages Software, The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection. I counted approximately 30 instances of the phrase. When I searched for the term "Mary" (taking into consideration the various women named Mary in the Bible), I gave up counting, because the name was used so frequently. Unless the English translators of Calvin's writings have inserted the name "Mary" where it says in the original "Virgin" or "Holy Virgin," it appears to me David Wright is in error when he says Calvin rarely uses "Mary" preferring "the Holy Virgin" or "the Virgin."
Never give a jihadist your phone number
Incredible- This makes the Islamic spammers on my blog look friendly....
The Protestant Reformers on Mary
Over the years I've worked through a basic Roman Catholic article that documents the Mariology of the Reformers. The article is sometimes called, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary." For instance, if you Google search one of the first lines, you can see how far this little piece of propaganda has traveled. The article exists in various forms, but this appears to be one of its most basic: The Protestant Reformers on Mary. You can find versions of this webpage as far back as 2000. Sometimes the article ends with "Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been 'covered up' by their most zealous followers." No they have not! A look at the evidence shows no such thing.
At this point, if I ever did know who compiled the quotes for the article and placed the article in its basic form, I no longer remember. It's obvious that whoever did it took the quotes from secondary sources, because the footnotes typically refer to out-of-print non-English sources. A few years ago one Roman Catholic layman did attempt to give a version of the article some credibility by taking my research documenting the actual contexts and revising the basic article.
Since I still find this propaganda cited, below are links of those quotes and propositions I've been able to find contexts for over the years. As I come across more information, I'll revise this entry.
Martin Luther
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.]
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin." [2 Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.]
Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone
The Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn)
"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..." [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 4, 694.]
"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.]
To the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" [ [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works]
Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546. [Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.]
John Calvin
The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin."
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God" [ John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.]
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives" [ Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.]
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor" [John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.]
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son." [ John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew's Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.]
Ulrich Zwingli
"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God" [ Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639]
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin" [ Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.]
Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary." [ E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.]
"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin" [Ibid.]
"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother" [Ibid.]
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow" [Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.]
At this point, if I ever did know who compiled the quotes for the article and placed the article in its basic form, I no longer remember. It's obvious that whoever did it took the quotes from secondary sources, because the footnotes typically refer to out-of-print non-English sources. A few years ago one Roman Catholic layman did attempt to give a version of the article some credibility by taking my research documenting the actual contexts and revising the basic article.
Since I still find this propaganda cited, below are links of those quotes and propositions I've been able to find contexts for over the years. As I come across more information, I'll revise this entry.
Martin Luther
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.]
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin." [2 Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.]
Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone
The Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn)
"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..." [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 4, 694.]
"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.]
To the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" [ [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works]
Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546. [Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.]
John Calvin
The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin."
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God" [ John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.]
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives" [ Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.]
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor" [John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.]
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son." [ John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew's Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.]
Ulrich Zwingli
"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God" [ Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639]
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin" [ Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.]
Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary." [ E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.]
"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin" [Ibid.]
"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother" [Ibid.]
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow" [Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.]
Monday, April 01, 2013
Luther: "God creates in us the evil in like manner as the good"
This is a fascinating quote purported to come from Luther's Bondage of the Will:
As the sentences just quoted stand in the Review, they seem to form one continuous passage. But when we look through the Treatise De Servo Arbitrio, we discover to our surprise that they are culled out from various parts of it, with long intervals between them, and that they are monstrously garbled and misrepresented. I dare say the Reviewer himself does not know this; and he may perhaps be thankful to see the originals of his quotation. Well! if he will look into the third volume of the Jena edition, p. 207 a, he will find Luther arguing thus against an objection urged by Erasmus in his Diatribe de Libero Arbitrio on the score of justice: "Vides ergo Diatriben cum suis in hac causa non judicare secundum aequitatem, sed secundum affectum commodi sui. Si enim aequitatem spectaret, aeque expostularet cum Deo, dum indignos coronat, atque expostulat cum eo, dum immeritos damnat. Aeque etiam latidaret et praedicaret Deum, dum damnat immeritos, atque facit, dum indignos salvat. Utrobique enim par iniquitas, si sensum nostrum spectes; nisi non fuerit aeque iniquum si Cain ob homicidium laudes regemque facias, atque si Habel innocentem in carcerem conjicias aut occidas. Cum igitur ratio Deum laudet indignos salvantem, arguat vero immeritos damnantem, convincitur non laudare Deum ut Deum, sed ut suo commodo servientem : hoc est, seipsam et quae sua sunt in Deo quaerit et laudat, non Deum aut quae Dei sunt. At si placet tibi Deus indignos coronans, non debet etiam displicere immeritos damnans." Here the sentence which the Reviewer sets at the head of Luther's offensive sayings, and which, as so placed, can only be understood absolutely, —nay, which he plainly meant to be understood absolutely, — nay, which, as we shall see, he himself understood absolutely, — comes in as one in a chain of strictly logical propositions, in reply to a particular argument used by Erasmus. Luther is not declaring his ovra belief, but merely reducing his opponent's argument ad ahsurdum.
Turn we back eighty-four folio pages to 165 a, and we come to the following sentences. " Est itaque hoc imprimis necessarium et salutare Christiano nosse, quod Deus nihil praescit contingenter, sed quod omnia incommutabiU, et aeterna, infallibilique voluntate et praevidet et proponit et facit. Hoc fuhnine sternitur et conteritur penitus Liberum Arbitrium." If the reader compares this with the Reviewer's second sentence, he will perceive what is the meaning of a "literal translation." Luther says that "the foreknowledge of God is a thunderbolt by which Liberum Arbitrium is crusht and destroyed." The Reviewer's literal translation most profanely represents God as "blasting and shattering in pieces the freedom of the will" But this mistranslation too, we shall see, is not imputable wholly to him.
The precise original of the next sentence, "God creates in us the evil, in like manner as the good," I have not met with: perhaps there is none, none at all events that the Reviewer knows of; but there are a number of passages that "blast and shatter in pieces" such an accusation; for instance in 199 a : "Quando Deus omnia in omnibus movet et agit, necessario movet etiam et agit in Satana et impio. Agit autem in illis taliter, quales illi sunt, et quales invenit ; hoc est, cum illi sint aversi et maK, et rapiantur motu illo divinae omnipotentiae, non nisi aversa et mala faciunt. Tanquam si eques agat equum tripedem vel bipedem, agit quidem taliter, qualis equus est; hoc est, equus male incedit. Sed quid faciat eques ? Equum talem simul agit cum equis sanis, illo male, istis bene : aliter non potest, nisi equus sanetur. Hie vides Deum, cum in malis et per malos operatur, mala quidem fieri, Deum tanien non posse male facere, licet mala per malos faciat, quia ipse bonus malefacere non potest, malis tamen instrumentis utitur. —Omnipotentia Dei facit ut impius non possit motum et actionem Dei evadere. — Corruptio vero seu aversio sui a Deo facit ut bene moveri et rapi non possit. Deus suam omnipotentiam non potest omittere propter illius aversi- onem, impius vero suam aversionem non potest mutafe. Ita fit ut perpetuo et necessario peccet et erret, donee Spiritu Dei corrigatur. — Non igitur quispiam cogitet, Deum, cum dicitur indurare, aut malum in nobis operari, (indurare enim est malum facere), sic facere, quasi de novo in nobis malum creet ; ac si fingas malignum caupo- nem, qui, ipse mains, in vas non malum fundat aut temperet venenum, ipso vase nihil faciente. — Sic enim fingere videntur hominem per sese bonum, aut non malum, pati a Deo malum opus, dum audiunt a nobis dici Deum in nobis operari bona et mala — (can this be the original of the Reviewer's sentence, "God creates in us the evil, in like manner as the good?" the Reviewer himself, we shall see, cannot tell us whether it is or not:) nosque mera necessitate passiva sutjici Deo operanti. — Sed ita cogitet, — in nobis, id est, per nos Deum operari mala, non culpa Dei, sed vitio nostro, qui cum simus natura mali, Deus vero bonus, nos actione sua pro natura omnipotentiae suae rapiens, aliter facere non possit, quam quod ipse bonus malo instrumento malum faciat, licet hoc malo pro sua sapientia utatur bene ad gloriam suam et salutem nostram." Let none despise this explanation. "Who has given a better? and Luther himself, just before, says, "Oportuit verbis Dei contentos esse, et simpliciter credere quod dicunt, cum sint opera Dei prorsus inenarrabilia. Tamen in obsequium Rationis, id est, stultitiae humanae, libet ineptire et stultescere, et balbutiendo tentare si qua possimus eam movere."
For the last sentence in the Reviewer's quartette we must again go back fifty-six folio pages to 171 a; and there we read, "Hie est fidei summus gradus, credere ilium esse clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat, credere justum, qui sua vohmtate nos necessario damnabiles facit, ut videatur, referente Erasmo, delectari cruciatibus miserorum, et odio potius quam amore dignus." The meaning of this passage, as is clear from the context, is: "This is the highest pitch of faith, to believe in the mercy of God, although few are saved, and so many condemned, to believe in the justice of God, who by His will creates us, though by the necessity of our fallen nature we become inevitably subject to condemnation, without the special help of His Spirit; so that, as Erasmus states it, He seems to find pleasure in the torments of the wretched, and to be deserving of hatred rather than love." The argument throughout the whole Treatise is, that God does not create the evil in us, but that He creates us, though our fallen nature is evil, and though, until that fallen nature is renewed, we are unable to resist sin, and thereby become liable to condemnation. How grossly all this is misrepresented in the Reviewer's "literal translation," is plain. In the last clause the words referente Erasmo, which show that it was a conclusion drawn, not by Luther himself, but by Erasmus, are wholly left out (bf).
Still in one sense the Reviewer is not so guilty as he appears. For, strange though it may be deemed, it unquestionably is the fact, as I have already hinted more than once, that he had never set eyes on the original Latin of any one of these four sentences. The garbling, the mistranslation, the misrepresentation are not the Reviewer's sin, but Bossuet's, in the second Book of whose Histoire des Variations the four sentences stand, almost consecutively, though not in the same order, in one page, § xvii. As a thief is sometimes detected through some flaw in his shoe or boot, which happens to coincide with the foot-prints about the spot where the robbery was committed, so here we may feel confident that the Reviewer, who verily needs an expert policeman to track him, took his quotations from Bossuet, because, after the Chinese fashion, they copy Bossuet's faults. For Bossuet too, in the second sentence, gives, "Toutes choses arrivent par une immuable, ^ternelle, et inevitable volonte de Dieu, qui foud/roie et met en pieces tout le libre arhitre; " and Bossuet also, according to his wont, perverts the whole of the last sentence, omitting the very words which the Reviewer omits, not only the clause about God's mercy, but also the two words referente Erasmo, the absence of which completely changes the character of the last clause, shifting its offensiveness from Erasmus to Luther; and Bossuet in like manner mistranslates "qui sua voluntate nos necessario damnahiles facit" by " quoiqu'il nous rende necessairement damnahles par sa volonte."
But though Bossuet may thus relieve the Reviewer from a part of his guilt, still, when we remember that in the sentence immediately before these propositions, which he quotes as exemplifying Luther's paradoxes in Speculative Theology, he promises that his "hasty anthology of Luther's opinions" shall be "in his own words, literally translated" — and when we find it thus demonstrated that the first four sentences which he produces, on a subject on which the utmost precision is, above all, indispensable, as a metaphysician must be especially aware, are not translated from Luther, but from the translation of a Frenchman, a person therefore nationally inaccurate, and Luther's bitter and fierce enemy, — and that he can never have seen Luther's words, that he had no notion whatever of their meaning and logical connection, — we will leave him to characterize his own conduct, if he can find appropriate terms for it in that rich vocabulary which he has poured out in his attacks on the University of Oxford. On the other hand what a testimony is it to the soundness of Luther's doctrines, that this knot of garbled sentences thus twisted and strained from their meaning are all that so unscrupulous an enemy has been able to scrape together against him under the head of Speculative Theology!
This was Hamilton's response:
"God pleaseth you when He crowns the unworthy, He ought not to displease you when he damns the innocent. All things take place by the eternal and invariable will of God, who blasts and shatters in pieces the freedom of the will. God creates in us the evil in like manner as the good. The high perfection of faith is to believe that God is just, notwithstanding that by His will He renders us necessarily damnable."It was cited in this form by Sir William Hamilton, a respected scholar in the 19th Century. Hamilton claimed that he had literally translated Luther. It was later proved this wasn't so. He had relied on a translation for the above quote from a secondary source. I provide this example because many times in researching quotes from Luther, I've found that the quotes can sometimes be different sentences strung together from various places, put forth to sound like one specific quote:
As the sentences just quoted stand in the Review, they seem to form one continuous passage. But when we look through the Treatise De Servo Arbitrio, we discover to our surprise that they are culled out from various parts of it, with long intervals between them, and that they are monstrously garbled and misrepresented. I dare say the Reviewer himself does not know this; and he may perhaps be thankful to see the originals of his quotation. Well! if he will look into the third volume of the Jena edition, p. 207 a, he will find Luther arguing thus against an objection urged by Erasmus in his Diatribe de Libero Arbitrio on the score of justice: "Vides ergo Diatriben cum suis in hac causa non judicare secundum aequitatem, sed secundum affectum commodi sui. Si enim aequitatem spectaret, aeque expostularet cum Deo, dum indignos coronat, atque expostulat cum eo, dum immeritos damnat. Aeque etiam latidaret et praedicaret Deum, dum damnat immeritos, atque facit, dum indignos salvat. Utrobique enim par iniquitas, si sensum nostrum spectes; nisi non fuerit aeque iniquum si Cain ob homicidium laudes regemque facias, atque si Habel innocentem in carcerem conjicias aut occidas. Cum igitur ratio Deum laudet indignos salvantem, arguat vero immeritos damnantem, convincitur non laudare Deum ut Deum, sed ut suo commodo servientem : hoc est, seipsam et quae sua sunt in Deo quaerit et laudat, non Deum aut quae Dei sunt. At si placet tibi Deus indignos coronans, non debet etiam displicere immeritos damnans." Here the sentence which the Reviewer sets at the head of Luther's offensive sayings, and which, as so placed, can only be understood absolutely, —nay, which he plainly meant to be understood absolutely, — nay, which, as we shall see, he himself understood absolutely, — comes in as one in a chain of strictly logical propositions, in reply to a particular argument used by Erasmus. Luther is not declaring his ovra belief, but merely reducing his opponent's argument ad ahsurdum.
Turn we back eighty-four folio pages to 165 a, and we come to the following sentences. " Est itaque hoc imprimis necessarium et salutare Christiano nosse, quod Deus nihil praescit contingenter, sed quod omnia incommutabiU, et aeterna, infallibilique voluntate et praevidet et proponit et facit. Hoc fuhnine sternitur et conteritur penitus Liberum Arbitrium." If the reader compares this with the Reviewer's second sentence, he will perceive what is the meaning of a "literal translation." Luther says that "the foreknowledge of God is a thunderbolt by which Liberum Arbitrium is crusht and destroyed." The Reviewer's literal translation most profanely represents God as "blasting and shattering in pieces the freedom of the will" But this mistranslation too, we shall see, is not imputable wholly to him.
The precise original of the next sentence, "God creates in us the evil, in like manner as the good," I have not met with: perhaps there is none, none at all events that the Reviewer knows of; but there are a number of passages that "blast and shatter in pieces" such an accusation; for instance in 199 a : "Quando Deus omnia in omnibus movet et agit, necessario movet etiam et agit in Satana et impio. Agit autem in illis taliter, quales illi sunt, et quales invenit ; hoc est, cum illi sint aversi et maK, et rapiantur motu illo divinae omnipotentiae, non nisi aversa et mala faciunt. Tanquam si eques agat equum tripedem vel bipedem, agit quidem taliter, qualis equus est; hoc est, equus male incedit. Sed quid faciat eques ? Equum talem simul agit cum equis sanis, illo male, istis bene : aliter non potest, nisi equus sanetur. Hie vides Deum, cum in malis et per malos operatur, mala quidem fieri, Deum tanien non posse male facere, licet mala per malos faciat, quia ipse bonus malefacere non potest, malis tamen instrumentis utitur. —Omnipotentia Dei facit ut impius non possit motum et actionem Dei evadere. — Corruptio vero seu aversio sui a Deo facit ut bene moveri et rapi non possit. Deus suam omnipotentiam non potest omittere propter illius aversi- onem, impius vero suam aversionem non potest mutafe. Ita fit ut perpetuo et necessario peccet et erret, donee Spiritu Dei corrigatur. — Non igitur quispiam cogitet, Deum, cum dicitur indurare, aut malum in nobis operari, (indurare enim est malum facere), sic facere, quasi de novo in nobis malum creet ; ac si fingas malignum caupo- nem, qui, ipse mains, in vas non malum fundat aut temperet venenum, ipso vase nihil faciente. — Sic enim fingere videntur hominem per sese bonum, aut non malum, pati a Deo malum opus, dum audiunt a nobis dici Deum in nobis operari bona et mala — (can this be the original of the Reviewer's sentence, "God creates in us the evil, in like manner as the good?" the Reviewer himself, we shall see, cannot tell us whether it is or not:) nosque mera necessitate passiva sutjici Deo operanti. — Sed ita cogitet, — in nobis, id est, per nos Deum operari mala, non culpa Dei, sed vitio nostro, qui cum simus natura mali, Deus vero bonus, nos actione sua pro natura omnipotentiae suae rapiens, aliter facere non possit, quam quod ipse bonus malo instrumento malum faciat, licet hoc malo pro sua sapientia utatur bene ad gloriam suam et salutem nostram." Let none despise this explanation. "Who has given a better? and Luther himself, just before, says, "Oportuit verbis Dei contentos esse, et simpliciter credere quod dicunt, cum sint opera Dei prorsus inenarrabilia. Tamen in obsequium Rationis, id est, stultitiae humanae, libet ineptire et stultescere, et balbutiendo tentare si qua possimus eam movere."
For the last sentence in the Reviewer's quartette we must again go back fifty-six folio pages to 171 a; and there we read, "Hie est fidei summus gradus, credere ilium esse clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat, credere justum, qui sua vohmtate nos necessario damnabiles facit, ut videatur, referente Erasmo, delectari cruciatibus miserorum, et odio potius quam amore dignus." The meaning of this passage, as is clear from the context, is: "This is the highest pitch of faith, to believe in the mercy of God, although few are saved, and so many condemned, to believe in the justice of God, who by His will creates us, though by the necessity of our fallen nature we become inevitably subject to condemnation, without the special help of His Spirit; so that, as Erasmus states it, He seems to find pleasure in the torments of the wretched, and to be deserving of hatred rather than love." The argument throughout the whole Treatise is, that God does not create the evil in us, but that He creates us, though our fallen nature is evil, and though, until that fallen nature is renewed, we are unable to resist sin, and thereby become liable to condemnation. How grossly all this is misrepresented in the Reviewer's "literal translation," is plain. In the last clause the words referente Erasmo, which show that it was a conclusion drawn, not by Luther himself, but by Erasmus, are wholly left out (bf).
Still in one sense the Reviewer is not so guilty as he appears. For, strange though it may be deemed, it unquestionably is the fact, as I have already hinted more than once, that he had never set eyes on the original Latin of any one of these four sentences. The garbling, the mistranslation, the misrepresentation are not the Reviewer's sin, but Bossuet's, in the second Book of whose Histoire des Variations the four sentences stand, almost consecutively, though not in the same order, in one page, § xvii. As a thief is sometimes detected through some flaw in his shoe or boot, which happens to coincide with the foot-prints about the spot where the robbery was committed, so here we may feel confident that the Reviewer, who verily needs an expert policeman to track him, took his quotations from Bossuet, because, after the Chinese fashion, they copy Bossuet's faults. For Bossuet too, in the second sentence, gives, "Toutes choses arrivent par une immuable, ^ternelle, et inevitable volonte de Dieu, qui foud/roie et met en pieces tout le libre arhitre; " and Bossuet also, according to his wont, perverts the whole of the last sentence, omitting the very words which the Reviewer omits, not only the clause about God's mercy, but also the two words referente Erasmo, the absence of which completely changes the character of the last clause, shifting its offensiveness from Erasmus to Luther; and Bossuet in like manner mistranslates "qui sua voluntate nos necessario damnahiles facit" by " quoiqu'il nous rende necessairement damnahles par sa volonte."
But though Bossuet may thus relieve the Reviewer from a part of his guilt, still, when we remember that in the sentence immediately before these propositions, which he quotes as exemplifying Luther's paradoxes in Speculative Theology, he promises that his "hasty anthology of Luther's opinions" shall be "in his own words, literally translated" — and when we find it thus demonstrated that the first four sentences which he produces, on a subject on which the utmost precision is, above all, indispensable, as a metaphysician must be especially aware, are not translated from Luther, but from the translation of a Frenchman, a person therefore nationally inaccurate, and Luther's bitter and fierce enemy, — and that he can never have seen Luther's words, that he had no notion whatever of their meaning and logical connection, — we will leave him to characterize his own conduct, if he can find appropriate terms for it in that rich vocabulary which he has poured out in his attacks on the University of Oxford. On the other hand what a testimony is it to the soundness of Luther's doctrines, that this knot of garbled sentences thus twisted and strained from their meaning are all that so unscrupulous an enemy has been able to scrape together against him under the head of Speculative Theology!
This was Hamilton's response:
"In regard to the testimonies from Luther under this first head, but under this alone, I must make a confession. There are few things to which I feel a greater repugnance than relying upon quotations at second-hand. Now those under this head were not taken immediately from Luther's treatise, 'De Servo Arbitrio,' in which they are all contained. I had indeed more than once read that remarkable work, and once attentively, marking, as is my wont, the more important passages; but at the time of writing this article, my copy was out of immediate reach, and the press being urgent, I had no leisure for a reperusal. In these circumstances, finding that the extracts from it in Theoduls Gastmald corresponded, so far as they went, with those also given by Bossuet, and as, from my own recollection (and the testimony, I think, of Werdermann), they fairly represented Luther's doctrine; I literally translated the passages, even in their order, as given by Von Stark (and in Dr Kentsinger's French version). Stark, I indeed now conjecture, had Bossuet in his eye. I deem it right to make this avowal, and to acknowledge that I did what I account wrong. But, again, I have no hesitation in now, after full examination, deliberately saying, that I do not think these extracts, whether by Bossuet, or by Stark and Bossuet, to be unfairly selected, to be unfaithfully translated, to be garbled, or to misrepresent in any way Luther's doctrine; in particular his opinions touching the divine predestination and the human will."
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Luther: "The Book of Esther I Toss into the Elbe" a 19th Century Explanation
A few years back I explained how the famous Table Talk quote from Luther "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe" was actually a mis-citation that was actually in regard to Esdras. I've mentioned this a number of times over the years.
What's interesting about this Luther quote is it was corrected some time ago, at least as far back as the 19th Century, yet it still pops up on fresh on the Internet. Here was a great overview of the quote from the 19th Century, in which Julius Charles Hare corrected the great Sir William Hamilton:
What's interesting about this Luther quote is it was corrected some time ago, at least as far back as the 19th Century, yet it still pops up on fresh on the Internet. Here was a great overview of the quote from the 19th Century, in which Julius Charles Hare corrected the great Sir William Hamilton:
For instance, when our eyes run through the Reviewer's anthology, one of the most startling sentences is this: "The Book of Esther I toss into the Elbe." If a person familiar with Luther's style lights upon this sentence, he will recognize the great Reformer's unmistakable mark in the words, / toss into the Elbe; and it will be a pang to him to find Luther applying such rude words to any book, even the least important, in the Holy Scriptures. But he did not. The Reviewer asserts that he gives us Luther's "own words, literally translated:" Mr Ward asserts that the Reviewer's name is "a sufficient voucher for the accuracy of his quotations:" and yet Luther never said anything of the sort about the book of Esther. The original of this "literal translation" is plainly the following sentence in Luther's Tabletalk, Das dritte Such Esther werfe ich in die Elbe: The third book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. Why the Reviewer left out the word third in his "literal translation," it is for him to explain. Were one to follow the example he sets in imputing the vilest motives to all persons in authority in the University of Oxford, one should call this a fraudulent imposition. Was he puzzled to make out what could be meant by the third book of Esther? and did he intend tacitly to correct the text? When words are made the ground of an accusation, they should be examined with scrupulous care; and if it appear requisite to alter them, this should be expressly stated. Here the next sentence plainly shews that a totally different correction is needed. "In the fourth book, in that which Esther dreamt, there are pretty, and also some good sayings, as, Wine is strong, the king stronger, women still stronger, but truth the strongest of all" I quote from Walch's edition, Vol. xxn. 2079, and have no means of examining older copies of the Tischredren; but the old English translation speaks of the third book of Hester. So that the error gross as it is, seems to have belonged to the original text. For there can be no question that Luther had been talking, not of a non-existent third and fourth book of Esther, but of the book of Ezra or Esdras: though there is still much confusion in the report of his words; since the argument about strength does not stand in the fourth book, but in the third, the first of the Apocryphal ones; those of Ezra and Nehemiah being numbered as the first two. Thus Luther's words are nothing but a Lutheran mode of saying what Jerome actually did, when he cast these Apocryphal books out of his Version, as he says in his Preface to the book of Ezra: "Nec quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est; nec apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur; quia et apud Hebraeos Ezrae Neemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur, et quae non habentur apud illos, nec de viginti quatuor senibus sunt, procul abjicienda." Nor can anything well go beyond Jerome's contemptuous expressions about the same books in his pamphlet against Vigilantius (bI). Assuredly too the next sentence quoted by the Reviewer,— "I am so an enemy to the book of Esther that I would it did not exist; for it Judaizes too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness,"—though here again the English Translation agrees with Walch in applying Luther's words to the Book of Esther, was in fact spoken of the Apocryphal books of Esdras. For the whole passage in the Tabletalk is as follows : " When the Doctor was correcting the translation of the second Book of the Maccabees, he said, I dislike this book and that of Esther so much, that I wish they did not exist; for they Judaize too much, and have much heathenish extravagance. Then Master Forster said, The Jews esteem the book of Esther more than any of the prophets" The combination of the book with that of the Maccabees, — which the Reviewer ought not to have omitted, — as well as Forster's remark, leaves no doubt that Luther spoke of the book of Esdras (b j). These blunders shew how unsafe it is to build any conclusions on the authority of the Tabletalk.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Interesting Catholic Answers from Catholic Answers
For those of you who have trouble understanding the interpretation of Christianity put forth by the Roman Catholic magisterium, Catholic Answers has a section on their discussion forums where you can post a question and someone on staff will answer the question. In other words, you can get an interpretation of the interpretation and then personally interpret it for yourself.
Here were a few recent interesting questions and answers. I've tried to abridge some of these, so feel free to follow the links to the complete versions. I simply posted some of the things that jumped out at me. This morning I went through a number of these questions with a family member who grew up Roman Catholic, and went to a Roman Catholic school.
Question: is chewing gum while fasting ok?
Answer: Gum is not food. It does not break a fast.
Question: Are Horoscopes sinful?
Answer: "Reading a daily horoscope just for laughs may not be a sin, but it could qualify as a near occasion of sin. That is because the temptation is always present to give credence to the "predictions."
Question: Should priests baptize adopted children of gay couples?
Answer: "Unless there is danger of death, in which case anyone may baptize a child below the age of reason, one or both parents must give their consent and there must be "a well-founded hope" that the child will be raised Catholic. The non-Catholic mother would have to consent to the baptism and the priest or deacon performing the baptism would have to be satisfied that the child would be raised Catholic. Given the fact that homosexual relationships are very often short-term, it is possible that the Catholic "mother" may well not be a part of this child's life long enough to form the child in the Catholic faith (presuming this Catholic could properly form this child in the faith). If you know of a balanced, orthodox priest or deacon in their area, you might give his name to the women and recommend that they consult him for more information about the Church's requirements for infant baptism."
Question: What ability is required to consummate the marital relationship?
Answer: "What is required is that the couple must be able to perform the act of intercourse—even though the man may be impotent or the woman may be sterile. But to consummate the marriage, they must be able to engage in the act."
Question: Did I sin by not going to Sunday Mass?
Answer: "If you forgot or were ill or missed Mass through no fault of your own, you did not sin. But if your just didn't care or were lazy, then it is a mortal sin. "
Question: Is jealousy a sin?
Answer: "Thoughts are just thoughts. It's what we do as the result of them than can cause harm."
Question: What do I do about going to Mass if I live on a remote island?
Answer: "The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin."
Question: How is someone who claims to be Christian yet aggressively promotes abortion and "gay marriage" more Christian than a Mormon?
Answer: "When we say that Mormons are not Christians, we don’t mean that they do not act in a Christian way. Many do and undoubtedly are closer to God than many wayward Christians. We are saying that their understanding of the Trinity and Jesus is so defective, that it cannot be called Christian."
Question: Is coffee permitted before Mass?
Answer: "If you can finish your coffee at least one hour before Communion, then it is fine to drink it on the way to church. Otherwise, coffee does break the Communion fast."
Question: Did Mary suffer labor pains?
Answer: "To the best of my knowledge, the Church hasn't defined one way or the other whether or not Mary suffered in childbirth. It is within the realm of acceptable theological opinion to hold either that Mary was free of childbirth pain because she was free of original sin; or that, even though she was not subject to this punishment of original sin, that she may have suffered it to be in deeper conformity to her suffering Son, Jesus Christ. Until the Church decides one way or the other, Catholics are free to hold either opinion."
Here were a few recent interesting questions and answers. I've tried to abridge some of these, so feel free to follow the links to the complete versions. I simply posted some of the things that jumped out at me. This morning I went through a number of these questions with a family member who grew up Roman Catholic, and went to a Roman Catholic school.
Question: is chewing gum while fasting ok?
Answer: Gum is not food. It does not break a fast.
Question: Are Horoscopes sinful?
Answer: "Reading a daily horoscope just for laughs may not be a sin, but it could qualify as a near occasion of sin. That is because the temptation is always present to give credence to the "predictions."
Question: Should priests baptize adopted children of gay couples?
Answer: "Unless there is danger of death, in which case anyone may baptize a child below the age of reason, one or both parents must give their consent and there must be "a well-founded hope" that the child will be raised Catholic. The non-Catholic mother would have to consent to the baptism and the priest or deacon performing the baptism would have to be satisfied that the child would be raised Catholic. Given the fact that homosexual relationships are very often short-term, it is possible that the Catholic "mother" may well not be a part of this child's life long enough to form the child in the Catholic faith (presuming this Catholic could properly form this child in the faith). If you know of a balanced, orthodox priest or deacon in their area, you might give his name to the women and recommend that they consult him for more information about the Church's requirements for infant baptism."
Question: What ability is required to consummate the marital relationship?
Answer: "What is required is that the couple must be able to perform the act of intercourse—even though the man may be impotent or the woman may be sterile. But to consummate the marriage, they must be able to engage in the act."
Question: Did I sin by not going to Sunday Mass?
Answer: "If you forgot or were ill or missed Mass through no fault of your own, you did not sin. But if your just didn't care or were lazy, then it is a mortal sin. "
Question: Is jealousy a sin?
Answer: "Thoughts are just thoughts. It's what we do as the result of them than can cause harm."
Question: What do I do about going to Mass if I live on a remote island?
Answer: "The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin."
Question: How is someone who claims to be Christian yet aggressively promotes abortion and "gay marriage" more Christian than a Mormon?
Answer: "When we say that Mormons are not Christians, we don’t mean that they do not act in a Christian way. Many do and undoubtedly are closer to God than many wayward Christians. We are saying that their understanding of the Trinity and Jesus is so defective, that it cannot be called Christian."
Question: Is coffee permitted before Mass?
Answer: "If you can finish your coffee at least one hour before Communion, then it is fine to drink it on the way to church. Otherwise, coffee does break the Communion fast."
Question: Did Mary suffer labor pains?
Answer: "To the best of my knowledge, the Church hasn't defined one way or the other whether or not Mary suffered in childbirth. It is within the realm of acceptable theological opinion to hold either that Mary was free of childbirth pain because she was free of original sin; or that, even though she was not subject to this punishment of original sin, that she may have suffered it to be in deeper conformity to her suffering Son, Jesus Christ. Until the Church decides one way or the other, Catholics are free to hold either opinion."
Friday, March 29, 2013
Roman Convert Needs a Job....
I recently listened to this conversion story, and the talk ended with this short statement (mp3). Now in this economy, I certainly feel bad for anyone not employed, even those people I may have theological differences with.
However:
1. I simply don't understand what the point of having a teaching magisterium is and a priesthood if a guy simply wants to "do as a Catholic something similar to what I've done as a Protestant minister for so many years, namely, stand up in front of people with a Bible in my hands and just make complicated stuff understandable." Rome is supposed to make God and the Church understandable. Now, we've got people who want to interpret the interpreter.
2. As a Roman apologist, one needs to carry more than a Bible up front. One should probably bring as many infallible decrees one can find, a good edition of Canon law, the Catechism, and it wouldn't hurt to bring a lot of papal encyclicals. I'd say carry "Sacred Tradition" as well, but that's a bit like bringing Bigfoot along.
However:
1. I simply don't understand what the point of having a teaching magisterium is and a priesthood if a guy simply wants to "do as a Catholic something similar to what I've done as a Protestant minister for so many years, namely, stand up in front of people with a Bible in my hands and just make complicated stuff understandable." Rome is supposed to make God and the Church understandable. Now, we've got people who want to interpret the interpreter.
2. As a Roman apologist, one needs to carry more than a Bible up front. One should probably bring as many infallible decrees one can find, a good edition of Canon law, the Catechism, and it wouldn't hurt to bring a lot of papal encyclicals. I'd say carry "Sacred Tradition" as well, but that's a bit like bringing Bigfoot along.
Losing Rome's converts
Magdi Allam, Muslim Convert, Leaves Catholic Church, Says It's Too Weak Against Islam
"Allam, who has called Islam an 'intrinsically violent ideology,' said his main reason for leaving the church was its perceived "religious relativism, in particular the legitimization of Islam as a true religion."
"Allam, who has called Islam an 'intrinsically violent ideology,' said his main reason for leaving the church was its perceived "religious relativism, in particular the legitimization of Islam as a true religion."
Roman Catholicism Against the Reformers and Protestant Methodology
I've been doing Reformation research for quite few years now. This is the best overview I've ever come across describing the mindset of Roman Catholicism toward the Reformers, and the Protestant apologetic needed to be employed against this mindset. It was written in 1856, and yet almost perfectly describes much of what I've seen over the last ten years of interacting with Rome's apologetic material against the Reformers, and likewise expresses some of the methodology I've used to respond.
The great general position which Romanists are anxious to establish by all they can collect against the Reformers, from their writings or their lives, from their sayings or their doings, is this, that it is very unlikely that God would employ such men in the accomplishment of any special work for the advancement of His gracious purposes. In dealing with this favourite allegation of Romanists, Protestants assert and undertake to prove the following positions:—1st, That the allegation is irrelevant to the real merits of the controversy between us and the Church of Rome, which can be determined only by the standard of the written word; 2d, That the allegation is untrue,—in other words, that there is nothing about the character of the Reformers as a whole which renders it in the least unlikely that God employed them in His own special gracious work; and, 3d, That the general principle on which the allegation is based can be applied in the way of retort, with far greater effect, to the Church of Rome. Protestants, by establishing these three positions, effectually dispose of the Romish allegation. It is with the second of them only that we have at present to do, and even on it we do not mean to enlarge.
Romanists have taken great pains to collect every expression from the writings of the Reformers, and to bring forward every incident in their lives, that may be fitted—especially when they are all presented nakedly and in combination—to produce an unfavourable impression as to their motives and actions. In the prosecution of this work, they are usually quite unscrupulous about the completeness of their quotations and the accuracy of their facts, and in this way they sometimes manage to make out, upon some particular points, what may appear to ignorant or prejudiced readers to be a good case. In dealing with the materials which papists have collected for depreciating the character of the Reformers, and thus establishing the improbability of God having employed them as His instruments in restoring divine truth, and in reforming the church, there are three steps in the process that ought to be attended to and discriminated, in order to our arriving at a just and fair conclusion:—
1st, We must carefully ascertain the true facts of the case as to any statement or action that may have been ascribed to them or to any one of them; and we will find, in not a few instances, that the allegations found in ordinary popish works on the subject are inaccurate, defective, or exaggerated,—that the quotation is garbled and mutilated, or may be explained and modified by the context,—or that the action is erroneously or unfairly represented in some of its features or accompanying circumstances.
2d, When the real facts of the case are once ascertained, the next step should be to form a fair and reasonable estimate of what they really involve or imply, taking into account, as justice demands, the natural character and tendencies of the men individually, the circumstances in which they were placed, the influences to which they were subjected, the temptations to which they were exposed, and the general impressions and ordinary standard on such subjects in the age and country in which they lived.
3d, There is a third step necessary in order to form a right estimate of the common popish charges against the Reformers, and of the soundness of the conclusion which they wish to deduce from them, viz., that we should not confine our attention to their blemishes and infirmities, real or alleged, greater or smaller, but take a general view of their whole character and proceedings, embracing, as far as we have materials, all that they felt, and said, and did, and endeavour in this way to form a fair estimate of what were their predominating desires, motives, and objects, of what it was that they had really at heart, and of what was the standard by a regard to which they strove to regulate their conduct.
A careful application of these obviously just and fair principles will easily dispose of the materials which papists have so assiduously collected for the purpose of injuring the character of the Reformers, and convince every intelligent and honest inquirer, that there is not one of the leading men among them who has not, with all his errors and infirmities, left behind him sufficient and satisfactory evidence, so far as men can judge of their fellowmen, that he had been born again' of the word of God through the belief of the truth, that he had honestly devoted himself to God's service, and that in what he did for the cause of the Reformation he was mainly influenced by a desire to promote the glory of God, to advance the prosperity of Christ's kingdom, and to secure the spiritual welfare of men.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Bayle's Dictionary: Old Slanders Against the Reformers
One of my interests is tracking down Reformation apocrypha and myths. Today while reading William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, I came across this interesting snippet:
[A] They have dared to publish that an incuubus begat him. Father Maimbourg has been so equitable as to reject this ridiculous story. 'He was born, says he , at Isleben in the county of Mansfeld, in the year 1483, not of an Incubus, as some, to render him more odious, have written, without any appearance of truth, but as other men are born, a thing never called in question till he became an Heresiarch, which he might easily be, without any need of substituting a devil in the place of his father, John Luder, or disgracing his mother, Margaret Linderman,, by 'so infamous a birth.' Such fables are hardly to be pardoned in those who mention them only as witty 'conceits. This is what an Italian Theatin has done in a poem- in which he supposes, that Luther, born of Megera, one of the furies, was sent from hell into Germany. This is more monkish than poetical.
[B] They have falsified the day of his birth, in order to frame a scheme of his nativity to his disadvantage. Martin Luther was born the tenth of November, betwixt eleven and twelve of the dock at night, at Isleben, whither his mother was come on account of the fair, not thinking she was so near her time: for we must know her husband, a man of mean condition, and who worked in the mines, did not then live at Isleben, but in the village of Meza. The good woman, being examined by Melancthon, concerning the year was brought to bed of Martin Luther, answered, that she did not very well remember it; she only knew the day and the hour. It is therefore out of pure malice, that Florimond de Remond places his birth on the twenty second of October. He thought thereby to confirm the astrological predictions of Junetinus, who by the horoscope of his day, has defamed Martin Luther, as much as he could. This astrologer was strongly confuted by a professor of Strasburg, who showed, that, by the rules of Astrology, Luther was to be a great man.
With such views and impressions prevailing among Romanists, it was not to be expected that the Reformers, who did so much damage to the Church of Rome, would be treated with justice or decency. Accordingly, we find that a most extraordinary series of slanders against the character of the leading Reformers, utterly unsupported by evidence, and wholly destitute of truth and plausibility, were invented and propagated by Romish writers. Luther and the other Reformers were charged, in popish publications, with heinous crimes, of which no evidence was or could be produced; and these accusations, though their falsehood was often exposed, continued long to be repeated in most popish books. With respect to the more offensive accusations that used to be adduced against the Reformers, a considerable check was given to the general circulation of them, by the thorough exposures of their unquestionable falsehood which were put forth by Bayle in his Dictionary, a work which was extensively read in the literary world. Papists became ashamed to advance, in works intended for general circulation, allegations which Bayle's Dictionary had prepared the reading public to regard, without hesitation, as deliberate falsehoods, though they continued to repeat them in works intended for circulation among their own people. Scarcely any Romish writers who pretended to anything like respectability, have, for a century and a half, ventured to commit themselves to an explicit assertion of the grosser calumnies which used to be adduced against the Reformers. Some of them, however, have shown a considerable unwillingness to abandon these charges entirely, and like still to mention them as accusations which were at one time adduced, and which men may still believe if they choose.I had never heard of Bayle's Dictionary, but it certainly seemed like that was a source I needed to have. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Google Books had many of these volumes, including the volume with the entry on Luther. Unfortunately, the scan is poor. Here was the first set of myths. Bayle first presents them, and then gives detailed footnotes explaining them. I wrote out the first footonte explanation, and half of the second :
Martin Luther, reformer of the church in the 16th century. His history is so well known, and is found in so many books, and particularly in Moreri, that I shall not trouble my self to repeat it. I shall principally insist on the falsehoods which have been published concerning him. No regard has been had in this either to Probability, or to the rules of the art of slandering: and the authors of them have assumed all the confidence of those who fully believe, that the public will blindly adopt all their stories, be they ever so absurd. They have dared to publish, that an Incubus begat him [A] and have even falsified the day of his birth, in order to frame a scheme of his nativity to his disadvantage [B], They accuse him of having confessed, that after struggling for ten years together with his conscience, he at last became perfectly master of it, and fell into Atheism [C]. They add, that he frequently said, he would renounce his portion in Heaven, provided God would allow him a pleasant life for a hundred years.
[A] They have dared to publish that an incuubus begat him. Father Maimbourg has been so equitable as to reject this ridiculous story. 'He was born, says he , at Isleben in the county of Mansfeld, in the year 1483, not of an Incubus, as some, to render him more odious, have written, without any appearance of truth, but as other men are born, a thing never called in question till he became an Heresiarch, which he might easily be, without any need of substituting a devil in the place of his father, John Luder, or disgracing his mother, Margaret Linderman,, by 'so infamous a birth.' Such fables are hardly to be pardoned in those who mention them only as witty 'conceits. This is what an Italian Theatin has done in a poem- in which he supposes, that Luther, born of Megera, one of the furies, was sent from hell into Germany. This is more monkish than poetical.
[B] They have falsified the day of his birth, in order to frame a scheme of his nativity to his disadvantage. Martin Luther was born the tenth of November, betwixt eleven and twelve of the dock at night, at Isleben, whither his mother was come on account of the fair, not thinking she was so near her time: for we must know her husband, a man of mean condition, and who worked in the mines, did not then live at Isleben, but in the village of Meza. The good woman, being examined by Melancthon, concerning the year was brought to bed of Martin Luther, answered, that she did not very well remember it; she only knew the day and the hour. It is therefore out of pure malice, that Florimond de Remond places his birth on the twenty second of October. He thought thereby to confirm the astrological predictions of Junetinus, who by the horoscope of his day, has defamed Martin Luther, as much as he could. This astrologer was strongly confuted by a professor of Strasburg, who showed, that, by the rules of Astrology, Luther was to be a great man.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
The Catholic Answers Forums, James White, and Charity
I've been on the Catholic Answers forums since 2004. This never ceases to amaze me. Why haven't I been banned? Well, I'm not there every day. I make occasional visits, usually involved with Reformation-related subjects. One thing I've tried to do at CA is abide by the rules. Maybe that's the reason I've yet to get the boot.
Sometimes this isn't easy. For instance, recently a Roman Catholic participant was demonizing Luther and the Reformation on the "Non-Catholic Religions" forum. Rather than interacting with this person, I decided to use the "Report Post" alert feature to notify the moderators of these uncharitable comments being posted. I sent in alerts on two or three different posts. The response to these alerts was that I myself received an "infraction" for allegedly abusing the alert system, and the vilifying posts were allowed to stay. So, lesson learned: don't use the "Report Post" alert feature on the Catholic Answers Non-Christian Religions forum.
Now, I don't get the logic of this, since Catholic Answers provides this link as well as these general guidelines:
"Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost."
"Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching."
"Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited."
"Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory (e.g., Nazi or neocon) unless they have embraced that title. In which case, you may qualify them with the term as long as you preface it with the word "avowed."
Posters are asked to use their best judgement when posting articles using such terms. Do not abbreviate terms." What to look for in your post before you press submit: Is the post civil and charitable? Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them? And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Guidelines for posting on religious discussions
Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone's faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.
If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., "the pope is the anti-Christ" or "Rome is the Whore of Babylon" or "Muslims are terrorists"), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.
Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.
I guess I shouldn't expect these rules apply to any comments Roman Catholics make about that great destroyer, Martin Luther or the Reformation in general. Ironically, in the same discussion a Lutheran was banned for making one unflattering comment about Roman Catholicism (if he made other less-than-charitable comments about Rome, I certainly didn't see them). I pointed out this odd double standard in a post, and it was deleted by a moderator. So, let's say with this particular situation, the Catholic Answers moderators have some sort of set of "other" rules that trump the posted rules. Well, it's their website, so they can do what they want.
Now here's a situation in which they moderated more successfully. If there's one person Roman Catholics disdain as much as Luther, it's Dr. James White. Recently a Methodist on the forum stated,
"James White has always seemed to me to be a peculiarly angry and unhappy man, who has been turned into a kind of Scrooge-like figure by cherishing his dislike of Catholics, & using it as whip to try to beat you all up."
Now, given the guidelines posted above, this comment goes over the line, doesn't it? So, I responded:
Today, 8:08 am
| |||
| |||
Quote:
There is an expectation here at CAF that we all should behave with civility. In practice this means striving to deliver our comments here with as much charity as we can muster. Some Catholics who are going through a renewal of their faith can take on a somewhat strident tone. Having re-discovered the truth of their faith, they then proceed to jump on a soapbox and start proclaiming the truth as they see it. Fellow Catholics, priests, bishops, even the pope, are subject to "correction." Perhaps they do not realize that this behavior often comes across to others as trying to use doctrine as a weapon. Here are some quotations from Church leaders to consider closely: Quote: "Win an argument and lose a soul." -- Bishop Fulton Sheen "Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like 'a clanging cymbal.'" -- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Homily "Preach the gospel at all times, and, when necessary, use words." -- St. Francis (attributed) "You know well enough that our Lord does not look so much at the greatness of our actions, nor even at their difficulty, but at the love with which we do them." -- St. Therese of Lisieux "Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing.... Love does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil.... Love bears all things ... endures all things. So faith, hope, charity abide, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." -- St. Paul (1 Cor. 13:2, 5, 7, 14) "Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." -- St. Peter (1 Pet. 3:15; RSV-CE) Some members have left the Catholic Answers Forums because CAF management would not allow them to behave rudely. There are many venues on the Internet where one may behave as uncharitably as one desires. This is not one of them. It should also be noted that Catholics are NOT given preference because of their religious affiliation. In fact, Catholics are often held to a higher standard. As our Lord cautioned, "To whom much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48). Here at CAF, we believe that the truth will take care of itself. Our job is to reveal it as charitably as we can. Finally, the Moderators are prepared to help members remain within the boundaries of charity. But that only works if each of us is willing to co-operate. Please accept moderator guidance graciously and with the Christian gentleness St. Peter spoke of, even if you feel you have been wronged. (And don't forget that if you do feel that your case needs to be reviewed, you are free to appeal Mod actions to the Admin staff at forumadmin@catholic.com.) But please keep in mind that making continual complaints about a perceived slight or injustice is counterproductive. The Mods only have so much time to devote to CAF. Rather, offer it up. Others will benefit spiritually from your pain. It's the Catholic thing to do. |
Now, here was a response back from a different participant: "Frankly, I am baffled as to why you posted this. Was something offensive? Then perhaps you should take it to the mods. If not mod-worthy, what are you responding to?" Now, given my previous infractions for contacting a moderator, I decided to respond back:
Today, 9:58 pm
| |||
| |||
Quote:
I'm actually baffled as to why you're baffled. Do you think this comment is in any way, charitable?:
Quote:
JS |
To which another participant posted:
| |||
Quote:
I'd never heard of James White before this, but having taken a look, I would say that the poster was "charitable" in their definition - rather than the opposite! He comes across as very anti-Catholic and abuses us, our beliefs and doctrines with no pretence of charity - |
...And my response:
| |||
Quote:
Very interesting. JS |
...and then...in response...
Today, 12:59 pm
| |||
| |||
 Re: Praying to Dead Folks
Quote:
Debate Expert: "James White Driven by Emotion Rather than Reason" by Peter Lumpkins Peter,"James White & God's Love (or lack thereof) for All People" by Peter Lumpkins » "On a recent comment thread at SBC Tomorrow, an unusual number of comments were logged concerning James White's disrespectful comments toward women. I took the time to listen to the broadcast in question. I now understand precisely why one Christian lady took extreme offense at White's remarks>>> "James White and his trusty sidekick, Rich Pierce, need to publicly apologize for these offensive remarks toward not only Mormon women, but ethnic women." Brigham Young Had Ugly Wives (the topic for this broadcast)- "No one would debate me on that...we have had some enjoyment over the years looking at the pictures of Bringham Young's wives...(lots of sniggering)..you're being mean, people say but....I would be a heretic too if i'd been married to 94 of them ...got to give that man some leeway..." He then asks caller (Shaun) in to the radio show "..ever read BY's collected sermons... have you ever seen pictures of BY's wives...look it up on google..in the Mormon Encyclopedia...scan the picture to a jpg...evidence that the mans' a ...? (lots of laughter throughout) "Russian women look like Russian men...Russian women are a lot up on (his wives)..." How's that  for a start...
__________________
|
..to which I responded...
| |||||
| Re: Praying to Dead Folks
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
JS |
So, how did this wind up? All of my comments were deleted, as well as the other comments supporting the anti-James White comment. Now, I think that's good moderation. Everyone's comment got dumped. Now, here's where the Catholic Answers Moderators dropped the ball. They still allow this comment to be posted:
"James White has always seemed to me to be a peculiarly angry and unhappy man, who has been turned into a kind of Scrooge-like figure by cherishing his dislike of Catholics, & using it as whip to try to beat you all up."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
