Posted on 08/07/2012 2:39:20 PM PDT by NYer
They were folks killed by the hands of the Catholic Church for daring to disobey them.
"Actually none of them were killed by the Catholic Church."
They were killed by members of the Catholic Church who were taught by their clergy.
You wrote:
“I am not going to do a research paper for you,”
I can barely stop laughing at the very idea of that.
“you know the Bible was forbidden to be translated/owned/read at various time and in various places by the RC Church,”
False. Also, when you write “you know” you’re doing what’s called “mind reading”. “Mind reading” is considered a form of “making it personal” by the moderators.
“which was wrong. I acknowledge they no longer do that, but you don’t want to give me credit for that acknowledgement,”
Why would I give you credit for being wrong about history in saying the Church did what it never did?
“just to accuse me of making it up because it makes you (justifiably) uncomfortable. Have some Council of Toulouse, I could do this all day, but here:”
Toulouse is not the Catholic Church. It is a region in France and its council was only regional and in no way spoke for the Catholic Church in law, theology, or practice outside of Toulouse. Thus, no matter what the Council of Toulouse decided it had no effect upon, and did not represent, the whole Catholic Church. That’s just a fact. Also, the council was acting as it did because of the depredations of Albigensians. They used a translation of the Bible which they corrupted with their teachings. Thus, the Bible itself, and even the Bible in the vernacular, was actually never banned by the Catholic Church. Banning an Albigensian translation - which was clearly the intent - was not a banning of the Bible. Restricting translations for a short time - and that’s what happened in Toulouse - and there’s no evidence it was even stringently enforced - is simply not evidnece of a general banning of the Bible. If Baptists said they wanted no Baptist to use the NWT, it would not be a banning of the Bible because the NWT is corrupted scripture used by Christ deniers (just like the Albigensians did).
“As for innocent infants, yes, they do not commit actual sin, so far as I can detect, but they have original sin, and are thus sadly sinners, otherwise why baptize them? Of course they are sinners, if only by birth.”
There are two problems here. For one thing you said: “Only Jesus never sinned.” Thus, you implied everyone sins, but now you’re contradicting yourself and saying babies don’t sin. Which is? Were you wrong the first time or now? Make up your mind. Also, do you believe baptism washes away sin? That’s what you’re implying when you wrote: “otherwise why baptize them?” So, do you believe baptism washes away sin?
“The church itself can indeed sin, it is a group of people, just like nations can sin and etc.”
So you’re saying the Bride has spot and wrinkle despite what the Bible says? Of course you are. Leave it to a Protestant anti-Catholic to contradict the Bible.
“I would love to believe that, but, your vitriol particularly against the very holy martyrs calls that into question.”
I have not posted any vitriol against any martyr - EVER. I do not confuse heretics and schismatics were martyrs.
You apparently do.
Oh, relax. If what I brought didn't include the quote you were referencing, then WHAT QUOTE are you talking about?
As far as I could tell, the "Trent" reference/quote made by Persevero included;
That was made in #38, which you later seemed to attribute to #31, which would be an impossibility, since #31 was a post made by...wait for it....yourself.
Now the above [in teal color] is found within what I posted to you. If there be some OTHER quote attributed to the Council of Trent, brought here by Persevero, then I'll confess to having missed it. Could you point it out to me?
I have searched this thread, and saw no other thing from Persevero presented as a quote from "Trent". You called it a lie. I PROVED OTHERWISE. Should I re-post and highlight that one sentence from the larger context portion, so that you may see it?
I'm not lying at all. I do wish you would stop with the ceaseless accusations.
What EXACTLY was the Persevero statement which he himself attributed to "Trent"?With yourself having referenced post #31, I went there looking for a Trent reference, found it was one of your own comments, went looking at adjacent posts, found #38.
This may take some time on your own part, but at least I gave you the post #'s to begin your own search with.
otherwise, re-tracing the conversation you had with Persevero, leads nowhere else but to his quote in #38.
Don't you remember it? You replied to it with a lengthy post quite difficult to read due to lack of paragraphs. In that post you apparently quoted a priest but failed to give a source reference or link.
>>>>I assure you I have no personal acrimony towards you<<<<
I don’t believe you do, nor did I accuse you of such. The point is that the post I responded to was a bit of a poke to the hornet’s nest that was unnecessary to the thread and the debate.
The article was NOT a critique of Luther but rather an interesting read on a priest who lived at the same time and yet went a different direction than Luther.
Many Catholics, including me, are unaware of this saint and what he did. That’s all and the reference to Luther was merely one meant to inform the reader of the time in which he lived.
Again, I have no desire to rehash or jump into the debate you are having with others regarding Foxe. I have only a cursory knowledge of Foxe and that was not my intent in responding.
You earlier post #60, from the same source (those meddlesome Jesuits, hehheh...) listed part III.
In post # 157 I brought the next, part IV where the quote can honestly be found, if not exactly word-for-word sourced.
As to the slight differences in wording, I can only guess it may be due to differing translations from what I assume was originally written up in Italian, and possibly French, at the same time.
Now our lovable little buddy vladi, posted in response to your #60 which contained part III;
Looking at part IV, what do we see, but the 'quote' apparently in question is not 'bogus' in the least?
from part IV;
Iscool, was there any other quote you were trying to assist someone here on this thread with, other than what Persevero brought, and is above?
You wrote:
“Oh, relax. If what I brought didn’t include the quote you were referencing, then WHAT QUOTE are you talking about?”
The one that was posted. If you don’t even know what quote was in question, then why would you think even for a second that you were ready for this discussion. Go back and read the thread. Find the false, phony, made-up quote which was falsely ascribed to Trent.
“I have searched this thread, and saw no other thing from Persevero presented as a quote from “Trent”. You called it a lie. I PROVED OTHERWISE. Should I re-post and highlight that one sentence from the larger context portion, so that you may see it?”
False. It was a lie. There is no such quote from Trent. What you posted was not the quote originally passed off as being from Trent. I realize facts don’t matter to some people, but they do matter to me. The simple fact is that a phony, made up quote was falsely ascribed to Trent. Nothing you can post or highlight will change that fact. The original quote ascribed to Trent was a lie. Plain and simple.
By the way...
1) Did you notice “that book” in the original false quote?
2) Did you notice all the context - which says “the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing”? Thus, scriptures were never banned by Trent. Thus, “that book” was never banned.
This was the text from Persevero's post #38 WRT the Bible and Trent:
“The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: “That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary.” “
As Iscool as well as BlueDragon have shown, that EXACT phrase came from a document called "TEN RULES CONCERNING PROHIBITED BOOKS DRAWN UP BY THE FATHERS CHOSEN BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND APPROVED BY POPE PIUS". In the link from Fordham University, The Jesuit University of New York http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp, the phrase is found at rule IV and the rule reads:
I don't think quibbling over a slight translation difference from what Persevero said and the rule should matter since it IS saying the same thing and it IS speaking about the translations of the Bible (Sacred Books) as well as other writings of those deemed "heretics". In Rule V, we read concerning the Bible:
The final paragraph of this document leaves no room for doubt as to what they were trying to do. It ends with:
It is no wonder people got the impression reading the Bible was a no-no.
As to this document and its connection to Trent, you simply need to go to the documents of the Council of Trent to read that there WERE "fathers" specifically chosen by the Council to develop such a list. In fact, that directive can be found under the Eighteenth Session http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct18.html:
This should be adequate, more than adequate really, to show that the initial statement was NOT a lie, was NOT an anti-Catholic phony, false, made-up quote falsely ascribed to Trent and that you owe a few people apologies for accusing them of such. I won't hold my breathe, though.
I already did that. Brought it, named the exact post, etc.
Ok. One more time. What was the quote, if not what I myself already went to all the effort to dig up from this thread?
First things first;
If there is some OTHer than what was presented in post # 38, on this thread, what was it, and where?
Thank you boatbums, very helpful.
I was pretty sure I wasn’t crazy. . .
Thank you, jvette, glad to have a FRiend on the board.
Vladimer, you have drunk so much kool aid.
Ok.
“There are two problems here. For one thing you said: “Only Jesus never sinned.” Thus, you implied everyone sins, but now you’re contradicting yourself and saying babies don’t sin. Which is”
It is the Bible which says ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He does not exclude infants. I know this, because I read my Bible. Even though the RC Church didn’t want low lifes such as myself to, for a good period of time.
Ok, so you don’t know. You have read your own history and confessions and bulls and whatnot and have blocked it out. Ok. Mea culpa. You are ignorant of the official RC church, its officials, its councils, etc., forbidding and persecuting to the point of killing those who dared to distribute Bibles in the common language to the regular people. How sad.
And you disown the Council of Toulouse. Oh, sure, it was an official Roman Catholic body, but, since it doesn’t fit the agenda, you drop it. I could bring up plenty more, but why bother? You will dismiss any truth that makes you uncomfortable.
“So you’re saying the Bride has spot and wrinkle despite what the Bible says? Of course you are. “ No. I confess that the Bride has no spot or wrinkle. Why? Because she does not sin? No, because she had been washed in the blood of the lamb. She is not sinless because she is perfect. She is sinless because He is perfect. Makes all the difference in the world.
The martyrs are those who faithfully proclaimed the Word and suffered and/or were put to death for it. Wycliffe suffered. Tyndale suffered and died. The Huguenots of France, Walter Mill of Scotland, the two Margarets of Scotland, drowned in the sea! And countless others, many listed and recorded and remembered in Foxe’s AND other histories - and no amount of putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la, la, la” is going to change that.
Why defend evil? Promote what is good and right. God was not pleased with this wickedness.
I don’t hold you personally responsible for the evil. But I do hold you responsible for denying and/or defending it.
You wrote:
“This should be adequate, more than adequate really, to show that the initial statement was NOT a lie, was NOT an anti-Catholic phony, false, made-up quote falsely ascribed to Trent...”
Except that it was a phony quote and only appears in anti-Catholic works.
It includes no context whatsoever - especially the previous sentences - which would show a completely different understanding of the text.
It was not issued by the full Council of Trent but by a committee.
Thus, the quote is a distortion using a particular translation (”that book”) made to attack the Church. It was adopted only by anti-Catholics to provoke the worst possible reaction; it was seriously taken out of context (and anti-Catholics never seem to care about context).
You wrote:
“It is the Bible which says ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He does not exclude infants. I know this, because I read my Bible. Even though the RC Church didn’t want low lifes such as myself to, for a good period of time.”
Oh, and there we go. I already know what the Bible says. I was asking you about what you wrote, not what Paul wrote.
Try and answer these questions:
1) Does baptism wash away sins, yes or no?
2) Do babies commit sins (not just inherit the stain of Original Sin), yes or no?
3) You implied everyone sins, but now you’re contradicting yourself and saying babies don’t sin. Which is it? Were you wrong the first time or now?
“Ok, so you don’t know. You have read your own history and confessions and bulls and whatnot and have blocked it out. Ok. Mea culpa. You are ignorant of the official RC church, its officials, its councils, etc., forbidding and persecuting to the point of killing those who dared to distribute Bibles in the common language to the regular people. How sad.”
Actually I am not ignorant about “the official RC church, its officials, its councils, etc.,” It has been shown that you are the ignorant one. Also, the Church never killed anyone - EVER - for anything let alone for distributing “Bibles in the common language to the regular people.” Protestant anti-Catholics make stuff up out of thin air. Hence, you have no evidence, no cases, no examples, none at all.
“And you disown the Council of Toulouse.”
I don’t “disown” it at all. I just know what it is and what it is not. Toulouse is not the Church. I realize most Protestant anti-Catholics simply don’t understand that - but a regional council does not represent the Church. It only represents the needs of Catholics in that region.
“Oh, sure, it was an official Roman Catholic body, but, since it doesn’t fit the agenda, you drop it.”
No, you’re trying to get it to fit YOUR AGENDA. Again, a regional council does not represent the WHOLE CHURCH. Think about it, would you mistake California for the whole nation? I doubt it.
“I could bring up plenty more, but why bother?”
No, you can’t bring up plenty more - except plenty more non-evidence, things that do NOT prove your point whatsoever. That’s the whole point.
“You will dismiss any truth that makes you uncomfortable.”
First of all, none of this makes me uncomfortable - its hundreds of years ago and the context explains everything. I never dismiss any truth.
“No. I confess that the Bride has no spot or wrinkle. Why? Because she does not sin? No, because she had been washed in the blood of the lamb. She is not sinless because she is perfect. She is sinless because He is perfect. Makes all the difference in the world.”
And that is EXACTLY WHAT WE BELIEVE. The Church is holy because of Christ. That’s why the Church doesn’t sin. The Church comes from Christ. You can’t have it both ways. The Church cannot be spotless because of Christ yet spotted with sin. We believe that Christ’s Church is holy because of His grace and remains unspotted even though the Church is a hospital for sinners, filled with sinners. Our belief is perfectly consistent - whereas yours is contradictory. Our belief is that Christ’s grace is so powerful it preserves the Church from sin. Yours is contradictory and logically makes a lie of Christ’s grace.
“The martyrs are those who faithfully proclaimed the Word and suffered and/or were put to death for it.”
Heretics and schismatics do not “faithfully” proclaim the Word. They are heretics and schismatics. Also, you are confusing “confessors” with “martyrs”. Confessors are those who suffer, but do not die. Martyrs die. They are not the same thing.
“Wycliffe suffered.”
He suffered for his heresy. He was never a martyr. If he had been right - and he wasn’t even according to Protestants because of his heresies like dominion - he could only have been a confessor, never a martyr. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215a.htm
“Tyndale suffered and died.”
For heresy. Not a martyr.
“The Huguenots of France,”
Heresy, schism, rebellion. Not martyrs.
“Walter Mill of Scotland,”
Heretic and vow breaker. Not a martyr.
“the two Margarets of Scotland, drowned in the sea!”
Margaret MacLachlan and Margaret Wilson? Both were killed by Protestants (Episcopalians) in 1685. Protestants killed other Protestants.
“And countless others, many listed and recorded and remembered in Foxe’s AND other histories - and no amount of putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la, la, la” is going to change that.”
So far you have not listed a single bona fide martyr.
“Why defend evil?”
I never have. Why do you defend heresy and schism?
“Promote what is good and right.”
I always do.
“God was not pleased with this wickedness.”
What wickedness? Was He more displeased when Protestant heretics and schismatics put to death fellow heretics and schismatics (the two Margarets) or when Catholics put to death heretics and schismatics?
“I don’t hold you personally responsible for the evil.”
What evil?
“But I do hold you responsible for denying and/or defending it.”
I do not deny or defend evil. I also don’t over react and call acts that society generally approved of hundreds of years ago evil or wicked hundreds of years after the fact. I also believe those acts should be put into their proper context. We can say slavery is evil and wicked. Does that mean that Washington, and Jefferson, and the other founding fathers really deserve to be labelled as evil and wicked men?
You wrote:
“I already did that. Brought it, named the exact post, etc.”
Good.
“First things first;
If there is some OTHer than what was presented in post # 38, on this thread, what was it, and where?”
The quote that was first listed doe snot appear in Trent. Even the correct quote wasn’t issued by the Council Fathers in toto, but a committee by the way. That sort of context is important. Protestant anti-Catholics avoid all of that context. Also, the literal context - the sentences preceeding it - were excised. Why?
Thanks for the in depth clarification...
Anyone reading the thread can easily see the official position of the Catholic religion on the reading and possession of the bible confirmed during the counsel of Trent ...
The position was created by a committee that was sanctioned by the so called leaders of the counsel at Trent and adapted as the official Catholic Church rule(s) as researched and reported by the Catholic Fordham University...
Any naysayers and wannabe wordsmiths are just background noise trying to deflect traffic away from another one of the unpopular, unGodly, seldom spoken truths of the Catholic religion...
If by anyone you mean everyone you are clearly in error. If by anyone you mean like-minded anti-Catholics you might be right. It never ceases to amaze me the length some will go to to distort and and manipulate history and historical records to validate their prejudices and hatreds.
A personal question; do you really think Jesus approves of this simply because the anti-Catholics have decided that the Church is a greater evil?
Peace be with you.
We didn't distort anything...We only posted the words as they are written...
Our Catholic friends here are not without *some* justifiable complaint.
What is impossible to explain both briefly, and accurately is to just what extent the 16th Century prohibition against possessing bibles without written permission, actually played out.
It produced irregular results. I get from my own readings, the impression there were many in the church at the time whom had little patience for Inquisitional charges brought solely upon one being found in possession without prior written permission, of a Latin Vulgate bible, for instance. Though Llorente, in his own historical treatment did make mention of a notable instance of such.
Interestingly, since there was just a thread yesterday concerning "glosses" which older copies of the Vulgate could accumulate --- it was for sake of those glosses themselves in a few instances, that Inquisitors attempted to press their cases. Other clergymen didn't care much for that sort of nonsensical letter of the law prosecution.
In memory serves, that even resulted in a some ranking cleric issuing his own decree to the Inquisitors, that he would no longer be willing to consider charges based on old glosses. The Inquisitors then attempted to create a larger stir due to that rebuff, but in effect were eventually told off by some higher up religious authority to which they had appealed.
It would take me hours, if not a full day or more of digging to find, extract, document, provide links, outline and summarize just this small detail...so I won't.
It was the commentaries and notes included in translations made outside of Roman church authority that irritated more than the book, itself.
Yet at the same time, our Catholic friends shouldn't be so eager to defend the horrific results of this sort of informational suppression, which in and of itself did as much violence to the Gospel of Christ as it did to individual's property, flesh, and very life.
It is difficult to properly address the issues succinctly, while at the same time give due justice.
For now, we can look at what the official attitude is on our own day, regarding bible reading.
It is encouraged from the highest levels of the RCC. There was a papal decree which included among other things, making promotion of bible reading official policy. I'm not even go bother to look...but I'll test my memory...1965?
Not "appear in Trent?" Let us check look again at the title heading;
TEN RULES CONCERNING PROHIBITED BOOKS DRAWN UP BY THE FATHERS CHOSEN BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND APPROVED BY POPE PIUS
Drawn up by "Fathers" chosen by the Council...approved by the Pope!
Does not appear in Trent? It is a direct derivative.
Yes. Regarding this issue, the Ten Rules are as a distilled wine, as a brandy-wine, is to a grape.
The "grape" in this instance was the larger proceedings of the Councils of Trent (over a span of years, including all the other) with the "brandy"* being a distilled product.
Here is another look at the cluster or grouping of decree The Catholic University in America; Council of Trent
Notes associated with the Ten Rules indicate coming from the XXV and final session.
All of which means, you were wrong. Please issue retraction of your comments asserting it was "not from Trent", along with retraction of all insult connected with your statements, to the offended parties. It was the insults so casually flung about, which bring my insistence, by the way...
otherwise, such a small error, even one so stubbornly clung to in face of all evidence to the contrary, would be but a small matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.