Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?

Self | January 2011 | Aquinasfan

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?

If Luther did not act infallibly:

- How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?
- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?

If Luther acted infallibly:

- How do you know?

[bronx2]

Nice try but no cigar. Your assertion that "People risked their lives to buy and distribute" in no manner supports your fallacious contention that literacy was pervasive and not confined to the privileged few in the middle and dark ages. What objective historical support can you offer to categorically support your contention literacy in any universal sense existed during this period? None, since literacy beyond the upper crust did not exist in the middle and dark ages.

As for Tyndall , the theological flaws in his works are bandied about in most secular objective histories of this period and I would suggest you immerse your in the history of the period before making any more misinformed statements.

Of course we are all still waiting for an informed reply asked by the originator of this thread concerning the infallibility of Luther in defining what books belong in the bible. It is a sad commentary that ones of your ilk cannot and will not answer these legitimate questions since your position rests with an imperfect foundation and thus is logically incoherent

[blackpacific]

Your observation about the impossibility of a withdrawal of the Holy Spirit from the Church was the most important point made in this thread, and I thank you for representing the Catholic perspective so well.

I suppose if all of these FReepers were regular mass goers, taking in the abundance of Sacred Scripture that permeates the sacred liturgy and the liturgical year, there would be more communion and less bitter zeal.

As Chesterton put it, paraphrasing: there is one (solid) angle at which something might stand, but an infinitude of angles at which it will most certainly fall.

[Mr Rogers]

“Your assertion that “People risked their lives to buy and distribute” in no manner supports your fallacious contention that literacy was pervasive...”

Good point. People risked their lives to get something they couldn’t read...

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“What objective historical support can you offer to categorically support your contention literacy in any universal sense existed during this period?”

That wasn’t my contention. There were more than enough literate people to create a demand, and the Catholic Church chose deliberately not to fill it. They left people who could read hungering for the word of God, because they feared what would happen when commoners DID read God’s Word.

“As for Tyndall , the theological flaws in his works are bandied about in most secular objective histories of this period...”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one ever came up with any, which is why his work ultimately was the basis for the DR Catholic Bible...at least, the DR Bible most Catholics know, which used the KJV as its basis and then adjusted for Catholic theology.

“Of course we are all still waiting for an informed reply asked by the originator of this thread concerning the infallibility of Luther in defining what books belong in the bible.”

That has been answered at least 100 times on this thread. YOU choose to shut your eyes and not read the answers. But then, you shut your eyes to the Word of God, since your church theology is more important to you than the ‘breath of God’!

[boatbums]

So, which doctrines of the modern Roman Catholic Church have been drawn from the Deuterocanonical books, which were described even by early Church fathers as not divinely inspired, good for edification but not a source for doctrine? Praying for the dead? It’s so heated it’s got to have something to do with Mariology, imho.

Pssttt...the "P" word (Purgatory)

[boatbums]

Interesting that scripture is to be treasured over the word of Peter, whom you would claim was the first Pope.

Good point!

[RegulatorCountry]

Pssttt...the "P" word (Purgatory)

Well yes, there's that. It seems to me to be Sheol by another name, so I tend to be personally less disturbed by the concept than some are. There is enough disagreement to go around regarding just what is experienced after we give up the ghost, so to speak.

Soul sleep? Plenty believe that, with a scriptural basis. To be absent the body is to be present with the Lord? Plenty believe that too, with even more scriptural basis.

I accept the truth of the Bible, and so apparently there is a truth that we're not all grasping here. That truth might appear to be that we, ourselves are triune beings, body, soul and spirit. The soul is in the blood, according again to the Bible. It would cease to exist until resurrection, then. That is a plausible way of accommodating "soul sleep," because the soul and the spirit are not one and the same. The spirit returns to Him from whence it came, and so to be absent the body is to be present with the Lord it all holds together and the seeming conflict evaporates. Just food for thought, I don't know that I accept this fully myself, but I've heard and read it before and it makes more sense than the various disputed interpretations.

I honestly see no place for a Purgatory or some sort of continuation of Sheol there as a Christian myself, but I'm not going to get too caught up about that specifically, since there is room for disagreement and there is quite a bit of it, even among Protestants. What it leads to, however, is a problem. Praying for the dead, etc., which are clearly not supported in scripture.

[boatbums]

But the church could be of one heart and and mind in dedication, love and faith. And the basic unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3) is a supernatural phenomenon, the Jesus being in them and they in Him, which corresponds to Jn. 17:21, resulting from being born again, and transcends churches and is greater than disagreements, thank God.

Great observation. I firmly believe that when Jesus prayed for his disciples that they be one, he most assuredly prayed the will of God and God most assuredly answered his prayer by doing exactly that. We can only explain what goes on today among the various denominations as faults of mortal, fallible men BUT there IS unity of the spirit and unity of the faith in all who are among the spiritual body of Christ, no matter what external label they tack on their doorposts.

[boatbums]

The main headache I have concerning the doctrine of Purgatory is that it is a state/place where all but the mostest, holiest, perfectedest people go to be “cleansed” of the “temporal” residue of sins (venial, strictly) before they can be in the presence of Almighty God. Some are in need of a deeper cleaning than others, so their sentence can be longer. Some people can get paroled if they have others still on earth praying for them or doing certain things on their behalf (indulgences). Some even wear specific religious items (scapulars) in the hopes that if it's the right color, Mary will spring them early, on Saturdays only, though.

I believe, on the other hand, that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin - past, present and future. And that when a true Christian dies, he/she goes immediately into Heaven. No spiritual car-wash needed. We are found “in Christ” not having our own righteousness, but the righteousness of God in Christ (Phil. 3:9).

[daniel1212]

The issue with Bible literacy is that Rome could have been committed to Biblical literacy but was not, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661829/posts?page=352#352 while as for

How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?

- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?

The second presumes a negative answer to the first, and that sola scripture always requires a finished canon.

The first has been responded as referring to how writings were established as Scripture before Rome’s claims, and without an assuredly infallible interpreter, and by such means those who hold to SS have an assuredly infallible body of books by which to judge and establish truth by.

Regarding how Scripture was established, “its means of establishment was essentially the same as how a true man of God is established as such, by his/her unique qualities and supernatural effects, which conform to that which God prior established by the same means. The manna from heaven owes its enduring acceptance to what it is and thus does, more than church decrees, as valid and helpful as they can be.” See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661829/posts?page=314#314

The fact is that Rome herself did not have an infallibly defined canon before Trent, as documented in post 213 which you might have missed, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661829/posts?page=217#217, nor was Luther the first to exclude certain books. Yet she did consider whatever belonged to that class of revelation called Scripture to be authoritative, as do those who hold to SS, though Rome effectively makes oral tradition equal to it, and herself the supreme authority. And yet she has no final complete infallible canon of either tradition or infallible pronouncements.

While the canon has become settled after the same manner that O.T. books were considered Scripture by the time of Christ, sola scriptura essential means that whatever books are considered to be Scripture are the supreme authority on doctrine, Scripture being the only objective authority that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and thus assuredly infallible. In contrast, this is not provided for Rome’s formulaic (scope and content based) infallible magisterium, and its claim to be so effectively rests upon its own declaration to be infallible, when speaking according to its own infallible defined criteria.

We know that the early church did teach infallible truth in Acts 15 as it is recorded in Scripture, and was solidly based upon Scripture and scriptural attestation. But to extrapolate out of that a formulaic infallibility for whatever Rome decrees is another issue, and for the pope you must convince both the EOs as well as the Prots.

[Cronos]

That's a very interesting question on whether scientific breakthrough was purely or even lead by "Protestant nations"

Let's set the historical background first -- Europe in 1500. Population estimates taken from Internet Medieval Source book

Country	Population (millions)	Position as a nation-state
British Isles	3	Until the end of the 100 years wars, it seemed that England and France would merge under one king.  When the English lost and were thrown out of Western France, that led to the consolidation of both England and France as nation-states with language unity. However, Scotland still was independent and the Welsh chaffed under English rule. Ireland is reduced to warring clans.
France & low countries	12	See above.  France emerges as the strongest nation-state, but is really an empire with the northern, “French-speaking” population around Paris ruling over the southern l’Oil areas.  The French had recently destroyed and conquered the Duchy of Burgundy   The low countries (Belgium, Netherlands) are part of Spain and remain so until 1600.  These were once the capitals of the Holy Roman Empire (Bruges was once a center of trade) and hence have a larger population, more trade and commerce.   Belgium is part of Holland until 1830 even though it is completely Catholic.  In 1830 it fights and gets independence.
Germany & Scandanavia	7.3	No sense of nation-state until Napoleon and even then as nation-states like Hesse, Bavaria, etc. not as Germany (that only happens post WWI and more especially post WWII when Germans from Eastern Europe who have lived in EE for centuries are thrown out to Germany) Scandanavia has a stronger sense of nation-states, but the Swedes are in union with the Geats (Goths) and the Norwegians and Danes are in a union.   The strongest nation-state is Denmark.  Sweden is close but will not develop it until the 1600s.   Norway is still tribal as is Iceland and Finland Switzerland is still part of the Holy Roman Empire and has no sense of a nation-state but is a loose confederation that have nothing in common except that they band together against common enemies.  This will remain the state of Switzerland until Napoleon conquers Switzerland and creates the Helvetic Confederation (and then adds it to France!).  Post Napoleon, there is consolidation, but Switzerland still has a large civil war and only gets some semblance of a nation state in the late 1800s
Italy	7.3	No sense of nation-state, but strong city-states.  This is the most advanced “nation” in Western Europe, with an advanced financial system, manufacturing, strong in agriculture etc.  Only it does not have a central government, which puts it in a bad position compared to France and Spain who interfere in the city-states. Italy is not united until Garibaldi in the late 1800s.
Spain/Portugal	7	Strong nation-states formed in opposition to the Moors.  Not very advanced economically as this is still very agricultural.  However, it is tied to the economically stronger Arab world and with the discovery of gold in the Americas, it will be the most powerful state for the 1500s -1680s until the rise of Louis XIV France
Greece/Balkans	4.5	Under Ottoman rule, strong sense of nation-state, but no self-rule.   Highly advanced economies in Greece and Anatolia, arguably most advanced in all of Europe.   Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria are devastated by the Ottomans with many fleeing to the mountains.  Agriculture, culture etc. severely decline. They are hit on two sides – by the Turks militarily and, because the Turks have a “millet” system where people of one religion are grouped together and the millet for all of these is Orthodoxy, the Bulgarians, Romanians etc. are kept under Greek Phanariotes.  Hence their culture declines while Greek culture thrives.
Russia	6	Still expanding south and east, conquering the Emirates of Kazan etc. This is still a barbaric state and remains so until Peter the Great.  It has a sense of purpose, but it’s purpose is Christianity as they believe they are the last Christian state and have a holy duty to push back the Moslems.  Economic and scientific development is poor as the focus is on war and agriculture – life is too hard and land too vast to develop like Western Europe.
Poland/Lithuania	2	Consolidating nation-state, however, more based on a confederacy as there are 4 nations here: Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Belarusians) and Jews.  This mixed with 4 different religions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam (Lipka Tartars)) means a very tolerant state – tolerance levels of these are not reached by Western Europe until the late Victorian era.
Hungary	1.5	Strong nation state of the Magyars in Magyaristan (we English speakers give them an exonym of Hungary while they call themselves Magyar).  However, the Magyars (descendents of Finno-Ugaric warriors) are mostly ruling class and warriors, they import Saxons as merchants.  The native Romanians, Slovaks, etc are kept as serfs.  The state is one of war
Bohemia	1	Strong nation-state but at war with the Holy Roman Empire and Poland has given it a sense of insecurity.  It will eventually be absorbed by Austria-hungary.

The net effect is that before the reformation you essentially have only 5 viable "nation"-states. In orders of strenght of national identity:

1. England
2. Denmark
3. France
4. Spain
5. Portugal

The financial positions of these countries do NOT change as part of the reformation. They remain more or less the same until the mid-1700s. In fact, the economic position of Germany declines due to the 30 years war and even worse, the Peace of Westphalia

1683, Battle of Vienna and 1701-1714 there is the War of Spanish succession -- THAT changes everything in Europe.. At the end of this, Spain and Portugal are in decline, France is the most powerful state and will remain so until 1812. the Ottoman Turks are in precipituous decline, Russia is expanding south and east rapidly and modernizing fast from an Asian monarchy to a more European-style feudal state. Germany gets consolidated into 4 majory states: Austria, Bavaria, Brandenburg-Prussia and Hesse-Hanover. The Swedes are now extremely powerful and in 50 years invade Poland and Russia (the Deluge) -- this destroys the commonwealth and even though it reforms it is never the same under the Swedish Vasa kings of Poland nor the Saxon kings of Poland. THe commonwealth is irrevocably headed for 1791 when Poland is carved up by Prussia, Russia and Austria.

======================================================================================================================================================

Next, urbanization in Europe in 1800

As you can see, the heaviest urbanization has been in the triangle formed by London, Paris and Amsterdam

======================================================================================================================================================

Scientific innovation --> I couldn't find an online map for this, but there are books available and there should be something online. however, I need to figure out the right google-words!

Anyway, scientific innovations leading the industrial revolution are exclusively found in these 2 countries:

England (right from the north to the south)
1. France (mostly in the north)

England is Anglican, France is Catholic. Germany is Lutheran and Catholic (60-40) and the Dutch republic is reformed. The latter two have their scientific developments but in sheer quantity they lag behind England and France. Scandanavia is Lutheran and has fewer scientific developments and mostly in Sweden or Denmark i.e. in the populated states). Eastern Europe and southern Europe are in the throes of war or recovering from their declines as powerful entites, so the developments are least over here.

So, the scientific developments are not exclusively any type of Protestant -- if anything, the industrial revolution is led by High-Church Anglican Britain and Catholic France.

======================================================================================================================================================
But does religion have a role to play in this?
======================================================================================================================================================

I would argue yes in the case of Anglicanism -- it is far less rigid in it's structure than either the CAtholic countries OR the Lutheran/Reformed state countries. While all the countries had state religions, Anglicanism was the most "flexible" -- you had near Catholics in the High-Church Anglicans and reformed in the "Low Church Anglicans", so religion did play a factor because Anglicanism was flexible compared to Catholicism, Calvinism or Lutheranism -- but what were the other factors?

The other factors are:

• Population -- by the late 1700s, France is the most populous country in all of Europe and the richest and it has the second strongest sense of "self"
• England is heavily populated -- by the late 1700s it has to import foodgrains as it can no longer feed itself. It is rich and getting richer due to it's gains in north america and India (1756 Battle of Plassey where it threw out the French to get exclusive trading rights -- note, the british Indian Empire had still not formed, but the Brits controlled Indian trade). England has a STRONG sense of who is it, a very strong 'nation-state' identity that other states envy and has built up a mythology about itself which is important in building a sense of self
• Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. have stable, lower populations that resemble the populations of 1500, so no growth due to war etc. the Netherlands had a growing population but then they lost the Anglo-Dutch wars (how we got the disparaging terms in English like "go Dutch" etc) and lost a lost of national self-confidence

Which brings me to the second fact -- war and peace. England and France mostly fight on the periphery or on overseas territories. They are not fighting like Spain or Eastern Europe or Germany on their homelands. This means that the home populations have the peace to focus on science and economy.

Finally, the last factor -- success breeds success. By the Victorian era, the momentum of scientific discovery in England and France meant that smart people were encouraged to come to these countries as they knew they'd get opportunities. It's the same reason why silicon valley is the centre of IT research -- as we reach a critical mass of smart folks, this mass expands itself, absorbing smart people from elsewhere --> on a side note, check how many American nobel laureates were born outside the US and see how the key factor affecting our scientific growth is that we no longer have the super-critical mass of smart folks we once had

[daniel1212]

See 369. praise God and good night/morning.

[daniel1212]

America may have some place in there, but in if you are into correlations, you’all (is that how you say it) may find this interesting, w/ many factors to consider. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html

[Cronos]

Editor-surveyor:

The Nicean creed contains the obvious lie: “We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins.”

Baptism does not give remission of sin. Baptism is an obedient affirmation of the saving blood of Christ by the believer. One must already be saved, or the ‘baptism’ is without meaning.

Thank you for responding e-s. Do you, however, affirm the Christological position in the earlier part of the Creed (God from God, light from light, true God from True God etc.) and the description of the Trinity in the earlier part of the Creed?

And, Mama -- do you agree with the tenets of the Nicene Creed, please?

[Cronos]

True, however, I meant to put the caveat that I was focussing purely on Europe (including European Russia and Turkey). In any case, the focus was on economic development, not political affiliations.

With respect to economic and scientific innovations in the Americans, how much percentage is due to Jews? Or Orthodox? yes, "Protestants" will be a large %, but how many are Anglicans, Baptists-Congregationalists, Lutherans-Reformed (clubbing them together in the US), Catholics? I don't know about the split by various branches of Western Christianity, but I can be sure that the Jewish representation in scientific discovery will be far larger than their population percentages.

[Cronos]

True, however, I meant to put the caveat that I was focussing purely on Europe (including European Russia and Turkey). In any case, the focus was on economic development, not political affiliations.

With respect to economic and scientific innovations in the Americans, how much percentage is due to Jews? Or Orthodox? yes, "Protestants" will be a large %, but how many are Anglicans, Baptists-Congregationalists, Lutherans-Reformed (clubbing them together in the US), Catholics? I don't know about the split by various branches of Western Christianity, but I can be sure that the Jewish representation in scientific discovery will be far larger than their population percentages.

This would signify my point that:

1. Religion played a role in the sense of whether it was a state-religion (most of Europe) or not (America) and whether the religion was flexible for different viewpoints (Anglicanism and maybe Judaism) or not (in Europe Catholicism, Calvinism, Lutheranism etc.)
2. Critical mass of "smart folks" and innovation breeds more scientific and economic discoveries. This is what happened in Sumeria, in Harappa, in Magadha, in ancient Greece, in the medieval Italian city-states, in the S-E of England and N-W of France and in the N-E of the US and Southern California

[Cronos]

In the larger historical sense, did the Reformation, "help" Europe? That's a moot point as most of what could have or not have happened is sheer speculation.

We cannot compare between two "nations" like say Denmark and Portugal as there are a number of other factors to consider (population, agriculture, empire, trade partners, peace etc.), but we can compare between two sections of one "nation" with the best cases being England and "Germania" i.e. the Holy Roman Empire.

in England, the developments were primarily in two places: S-E England and around Manchester-Liverpool. Yet there were few to no innovations in Cornwall, in York, in the areas bordering Wales or in the areas between York and Kent. What was the differentiating factor? Urbanization -- a concentrated mass of people in the London conglomeration (London was the most populated city in the world by 1800, and Manchester was close behind) and the momentum of scientific discoveries. The entire country was Anglican, more or less and mostly the same race (Cornwall being the exception as it was and is Celtic rather than Germanic)

Germany -- the scientific developments are evenly spread across the Catholic south, Bavaria, Schwabia and the Protestant north. In fact, the TRUE differentiator is on whether the Germanic state/kingdom/electoral province was ruled by a rigid elector/prince or had a far-off ruler. In fact, the prince-bishoprics of Cologne, Basel, Brandenburg, Constance etc. had a disproportionate development in comparison to the smaller Germanic states that had basically despots.

The secret seems to be a freer government -- which was NOT there in either Lutheran strong states like Hesse or Denmark or Catholic strong states like Spain or Portugal.

This is why the comparatively chaotic country of the USA started to dominate by the end of the 1800s

[Cronos]

Mr Rogers --> common men not getting their hands on scripture
Jvette --> it is ridiculous to say that the Church avoids scripture in light of the considerable effort she had put forth for its preservation
Mr Rogers --> hid scripture, and didn’t want it to get into the hands of common men

Mr. Rogers, I dispute your statement. Let's view it in light of history:
Literacy levels

Before the 1400's, the vast majority of people in Europe were illiterate as most people never had the opportunity to learn to read because there were few schools and books. Although some people at every level of society could read, most literate people belonged to the upper classes.

In the 1440's, the German printer Johannes Gutenberg became the first European to print a book from movable type. As a result, reading material was eventually mass-produced in Europe and inexpensive books became more widely available. One of the first books printed in Europe was the Bible. During the 1500's, the Protestant Reformation and Roman Catholic Counter Reformation spurred people's desire to read the Bible for themselves.

The literacy rate in Europe can be judged by the literacy rate in France in 1700 which was just 30%. From wikipedia

In 12th and 13th century England, the ability to read a particular passage from the Bible entitled a common law defendant to the so-called benefit of clergy provision, which entitled a person to be tried before an ecclesiastical court, where sentences were more lenient, instead of a secular one, where hanging was a likely sentence. This opened the door to literate lay defendants also claiming the right to the benefit of clergy provision, and - because the Biblical passage used for the literacy test was invariably Psalm 51 (Miserere mei, Deus... - "O God, have mercy upon me...") - an illiterate person who had memorized the appropriate verse could also claim the benefit of clergy provision.[23]

As Roman authority disappeared in the west, cities, literacy, trading networks and urban infrastructure declined. Where civic functions and infrastructure were maintained, it was mainly by the Christian Church. Augustine of Hippo is an example of one bishop who became a capable civic administrator.

Saint Benedict wrote the definitive Rule for western monasticism during the 6th century, detailing the administrative and spiritual responsibilities of a community of monks led by an abbot.[9] The style of monasticism based upon the Benedictine Rule spread widely rapidly across Europe, replacing small clusters of cenobites. Monks and monasteries had a deep effect upon the religious and political life of the Early Middle Ages, in various cases acting as land trusts for powerful families, centres of propaganda and royal support in newly conquered regions, bases for mission, and proselytization. They were the main outposts of education and literacy.

From here

The center of life throughout Europe in the Middle Ages was the Roman Catholic Church. For the better part of the period the church was the most powerful institution in all of Europe and the only one to span the separate kingdoms. The church was the keeper of knowledge and learning, maintaining books and literacy at a time when most people could not read

Or the best article I've read is from sarah woodbury

What it means to be literate is not an absolute standard even now. This was even more true in the Middle Ages when the majority of the population couldn’t read at all, a certain percentage could read and not write, and the only way to be ‘literate’ at the time was if a person could read Latin. Literacy in other languages didn’t count.

“A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages“makes the argument that literacy in England began increasing starting in 1100, after which all the kings were literate in Latin and French, although there was again a difference between reading and writing. By 1500, he estimates the literacy among males still did not exceed 10-25%.

During the early centuries of Christianity, the world of Latin literacy changed from one where a significant percentage of the population was literate and all governmental and business affairs were carried out in writing, to one where written literacy shrank to occupy the enclaves of Christianity which spread like little islands in non-literate barbarian cultures and select writing offices of the new barbarian royalty. These latter were most likely in no way separate from the monasteries, but a specialised extension of their literate functions.

Note this -- By 1500, he estimates the literacy among males in England still did not exceed 10-25%. --> we can extrapolate that to all of Europe and settle on say 15% for all of Northern Europe (the main centres of learning were still in Italy). The fact is that most didn't read the Bible because most (85%) did not know how to read and it didn't really matter as books were not available (no printing press) or reasonably priced (since they were copied by hand they cost more than a few years of labor)

Secondly, most of those 15% who COULD read and write did so in Latin, so reading the Latin Vulgate was pretty do-able for the literates in Europe

========================================================

Between the fall of W Roman Empire 430 and the 1500s the division wasn't between those who could read Latin and those who couldn't, but between those who could read Latin and those who couldn't read at all.

As a result of widespread illiteracy, the masses had to learn biblical truths in other ways, and these were richly provided by the Church. Monks and priests taught Bible stories. Sacred dramas, paintings, statues, frescoes, and stained glass windows were used as were passion plays.

Far from trying to keep the Bible from the laity, the Catholic Church used every means at its disposal to educate the faithful in the truths of Holy Writ.

There were vernacular translations of scripture too --> you can see this in the preface of the 1611 Authorized Version (the King James Version), which says that "to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England [or others] . . . but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation."

St. Thomas More wrote in the sixteenth century that "the whole Bible was long before his [Wycliffe's] day, by virtuous and well-learned men, translated into the English tongue; and by good and godly people, and with devotion and soberness, well and reverently read." The Venerable Bede died in 735 as he was finishing the translation of the Gospel of St. John. A manuscript containing a complete Anglo-Saxon interlinear translation of the Book of Psalms, dating from 825, is still preserved in what is known as the Vespasian Psalter.

King Alfred the Great also undertook the work of translating the psalms into the vernacular English of his time. The abbot Aelfric about 990 translated many parts of both the Old and the New Testaments into English.

Misuse of the sacred text by the Albigensians in France, by the Lollards in England, by the Hussites in Bohemia, and by other heretics compelled the Church to adopt a conservative attitude as we see in the history of early first century heresies

[Cronos]

Jvette, Mr Rogers, one point our friends miss is that a lot of what Boettner et al say is half-truths out of context. For example
The Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by [Pope] Gregory I [A.D.] 600

This neglects the fact that Latin was used in worship far earlier than 600

The Church spread from the Greek-speaking East to the Latin-speaking West (for example, to Rome) during apostolic times. One of Paul’s letters was written to the Christians in Rome. More than one of his letters was written from Rome. And there were Christians in Caesar’s household in Paul’s day (Phil. 4:22). Worship, not surprisingly, was undertaken in the vernacular language, which was Greek in much of the East and Latin in the West (though at the beginning, Greek was used even in the West because it was then the lingua franca of the Roman Empire).

Or even "Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia . . . [A.D.] 1229."

Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.

The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.

[Cronos]

The Tynsdale version was not the basis for the KJV.

The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. In addition, later scholars have detected an influence on the Authorized Version from the translations of Taverner's Bible and the New Testament of the Douay-Rheims Bible.

The Douay-Rheims was completed in 1609, making it older than the KJV, which was not published until 1611. The fact that the Rheims New Testament was published in 1582 meant that it appeared almost thirty years before the KJV

in preparing the KJV, the translators made use of the Douay New Testament and adopted many of its readings in preference to those of other English editions. The KJV in many places thus bears a Douay "slant" absent from prior translations.

King James Onlyists frequently argue that the KJV is superior because it is based on the Textus Receptus (translation by Erasmus, a Catholic monk), yet it also took bits from the D-R which is based on the Latin Vulgate.

The fact is that Bible versions on both sides of the confessional divide influence each other. This is because serious translators don’t read only works done by one side. Sometimes one "side" came up with a way of better capturing what’s written in the original language, and when that happens the serious translator wants to know about it, and edit his translation. So just as the original Douay came to influence the KJV, the KJV itself came to influence the Douay-Rheims.

[Cronos]

The process of defining canon begins with the heretic Marcion, who decided the Old Testament didn’t belong in the Bible as he felt that the OT God was not the same as the God described by Christ. In fact, to a cursory reading of the Bible, it can seem that way -- look at the descriptions of the OT God -- rules, attack these folks, destroy this and that and God as described in the NT, a God of love.

Marcion edited out sections of the Gospel of Luke and of Paul’s epistles he felt Judaism had influenced. He also decided the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s letters were the only sacred texts