Calvin thinks this prayer “savors of barbarity!”

John Calvin writes to some Polish Protestants:

“Whatever virulent tongues may bluster, in this faith it will always be safe to acquiesce; as also it will be desirable to remove the occasion for many perplexing questions, and to desist from forms of expression either too uncouth, or too far removed from the usage of Scripture. The common prayer is become trite –

‘Holy Trinity, one God, Pity us,’

“does not please me, and altogether savors of barbarity. I should therefore be unwilling for you to dispute about empty trifles; only let that instruction which I gave you concerning three persons in one essence, remain pure.”

Ad Fratres Polonos (To the Polish Brethren), 1563 A. D.

Calvin’s Latin

“Quidquid blaterent virulentao linguae, in hac fide acquiescere semper tutum erit; sicuti utile quoque spinosis multis quaestionibus ansam praecidere, simulque supersedere a formulis loquendi vel nimium asperis, vel a scripturae usu remotis. Precatio vulgo trita -

‘Sancta trinitas unus Deus miserere nostri,’

“mihi non placet, ac omnino barbariem sapit. Nolem igitur vos de rebum supervacuis litigare, modo illibatum maneat quod dixi de tribus in una essentia personis.”

Calvin, Opera, (1870), vol. 9, pp. 647-648. Vol. 37 of the Corpus Reformatorum.

I originally found this curious comment here:

The Monthly repository of theology and general literature, 1826, pp. 621-622.

(For a little more background on Calvin’s letters to the Protestants in Poland and their disputes with Unitarians such as Francesco Stancaro (1501-1574), see this.)

Now I find Calvin’s comment about the prayer odd to say the least. Anyone else think the same?

That’s his opinion…and you know what opnions are like.

Everybody’s got one and we all know what they are full of.

Right on, I believe very little of any think old Jon had to say

But what possible reason might Calvin have had for objecting to this prayer, “Holy Trinity, one God, Pity us?”

I just find it astonishing that Calvin, supposedly a Trinitarian, could refer to this simple and beautiful prayer as “trite,” and what is far worse, even barbarous!!

It would be very interesting to know if any Calvinist’s today think as Calvin did!


“And the holy Cyprian indeed, now that the corruptible body no longer presses down the soul, nor the earthly tabernacle presses down the mind that muses upon many things, [Wisdom 9:15] sees with greater clearness that truth to which his charity made him deserving to attain. May he therefore help us by his prayers…”

St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book 7, ch. 1.

Does barbaries refer to the doctrine behind the prayer, or the Latinity ?

This link is interesting, such as it is:
[LIST]
*]http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DB%3Aentry+group%3D4%3Aentry%3Dbarba%5Eri%5Ea
[/LIST]

The Divine Mercy Chaplet and the Litany of Humility must have him spinning in his grave.

Calvin is writing to a group of Polish Unitarians who hold that God is one person. His saying that the prayer is trite has to do with his teaching them that if they hold to one person of God then to pray for mercy in the common prayer-

Holy Trinity, One God, have pity on us

is trite since the theology of the prayer is non-trinitarian.

God Bless,

Ray

But the Trinity is One God. I don’t think the prayers non-trinitarian as it professes it in its first part.

John Calvin was an extreme trinitarian. He hated 'Oneness" Christians. He burned one at the stake I believe(Severus I think, because he denied the Trinity also)

That does not appear to be what he is saying. He is very confusing. Perhaps the translation is faulty?

Would it matter?

Of course, to do so would violate, I should think, Calvin & co.'s own idiotic rules! LOL.

“In anyone sings songs that are unworthily, dissolute or outrageous, or spin wildly round in the dance, or the like, he is to be imprisoned for three days, and then sent to the Consistory.”
books.google.com/books?id=bJEYXOnn6OgC&pg=PA81&dq=%22or+spin+wildly+round+in+the+dance%22&lr=

In what way is the prayer non-trinitarian?

Yes, Calvin and his fellow heretics burned Servetus. But Calvin was a theological ignoramus who, like his fellow theological ignoramuses – Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer et al - had not as shred of authority to correct error, let alone inflict even the least sort of punishment on Servetus - or anyone else! Unfortunately however, that minor detail didn’t detour them in the least! They just simply threatened and persecuted all who wouldn’t bow to their decrees. Here’s but one example of the fierce hatred that motivated these men:

Luther, in his Table Talk (Ger. Tischreden), is quoted as saying:

“If I had all the Franciscan monks together in one house, I would set the house on fire.
For the kernel is gone from the monks, only the chaff is still at hand. So into the fire with them!” And what of that? The religious “are not worth being called human beings; they should not so much as be called swine!”

In Luther and Lutherdom, Heinrich Denifle, p 381,
img191.imageshack.us/img191/3091/deniflepp3803810001.jpg

scribd.com/doc/16071007/Luther-and-Lutherdom-H-Denifle-Introduction-pp-128

Luther’s Latin (in part):

“Si ego omnes monachis Franciscanos haberem in unis aedibus, [ignem] subjicerem, ut Strocola, fecit mendicis.”

Tischreden in der mathesischen Sammlung Aus einer Handschrift der Leipziger Stadtbibliothek, Martin Luther, Ernst Kroker, Johann Mathesius, No. 305, p. 180.
books.google.com/books?id=mmYYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Tischreden+in+der+mathesischen+Sammlung%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0#PPA180,M1

Si ego omnes monachos Franciscanos haberem in unis
books.google.com/books?lr=&um=1&q=%22Franciscanos+haberem%22&btnG=Search+Books

How very sad. These men had talent and abilities to be sure - but they lacked knowledge and understanding! And their pride (and yes, their lust), prevented them from displacing their ignorance and error with knowledge and truth.

Well, anyway, if you’re up for it, you might also want to read: Did Calvin Murder Servetus by Stanford Rives. ISBN 1439208689

books.google.com/books?id=MlPrYQ5srKEC&pg=PP1&dq=%22did+calvin+murder+servetus%22&lr=

No, the translation is fine – at least it is adequate. See for yourself.
ablemedia.com/ctcweb/showcase/wordsonline.html

If you’re still unsure, however, you can have a translation service check it for you. Perhaps you might want to consider using these folks:

Quintus’ Latin Translations

[quote=raumzeitmc2;5368561
]

Feel free to disagree with them, but stop ranting like that. Using derogatives does not exactly make you look all that intelligent, and it does not do anything for the point you want to make (other than maybe causing intelligent people to ignore you.)
I don’t know about Calvin, I honestly can’t remember, but Luther was a Doctor in Theology at the University at Wittenberg. Therefore, the RC church didn’t seem to agree with you in your assesment that he was a “theological ignoramus”. And at no part of the…mayhem that ensued was Luthers status as a skilled theologian thrown into doubt. He was considered a heretic, yes, but not a “theological ignoramus”.

[quote=raumzeitmc2;5368561They just simply threatened and persecuted all who wouldn’t bow to their decrees.
[/QUOTE]

Hmmmmm…does that behavior remind you of another organization?..:whistle:
[/quote]

[/quote]

=raumzeitmc2;5368561]

But Calvin was a theological ignoramus who, like his fellow theological ignoramuses – Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer et al - had not as shred of authority to correct error, let alone inflict even the least sort of punishment on Servetus - or anyone else!

Luther, in his Table_talk_(literature)"]Table Talk

(Ger. Tischreden), is quoted as saying:

In Luther and Lutherdom, **Heinrich Denifle, p 381, **img191.imageshack.us/img191/3091/deniflepp3803810001.jpg

Your continued use of the discredited (even by Catholics) Denifle, and Table Talk, which as you know is not a verifiable source, makes it appear that all you wish to do is spread division and hostility. Even if everything you say were true, and were - perish the thought :rolleyes: - displayed in the context of the time, it does not elevate dialogue or foster Christian charity and love. I’d like to think that this fact had, somehow, escaped you when you posted.

Jon

Oops my bad,

when I said the prayer is non-trinitarian I meant the one praying does not hold to a trinitarian theology and therefore the notion of thinking they were OK holds no water because we can say anything we want, but if we fail to worship God according to Spirit and truth then all the praying in the world won’t matter.

God Bless,

Ray

Listen my friends, I’m really sorry if my comments sounded a little harsh, and I hope you’ll forgive me. But calling the reformers ignoramuses (theologically) is not ranting, nor is it derogatory – if it actually happens to be true. And I believe it is true.

I mean, how else describe those who, for example, taught that the gospel had been “lost” for centuries, only to have been “rediscovered” by themselves?!! Such a statement is absurd on the face of it! And quite frankly, I don’t know how else to describe such a statement other than to say that it really is the clear mark of an ignoramus! It’s on the level of comments by another well known ignoramus – Joseph Smith!

Honestly, I don’t see how any thinking person with even a modicum of Scriptural and historical knowledge could buy into such nonsense.

As for ranting, well, what do you call one who speaks of *burning *Franciscan monks for heaven’s sake??!!

“If I had all the Franciscan monks together in one house, I would set the house on fire. For the kernel is gone from the monks, only the chaff is still at hand. So into the fire with them!”

Isn’t it rather Luther who’s doing the ranting here? And how does this make him look intelligent? And there are countless other instances of this kind violent talk sprinkled throughout his writings.

I don’t know about Calvin, I honestly can’t remember, but Luther was a Doctor in Theology at the University at Wittenberg. Therefore, the RC church didn’t seem to agree with you in your assesment that he was a “theological ignoramus”. And at no part of the…mayhem that ensued was Luthers status as a skilled theologian thrown into doubt. He was considered a heretic, yes, but not a “theological ignoramus”.

That Luther may have been some sort of “Doctor” is completely beside the point. Many heretics started out educated enough, and orthodox enough, but then, sadly, for various reasons, fell away from the truth. Simply having a doctorate therefore is hardly a guarantee of orthodoxy. Nor is high intelligence!

The tragedy is that many (perhaps most?) heretics have been well educated individuals with ample intellectual abilities, just as Augustine tells us:

“A sharp mind is a great good, but still the sort that the good can use well and the bad badly; it’s not yet a good by which you can become good. All the perversities of all errors, all sects, preaching deviant morals and ungodliness, have had as their authors* men of great brilliance*. They weren’t the brain-children of any sort of men, they were started by men of the sharpest intelligence.”

Sermon 374:5:2,
Part III - Sermons. Volume 11: Newly Discovered Sermons, ISBN 1565481038, pp. 394-395.

books.google.com/books?id=6TswAAAAYAAJ&q=%22had+as+their+authors+men+of+great+brilliance%22&dq=%22had+as+their+authors+men+of+great+brilliance%22&lr=&pgis=1

So even if we grant the reformers were reasonably well educated and perhaps even highly intelligent, their pride and sensuality led them, in theological matters, to become ignoramuses (“Professing themselves to be wise, they *became *fools.” Rom. 1:22). Again, to cite but one proof of this, they held to this inane notion that the gospel had been “lost” for centuries!

Hmmmmm…does that behavior remind you of another organization?

And you are implying that there is some analog between the wanton murder of priests, and the rape and murder of nuns by bands of Calvinist’s and Lutherans, and the Church’s defense against these same unspeakable fiends?

No, Denifle has not been “discredited;” if anything, it is the reformers who have been discredited. But granted, some things in Denifle may need more qualification, and certainly his tone was pretty harsh at times, nevertheless, there are still many things which he brought to light which are as true and valid now as they were when his book first appeared.

As for Luther’s *Table Talk *not being a reliable source, well, perhaps it’s true that there may be some passages which are questionable, but the passage I cited above is perfectly in keeping with many the many other violent statements of Luther towards Catholics.

Perhaps you should read the editor’s introduction to Luther’s Table Talk (vol. 54, Luther’s Works). You’ll see that there’s nothing in it anywhere which suggests that the Table Talk has been discredited.

studylutherstabletalk.blogspot.com/

Finally, I have absolutely no desire to “spread division and hostility.” My only desire is for the truth to be made known.

Peace now, and may God bless.

=raumzeitmc2;5372722]Listen my friends, I’m really sorry if my comments sounded a little harsh,

With the things you’ve written before, excuse me if I’m reluctant to believe your “sorry” sincere.

and I hope you’ll forgive me. But calling the reformers ignoramuses (theologically) is not ranting, nor is it derogatory – if it actually happens to be true. And I believe it is true.

Supports my reluctance.

Finally, I have absolutely no desire to “spread division and hostility.” My only desire is for the truth to be made known.

Continued reluctance, based on your track record. Maybe we’ll talk again when you move on to the 21st century, and take on the spirit of ecumenism championed by your Church. For now, I have no time for your Jack Chick/Father O’Hare style of apologetics.

Jon

Peace now, and may God bless.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.