elder.wyrm
Banned
Like I said, the Anglican church retains much the same structure as the Catholic church, but is still protestant.
Go tell an Anglican to pay his respects to Rome, see what happens.
"Neither Apostolic nor Prophetic": Luther eliminates Revelation
- Thread starter Flocculencio
- Start date
Like I said, the Anglican church retains much the same structure as the Catholic church, but is still protestant.
Go tell an Anglican to pay his respects to Rome, see what happens.
I said reformed Catholic - as opposed to Roman Catholic. (I note you are using Catholic to mean Roman Catholic but that is a common error)
Remember I am not only an Anglican but an Anglican Priest....
And a number of Anglican I know are probably more 'Catholic' than the Roman Catholics - they pray for the the Pope using the words 'our Pope'.
The C of E is wide enough that some parts are more Catholic than the Romans, more Baptists than the Baptist etc etc
It would sure be nice, if some christians were a little less obsesed with the endtime. But I think Luther was right not to mess with the bible (he excluded the Apocryphs because they are not part of the original hebrew canon of the old testament, not because of their content. He even called them something like helpful to read).
And as allready said in this threat:
-there are other books with prophecies about the endtime like Jesaja, Sacharja and Daniel
-they might still have kept it in King James (and for some reason 90% of the real crazy stuff of any kind (except manga) comes from America).
And as allready said in this threat:
-there are other books with prophecies about the endtime like Jesaja, Sacharja and Daniel
-they might still have kept it in King James (and for some reason 90% of the real crazy stuff of any kind (except manga) comes from America).
Keenir
Banned
I thought the NT was all about Jesus.
what do giant locusts have to do with Jesus?
which, back in Luther's day, would be....John Calvin?
I said reformed Catholic - as opposed to Roman Catholic. (I note you are using Catholic to mean Roman Catholic but that is a common error)
Remember I am not only an Anglican but an Anglican Priest....
And a number of Anglican I know are probably more 'Catholic' than the Roman Catholics - they pray for the the Pope using the words 'our Pope'.
The C of E is wide enough that some parts are more Catholic than the Romans, more Baptists than the Baptist etc etc
Gotta love the latitudinarian ideal.
Gotta love the latitudinarian ideal.
LOL I am a low church, evangelical, Charismatic who gets accused by some people of being a 'fundy' and others a closet Roman Catholic.... you could say I am doing something right....
Some of my friends who are priests are Anglo-Catholic, Liberal Feminists, Gay (but obedient to the House of Bishops position on human sexuality), and others are within my own churchmanship.
Unity in matters of salvation doctrine and acceptance of divergence in other matters
Philip
Donor
So, then, you must concede that the Deuterocanon was part of the Bible in 1395. That rather conflicts with your claim that they were added at Trent in 1546.
Yep, in 1546 the Catholic Church made dogma what it had been practicing for over 1000 years:
following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis,...[entire Catholic Canon]..., Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
Even your own citation does not support your claim that anything was added.
(First, be careful in describing the teachings of the Synod of Jerusalem as dogma. The Orthodox do not universally accept them as such. Even the Wikipedia article you tried to link admits as much)
Just like the Catholics, the Orthodox confirm that they have always used Deuterocanon:
For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which has delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, has undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seems that not always have all of these been considered on the same level as the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, both by Synods and by many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church. All of these we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.
You are welcome to dispute whether or not they belong in the canon, but please don't repeat the myth that they were added at Trent.
Yes, but until the Oxford Movement, the Anglican Church was very definite that it was indeed Protestant! The Quees's coronation oath binds her to support "the Protestant, Reformed faith, as it is practised in these isles", so, while some of Anglicanism has moved back towards Catholicism, it is a Protestant church.
Also, Trent di'nt so much add the Apocrypha as rule that it was definitely in. Like a lot of Trent it was about defining in opposition.
Also, Trent di'nt so much add the Apocrypha as rule that it was definitely in. Like a lot of Trent it was about defining in opposition.
Being in the vulgate does not make them part of the canon - especially if the translator / compiler differentiates between books of the canon and books of the church. I have many different translations of the bible some include it and some don't.
I have not claimed they were added to the Bible at Trent, but added officially to the Canon. The western Church had been using them more and more over the years without making it officially part of the Canon.
The 'reformation' at least in terms of England was about correcting 'errors' that they believed the Roman Catholic Church had fallen into. (Article XIX) One of those errors was giving undue weight to books not accepted as part of the Canon.
(Also remember that by Church of England law a copy of the 'Deuterocanon' has to be kept in the Church and available to the preacher.)
Sorry if this is derailing the thread, but I thought I'd might as well ask: what was Calvin's view of Revelation? Knowing that seems like it might considerably clarify what effect Luther's elimination of it might have on international Protestantism.
Philip
Donor
Calvin considered it canonical. However, he may have considered it less important as it is the only NT book he did not write a commentary for. OTOH, maybe he just ran out of time.
In terms of interpretation, he was a Historicist.
LOL I am a low church, evangelical, Charismatic who gets accused by some people of being a 'fundy' and others a closet Roman Catholic.... you could say I am doing something right....
Some of my friends who are priests are Anglo-Catholic, Liberal Feminists, Gay (but obedient to the House of Bishops position on human sexuality), and others are within my own churchmanship.
Unity in matters of salvation doctrine and acceptance of divergence in other matters
Orry...I, for one, have always enjoyed your posts and are glad you visit this forum and participate. It is good to have a "priestly" perspective on OTL history AND alternate history!
I believe the whole point of the book is the "revealing" of Jesus Christ. The locusts are a minor detail. If I understand the theology correctly, all of the major themes of the Old and New Testaments are resolved in this book. All the conflicts are ended and the book ends with the world a Utopia.
Whether you believe it or not, it is still quite compelling!
Snake Featherston
Banned
Where to me, the Good Ol' Southern Boy it sounds like John got into some magic mushrooms. Giant locusts, an army of lion-demons......not to mention that if anything of Roman times qualifies as Gorn, that's one book that definitely does.
Philip
Donor
You did, implicitly, as shown below.
You asserted that my statement about Luther redacting the Bible was incorrect and countered it by implicitly equating the Bible with the canon. If you did not wish to equate the two, then you need to retract your claim that Luther did not redact the Bible.
Further, if you want to draw a distinction between canon and Bible, and then claim that Trent officially added to the canon but not the Bible, can you cite an official declaration of the canon from before Trent? If Rome officially added to the canon, they must have had an official canon (apart from the Bible) without the Deuterocanon before Trent.
While we are at it, let's not forget the Council of Florence (1438-1445), which declared
[The Catholic Church] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, ... Tobit, Judith, Esther,.. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch,... Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; ... Apocalypse of John.
Seems to me that Trent didn't add anything that Florence hadn't already declared, other than to anathematize those who condemned any of the Scripture. I find it likely that Florence would have agreed with Trent concerning the anathema. The only difference is that at Florence, there was no Reformation to bring the matter to a head.
Last edited:
Flocculencio
Donor
Interesting thoughts- so perhaps much more schisming in the Protestant wing of Christianity...
In the interests of disclosure, my own denominational standpoint.
I'm culturally Nasrani (South Indian Syrian Christian), Reformed Orthodox on my dad's side (the Mar Thoma Syrian Church is orthodox but accepts a number of the tenets of the Reformation and is in communion with the Anglican church), Anglican (Church of South India) on my mum's side and personally leaning more towards Deism.
In the interests of disclosure, my own denominational standpoint.
I'm culturally Nasrani (South Indian Syrian Christian), Reformed Orthodox on my dad's side (the Mar Thoma Syrian Church is orthodox but accepts a number of the tenets of the Reformation and is in communion with the Anglican church), Anglican (Church of South India) on my mum's side and personally leaning more towards Deism.
Philip
Donor
Bring up Calvinism gets the gears in my head working. I think it would help prevent the Lutherans and Calvinists from moving together. OTL, despite Lutheran efforts to root out crypto-Calvinism, they did draw together. I get the impression that they were compressed by the Counter-Reformation on one side and the Radical Reformation on the other. Relatively fine points of theology were overlooked as the two traditions look for allies. The very visible difference of the two versions of the New Testaments (assuming only Lutherans throw away the Revelation (and James, Hebrews, etc)) could prevent this.
As has been pointed out, there is a good deal of eschatology left outside of Christ's parables.
It's also problematic to refer to "a Protestant worldview". Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and the Anabaptists certainly did not agree with Luther on all points. This would clearly affect Lutheran beliefs significantly, but is unlikely to affect Protestantism as a whole.
elder.wyrm
Banned
Hey, here's an odd idea: What if Luther making such a radical change to the Bible strangles at least his brand of Protestantism in its crib? Remember, many proto-protestant preachers and organizations popped up across the Christian world from the start of Iconoclasm onward, and none of them found purchase.
I think we're all being very convergent with assuming protestantism will still become what it did without Revelation. Perhaps that convergence is not justified?
Orry: As far as I understand, all 'Catholic' means is 'universal'. What, precisely, makes a church Catholic but not Roman Catholic?
I think we're all being very convergent with assuming protestantism will still become what it did without Revelation. Perhaps that convergence is not justified?
Orry: As far as I understand, all 'Catholic' means is 'universal'. What, precisely, makes a church Catholic but not Roman Catholic?
I'm not Orry
, but here is how I understand it:According to Catholic Theory there is the one universal (catholic) CHURCH founded by the apostels. Within these CHURCH there are severall smaller churches that follow different rites (of service, prayer,...) The roman-catholic church follows the roman rite others follow the ethopian, greek, russian, koptic,... rites.
To be part of the universal CHURCH a church has to:
1) be correct in their teachings about the central articels of the christian faith
2) descend form the apostels trough a continious chain of bishops ordinating each other
The roman-catholic church considers these requirements fullfiled by:
-itself
-the smaller oriental churches that follow romes lead
-the orthodox churches (again since ~1950-1960)
The Anglican church, the old catholic churches and maybe others claime to fullfil the requirements, but the roman catholic church used to deny this (not sure about recent developments).
The other protestant churches consider the theory, especially requirement 2) to be stupid.