Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Natural Law
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.

We didn't distort anything...We only posted the words as they are written...

178 posted on 08/12/2012 12:39:55 PM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies ]


To: Iscool

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?

179 posted on 08/12/2012 2:22:05 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]

To: Iscool
" We didn't distort anything...We only posted the words as they are written..."

Really? The Council of Trent issued its canons and decrees in modern English?

What you published were modern "Protestant friendly" editorials. There were 25 declarations, three Bulls and a closing oration, all issued in Latin. No one has sought to identify the document cited or give the original Latin for reference. That, my FRiend, is distortion.

Peace be with you

184 posted on 08/13/2012 2:10:22 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson