Replies

[Kolo to Quix:] My question had to do with your apparent agreement with FK's assertion that the medieval Latin practice of keeping the scriptures out of the hands of the laity somehow affected the theology and praxis of the Latin Church. Since Orthodoxy never did that, how does one explain virtually the same theology and liturgical practice in Orthodoxy as one sees in the Roman Church. Is it possible that the old Latin practice, as lamentable as it may seem today and indeed may well have been then, really had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the theology or liturgical praxis of that church?

I don't really remember this being my point, although my words may have implied it. What I remember focusing on was the idea that keeping scriptures away from the laity was evidence that a hierarchy believed that a "free" reading of the scriptures would lead to theology not in concert with that of the hierarchy. I was contrasting that to our position, which has always been to greatly encourage all people to read as much scripture as they can. Simple teaching can take care of questions, apparent Biblical contradictions, etc.

I realize that this does not make your point go away. LOL! So, perhaps in this light the RCs have a point that the Orthodox did not face the same "market competition" that they faced. (I don't know, I've just seen that said.) Anyway, if that is true, then Orthodoxy simply wouldn't qualify for the comparison. If it's true that the vast majority of Orthodox of that time were never even exposed to other interpretations, then the hierarchy could be confident of the laity taking an Orthodox interpretation.

So, my supposition was that the RCC of the time feared that, with Protestantism out there, people reading the Bible on their own would come to Protestant conclusions. The answer was apparently that the hierarchy greatly discouraged the reading of scripture. That says a lot to me because it implies a defenseless scripture. I, of course, hold the opposite view that scripture is invincible. :)

the RCC of the time feared that, with Protestantism out there, people reading the Bible on their own would come to Protestant conclusions.

There are, and were, two concerns. One is that the translation is incomplete or inaccurate. This is plaguing the Protestant communities to this day. Sadly, our own NAB is just as bad as King James, although not nearly as horrid as some "dynamic" translations.

The other is that no one reads the Bible on his own. Everyone brings in his notions of right and wrong, preferences, social instincts, etc. The Reformers, for example, brought in their democratic instincts and anticlerical disposition, very remote from the Apostolic age. We see the same silliness today when people think that clerical vestments are funny.

Douay Rheims actually preceded King James. The Church never prevented the laity from studying the scripture, but it did not like deception. We still don't.

"I realize that this does not make your point go away. LOL! So, perhaps in this light the RCs have a point that the Orthodox did not face the same "market competition" that they faced. (I don't know, I've just seen that said.) Anyway, if that is true, then Orthodoxy simply wouldn't qualify for the comparison. If it's true that the vast majority of Orthodox of that time were never even exposed to other interpretations, then the hierarchy could be confident of the laity taking an Orthodox interpretation."

Not even close, FK. The East up to and into the ninth century was riddled with heretical notions and sects all vying for the allegiance of the laity. The Eastern Fathers and bishops constantly exhorted the people to read the scriptures as a bulwark against heterodoxy. So far was the Fathers and Eastern hierarchs could see, Orthodoxy was fully supported by the scriptures. The marketplace of religious ideas was bustling in the East, FK. Now its possible, even likely, that by keeping the scriptures out of the hands of the laity the West avoided the heresies we experienced in the East. But Orthodoxy, with the same theology and ecclesiology as the West for at least 900 years and virtually the same ever since, triumphed. There was no reformation in theology, ecclesiology or praxis. I think its possible that keeping the scriptures from the people for as long as the Latin Church did may well have lead to the Reformation when "Word leaked out", but the different theology, ecclesiology and praxis of the Protestants, in my opinion, owes far, far more to a desire "not to be Rome" than anything found in the scriptures and my support for that position is what the Eastern Church looked like then and now.