Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: vladimir998
What is nonsense is to think that the Roman Catholic Church did not control the distribution of Bibles and punish offenders. Just so you don't feel I'm "inventing lies and myths", the Council of Trent put all of this in writing in 1546-well after Luther started his campaign.

This come from the Roman Catholic Church. Don't tell me they were interested in Bible distribution.
11 posted on 12/03/2005 4:57:13 PM PST by HarleyD ("Command what you will and give what you command." - Augustine's Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: HarleyD
"This come from the Roman Catholic Church. Don't tell me they were interested in Bible distribution."

I'll start by proclaiming that I am a Protestant. "Bible distribution" was simply not possible. Books were extremely rare and expensive. Some might think that private ownership of a bible would be selfish. The books were chained so as to allow availability not to prevent availability. Because modern libraries have security measures to prevent theft does not mean that they want to restrict or prevent knowledge?

You can understand the concern of authorities that some uneducated people might misuse parts of the bible. Look at some of the stupid things that the puritans did -- smashed stained glass windows, destroyed artwork, ran through the streets naked, all justified by “their” reading of the bible. The uncontrolled interpretation of scripture by individuals has created a Protestant church that is fractured into a very large number of groups. The fracturing seems to continue daily. That hardly seems like success.

12 posted on 12/03/2005 6:53:35 PM PST by hiho hiho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: HarleyD

Harley, c'mon. You can read plain English. Your last paragraph from Trent says the it is those who would "turn and twist," for "profane usages," that are "scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, etc." Further down in the paragraph, it says plainly that "all people of this kind be restrained" from disseminating false versions of Scripture. "This kind" refers to those who prduce the works just described. It's plain English, as you have it posted here.

Do you suppose that the Established Church in England was any less diligent in making sure that the Douai-Rheims Bible was expunged from existence, as much as possible? Mere possession risked the death penalty. BOTH Protestants and Catholics, in the time period we're discussing, were pretty zealous in making sure the "wrong" Bible was kept out of circulation.

The Council of Trent had every reason to desire to control spurious translations. Many circulating at the time were barely more than platforms for polemic, so bad were the translations. But, in any event, the Catholic Church, having seen its early sons write the New Testament, understands itself to have been the discerner, compiler, vetter, canonizer AND sole legitimate interpreter of Scripture. It has every right, as the Bible's true custodian, to undertake the safeguarding of its contents. Especially in the sectarian maelstrom that was mid-1500's Europe.


13 posted on 12/03/2005 6:55:57 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: HarleyD

http://netministries.org/denomlst.htm


15 posted on 12/03/2005 7:05:03 PM PST by hiho hiho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: HarleyD

Harley,

Get a clue. Nothing that you posted in any way goes against what I said:

Your first point has exactly nothing to do with Martin Luther's myth.

Your second point also has absolutely nothing to do with Martin Luther's myth.

Your third point doesn't say what you claim. Catholic printers printed many Bibles. They just need the usual nihil obstat and imprimatur marks to do it. The decrees of Trent in no way stopped orthodox Bible production. If it did then you would have a heck of a time explaining how the Douay-Rheim was published in 1582/1609 AFTER TRENT. Also, in case you didn't know (and why would you know anything about what you are talking?), anathema is a canonical term when used in a decree. It doesn't mean accursed when used in a decree. All Trent era anathemas were lifted in the 1960's by the way. You didn't know that did you? No, of course not.

Your fourth point also proves nothing about Martin Luther and his myth.

Your fifth point shows you to be either dumb or dishonest. Read the underlined passages again. Notice the phrase "for these and similar purposes"? What were those purposes? Well, they're listed a few lines above: "whereby the words and sentences of the Holy Scriptures are turned and twisted to all kinds of profane usages, namely, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, godless and diabolical incantations, divinations, the casting of lots and defamatory libels, to put an end to such irreverence and contempt."

So the Church didn't want people to abuse scripture for their own illegitimate purposes? Oh, the humanity!


28 posted on 12/04/2005 5:50:54 AM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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