Posted on 01/05/2009 2:54:13 AM PST by GonzoII
Your defense is lame and getting lamer.
Just because some ignorant people didn’t “think” of the Latin Bible as a translation doesn’t mean that it is not a translation. It is a translation, and no matter how much time passes, or how people “think” about it, it will always be a translation.
To bad Catholic’s (Which I was once one...)reject the clear teachings and doctrines of the Bible for their man made teachings and vain traditions. Such as The person of Mary, Praying to dead saints,the Papacy, The making of saint’s, the mass,and salvation of works etc..
These Catholic teachings are mostly founded on Scripture not taken in context ect....Very dear people but blinded by their traditions...again I know, for I was once one.
Matthew 15, Mark 7
You wrote:
“Your defense is lame and getting lamer.”
No, your dishonest attack is what is lame. I never once claimed that the Vulgate was anything other than a translation. I said it was a translation, but because of its age, many people all but forgot it was a translation and rarely brought up the issue. This is EXACTLY what I said: “In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.” That comment was not only clear, but absolutely 100% undeniably correct. In post #53, I reiterated the truth - the Vulgate was a translation - a truth I never once, EVER, ANYWHERE denied. You, however, insinuated that I did deny it with comments such as this: “If you cannot even keep that salient fact straight in your head there is obviously no ground for discussion with you.”
I never once - NOT ONCE - ever said that the Vulgate was anything other than a translation. I also never made a mistake by denying the reality of the fact that the ancientness of the Vulgate made many readers of it all but forget, or not care about, the fact that it is a translation.
“Just because some ignorant people didn’t “think” of the Latin Bible as a translation doesn’t mean that it is not a translation.”
And who here is saying otherwise? No one. Why do you keep acting like someone has denied that the Vulgate is a translation? I NEVER ONCE said otherwise. Can’t you just present evidence for your claims rather than create straw man claims like that?
“It is a translation, and no matter how much time passes, or how people “think” about it, it will always be a translation.”
Is that news to you? Again, who here ever said that the Vulgate was anything other than a translation? No one. So why keep acting like someone did? Can’t you just present evidence about your wild claims about Tyndale rather than making stuff up like this? Is this all you have - wild, bizarre insinuations?
Do you have any evidence AT ALL for what you claim?
Any?
I said “Both Catholics and Protestants have sought to control access to the Bible and authorized translations and forbidden translations and sought to determine who was allowed to read it or read it aloud to people.”
Your response was that “the Vulgate (Latin Bible) was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past”
Rather weak sauce. It doesn’t matter what you or the ignorant “think” about the translation of the Bible into Latin. It is a translation, and it was the “official” translation that the Catholic Church liked to send out with its Priests and have transcribed by hand by its Monks.
Several translations of the Bible into the vernacular languages have made it onto the Catholic Church’s list of prohibited books.
I stand by my original statement, while you have had to defend your statements with the rather weak ‘They didn’t THINK of it as a translation’.
You wrote:
“I said “Both Catholics and Protestants have sought to control access to the Bible and authorized translations and forbidden translations and sought to determine who was allowed to read it or read it aloud to people.””
Then you said:
“Your response was that “the Vulgate (Latin Bible) was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past””
No.
Your point was in post #41.
My response to Post #41 was in post #47.
This is EXACTLY what I wrote in response to the comment you reposted above:
“There was no “authorized” or for that matter “mandated” English translation mandated by the Catholic Church. Only Protestants produced such a thing in English. So EXACTLY what are you talking about. Please don’t make sweeping generalization without specific evidence.
“The Douay Rheims Bible was issued a Cum Privilegio as were all Catholic books approved by the local ordinary. It was never mandated by the Vatican or the Catholic Church in council as the necessary or obligatory Catholic Bible for English readers, however. There was also no English hierarchy of bishops to mandate such a thing until at least a full century and a half after its publication and I have no idea if that ever even happened.”
That was my response to your comment in ITS ENTIRETY. I did not mention the Vulgate at all in my response to your comment. NOWHERE IN THAT SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO YOUR SPECIFIC COMMENT DID I EVER ONCE MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE VULGATE. Nowhere. Not once.
In fact - IN THAT ENTIRE POST - I do not think I ever once mentioned the Vulgate. NOT ONCE.
So why do you claim otherwise?
How fair is that?
Have I ever inaccurately quoted you?
Have I ever once claimed you made a response to a comment when in fact you didn’t?
Nope. But you’ve now done all of that to me. Why?
You responded with post #48.
To that I responded with post #49.
It was in POST #48 THAT you posted this: “The authorized translation was into Latin.”
I accurately responded with (in post #49): “Incorrect. In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.”
Everything in that quote is 100% undeniably true.
1) You were incorrect in saying, “The authorized translation was into Latin.” for there was no such authorization.
2) In the 1520s there was no authorized translation.
3) The Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past. That doesn’t mean that no one knew it, it’s just that it was so long ago, the fact rarely was thought to matter and rarely mentioned.
So, not only was everything I said 100% true, but the comment you said I responded with to your comment at the top of this present post is just not the case!!!
“Rather weak sauce.”
The weakness - as I demonstrate with documentation above - is all yours. You’re now reduced to falsely claiming I responded to your specific comment in a way I never did.
Why would you say that when it is so clearly not the case?
“It doesn’t matter what you or the ignorant “think” about the translation of the Bible into Latin.”
Actually it does matter if we’re talking about controversy about translations since the Vulgate was a translation. And that is EXACTLY what we were talking about. The only way it wouldn’t matter is if the Vulgate were not a translation. Are you now changing your story and claiming the Vulgate is not a translation? Make up your mind. Be consistent.
“It is a translation, and it was the “official” translation that the Catholic Church liked to send out with its Priests and have transcribed by hand by its Monks.”
It was not an official translation until 1546. I asked you before to prove it was an “authorized” or “official” translation before that time and you provided exactly no evidence at all. It was not an official translation UNTIL AFTER TYNDALE DIED. By then, monks weren’t doing much copying of Bibles by hand.
Before you claim I never asked for that proof, here is what I said and the post #: “The Vulgate only became an authorized translation or edition at the time of Council of Trent (about 1546) as a response to Protestant heresy. By that time, Tyndale was dead for years.” (post #49)
“Several translations of the Bible into the vernacular languages have made it onto the Catholic Church’s list of prohibited books.”
Several? No, probably many. They were made by heretics who incorporated heretical notes or distorted the text to make heresy more acceptable. What the Index of Forbidden Books - which did not exist until at least the time of the Council of Trent - did not do was ban vernacular translations for being vernacular translations. Nor can you present proof of such.
“I stand by my original statement, while you have had to defend your statements with the rather weak ‘They didn’t THINK of it as a translation’.”
Not only did I - easily - refute your original statements, but I never falsely claimed you said something you didn’t, nor did I make a single error, nor did I fail to provide proof of assertions as you did. Even now, you can’t get what I said right. I never said: “They didn’t THINK of it as a translation’.” I said: “Incorrect. In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.”
Can I make a suggestion? In the future it might help your side to actually use reputable historic references (for you used none), reputable history books (for you used none; have you ever read any?), and to actually accurately quote who you’re dealing with. FreeRepublic.com is a very easy to use website. There is no reason for anyone to misquote anyone or make false or inaccurate claims about posted comments.
If one is honest with oneself, then there isn't a problem with what the Reformers thought and the early church fathers. The early church fathers believed in sola scripture-many of them quoted directly from the scriptures, not from each other. After all, it was the early church fathers who determined what was inspirational writings and what wasn't. Their reasoning for creation of the Bible was simply because they recognized the decay of man.
Your quote was direct “the Vulgate (Latin Bible) was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past”.
I am not making up what you said. You said it. Post #49. A completely accurate quote.
I never claimed there was a Catholic “authorized” or “mandated” English translation. That is your invention in a lame attempt to avoid dealing with what I actually said.
http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_database/index_librorum.html
The first “Index of Forbidden Books”, banned for their heretical or ideologically dangerous content, was drawn up by order of Pope Paul IV and published in 1559 by the Sacred Congregation of the Roman Inquisition. The Sacred Inquisition acting as the zealous guardians of the Faith, executed their office with severity. Intellectuals were pursued vigorously for their acceptance of Protestant doctrines, or for heretic ideas. The most famous banned author is undoubtedly Galileo (1633). The objective of the lists were to protect the orthodoxy and ward of significant challenges to the teachings of the canonical texts. With the invention of the printing press in Europe in the middle of the 15th Century, the problem of control increased. As more books were written, copied and increasingly widely disseminated, subversive and heretical ideas were spread beyond control.
But also printers and booksellers faced the same dangers of persecution. In the late 16th century, a great number of Dutch printers chose to flee to Switzerland and Germany
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
1515 the Lateran council formulated the decree De Impressione Librorum, which required that no work should be printed without previous examination by the proper ecclesiastica’ authority, the penalty of unlicensed printing being excommunication of the culprit, and confiscation and destruction of the books.
Editions of the text of the Scriptures are permitted for purposes of study; translations of the Bible into the vulgar tongue have to be approved, while those published by non-Catholics are permitted for the use of scholars
You wrote:
“Your quote was direct “the Vulgate (Latin Bible) was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past”.”
But earlier you said this: ““I stand by my original statement, while you have had to defend your statements with the rather weak ‘They didn’t THINK of it as a translation’.”
See post #64 if you don’t believe me.
In other words, you claimed I said this: “They didn’t THINK of it as a translation.”
When I actually said this: “Incorrect. In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.”
And in any case I was not only 100% correct, but you have no even attempted to show how I was wrong nor have you presented a single shred of evidence to back up your erroneous claims about Tyndale.
“I am not making up what you said. You said it. Post #49. A completely accurate quote.”
No.
This is what I wrote:
“Incorrect. In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.”
That is not the same quote as this (which you created):
“They didn’t THINK of it as a translation.”
“I never claimed there was a Catholic “authorized” or “mandated” English translation.”
I never said you did. However, in post #8, you said made a comment about both Catholics and Protestants trying to suppress translations of scripture and said this “Burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English.”
Since it was unclear as to whether you were talking about Latin or English because your comment was so vague I made the following comments:
“There was no “authorized” or for that matter “mandated” English translation mandated by the Catholic Church. Only Protestants produced such a thing in English. So EXACTLY what are you talking about. Please don’t make sweeping generalization without specific evidence.
“The Douay Rheims Bible was issued a Cum Privilegio as were all Catholic books approved by the local ordinary. It was never mandated by the Vatican or the Catholic Church in council as the necessary or obligatory Catholic Bible for English readers, however. There was also no English hierarchy of bishops to mandate such a thing until at least a full century and a half after its publication and I have no idea if that ever even happened.”
There was no way for you to assert an English language mandated Bible after those points if you wished to be taken seriously. Please note, however, that I asked, “So EXACTLY what are you talking about. Please don’t make sweeping generalization without specific evidence,” because your comment was so imprecise to say the least.
“That is your invention in a lame attempt to avoid dealing with what I actually said.”
You said nothing that I did not deal with. Remember, you are wrong on all counts here. Even if you were asserting that there was a mandated or authorized English version - and I never said you did say that - you are wrong. And you did say there was a mandated or authorized Latin version and that was untrue until 1546 and the actual Bible in question was not produced for decades afterward. In either case, you would be wrong.
It can’t get much simpler than that.
You wrote:
“Should I also provide you a source that will tell you Henry VIII was famously Protestant?”
Did I question that Henry VIII was a Protestant?
Also, what point are you trying to make by posting info about the Index?
I never denied the Index existed.
I never denied heretical translations of the Bible were on it.
So what do you think you’re accomplishing here when you are merely posting evidence of things I already stipulated?
How about actually proving any of your original points?
Show us from a reputable source that Tyndale was burned for the actual act of translating the Bible.
Can you do that or not?
If you can’t do that, well, then this debate was over - just as it was over before it began.
Bookmark
In your zeal perhaps you didn’t notice the quotes were ‘ ‘ not “ “ and as such I was paraphrasing you in the same post where I quoted you. “ “ goes around quotes, ‘ ‘ is a paraphrase.
Quibble quibble quibble.
And my statement was in no way limited to any specific time, so pointing out that the Latin translation of the Bible wasn’t “authorized” until 1546 is another meaningless quibble.
Tyndall was executed for being a famous Bible translator.
My exact point was, as you said “Only Protestants produced such a thing in English.”
The Church has authorized translations (into Latin, even if they didn’t ‘think’ of it as a translation)and forbidden translations (as detailed in the index of forbidden books), exactly as I stated in the beginning.
Maybe you can answer the couple of questions of questions I previously posted, with some revisions:
What did Christians believe in place sola scriptura prior to the Bible being put together in the fourth century?
Why do the Greeks/and the Syrian Christians not believe pentecostal/protestant translations of the original hebrew and greek text, and actually have dogmas almost identical to “Latin” Catholic dogmasm even though those people still speak Greek and Aramaic?
Who compiled the books of the bible?
How do we know that each book of the Bible is inspired? Did an angel drop it in a nicely wrapped package one day in England in the 1600’s?
Why do you take certain parts of the Bible literally (e.g. the Creation Story) but not others (e.g. “this IS My blood”)?
Why do you need a pastor if all you need is sola scriptura sola fides? Just because the Bible says you need to pay someone tithes and you have to keep the sabbath day?
The Early Church Fathers on The Early Church Fathers recognized Oral Tradition (as taught by the Church) as being equally authoritative as written Tradition (Scripture) because they both came from the same God through the same Church. Papias
Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit (The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]). Irenaeus For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]). True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy… (ibid. 4:33 [A.D. 189]). Tertullian
For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription of Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]). Origen
Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]). Eusebius
While [Ignatius of Antioch] was making the journey through Asia under the strictest military guard, he strengthened the diocese in each city where he stayed by spoken sermons and exhortations, and he especially exhorted them above all to be on their guard against the heresies which then for the first time were prevalent and he urged them to hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles to which he thought it necessary, for securities sake, to give form by written testimony (Ecclesiastical History, 3:36 [A.D. 325]). Athanasius
Without prefixing Consulate, month, and day, [the Fathers] wrote concerning Easter, "It seemed good as follows," for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, "It seemed good" but, "Thus believes the Catholic Church"; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles (Letter on the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia [A.D. 359]). Basil
Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in mystery" by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will contradict; - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in these matters… (On the Holy Spirit 27 [A.D. 375]). Jerome
Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]). John Chrysostom
"So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [circa A.D. 400]). Vincent of Lerins
I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief n two ways: first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church (Commonitory 2 [A.D. 434]) Theodoret
I have ever kept the faith of the Apostles undefiled… So have I learnt not only from the Apostles and the Prophets but also from the interpreters of their writings, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the rest of the lights of the world; and before these from the holy Fathers in council at Nicaea, whose confession of the faith I preserve in its integrity, like an ancestral inheritance [styling corrupt and enemies of the truth all who dare to transgress its decrees] (Letters no. 89 [circa A.D. 443]). Copyright © 2004 StayCatholic.com
Tradition
Epiphanius of Salamis
"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Augustine
"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).
"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
Athanasius
"Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven" (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).
"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able" (ibid., 29).
Irenaeus
"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).
...
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Irenaeus
"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Clement of Alexandria
"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).
You wrote:
“In your zeal perhaps you didn’t notice the quotes were ‘ ‘ not “ “ and as such I was paraphrasing you in the same post where I quoted you. “ “ goes around quotes, ‘ ‘ is a paraphrase.”
In your zeal, you invented a quote and said it was mine. I never did that to you and I won’t do so. If you already quoted me accurately, then merely do so again. This isn’t difficult.
“Quibble quibble quibble.”
Evade, evade, evade - you have yet to post proof of your claims about Tyndale. Why is that?
“And my statement was in no way limited to any specific time, so pointing out that the Latin translation of the Bible wasn’t “authorized” until 1546 is another meaningless quibble.”
No, it’s called a fact, and it matters. Your comments - whether accidentally or purposely - give the impression of one fact when in reality that would be wrong. You probably did that accidentally because you simply had no idea about when the Vulgate became the official translation of the Catholic Church. As with many things here, you simply don’t seem to know the required facts, dates, documents, books, histories, personalities, cultures, laws, councils, etc.
“Tyndall was executed for being a famous Bible translator.”
No. And again, you fail to offer a single shread of proof to that effect. Why? As I already posted, noted historians who actually researched and wrote about Tyndale, prove that Tyndale’s act of translating the Bible - which apparently was not even finished when he was arrested - was never arrested, or tried or executed for the act of translating the Bible.
“My exact point was, as you said “Only Protestants produced such a thing in English.””
And that was a fact. Only Protestants produced an official language, mandated, authorized Bible for people who read English.
“The Church has authorized translations (into Latin, even if they didn’t ‘think’ of it as a translation)and forbidden translations (as detailed in the index of forbidden books), exactly as I stated in the beginning.”
And yet you are still WRONG. Tyndale was never, EVER, arrested, or tried, or executed for the act of translating the Bible into English.
Never happened. The experts on Tyndale admit this is the case. You assert otherwise without a single shred of evidence.
You’ve been wrong all along.
That’s not going to change unless you start relying on the facts.
The specific charges against Tyndall was a mere legality and a quibble. He was an infamous Bible translator and was killed for it.
Hiding behind the legalities of the specific charge is like insisting that OJ Simpson isn’t a murderer because he was legally exonerated.
Both Catholics and Protestants have had official translations and forbidden translations of the Bible, and nothing you have said has changed that salient fact.
You wrote:
“The specific charges against Tyndall was a mere legality and a quibble.”
Completely incorrect. The entire trial against Tyndale was based upon charges of heresies. Do you have even a shred of evidence for what you’re claiming or will this be yet another baseless assertion from you?
“He was an infamous Bible translator and was killed for it.”
Again, completely incorrect. He was tried in Holland. He was known as a Bible translator in England. He was known as a heretic everywhere. Those are the facts. You apparently have no proof for any of your claims.
“Hiding behind the legalities of the specific charge is like insisting that OJ Simpson isn’t a murderer because he was legally exonerated.”
No. OJ was charged with murder. His acquittal did not prove that he was not a murderer. Tyndal was never charged with translating the Bible because it was not a crime to do so.
“Both Catholics and Protestants have had official translations and forbidden translations of the Bible, and nothing you have said has changed that salient fact.”
The salient fact is that Tyndal was never arrested, tried or executed for translating the Bible - and you have utterly failed to offer any proof of your assertions to the contrary.
Thanks for all the links.
“Please show me where the Catholic Church forbade Tyndale translation?”
It wasn’t “papal,” but it was forbidden reading by Bishop Tunstall (still RC at that time) who issued warnings pf heresu to booksellers and had copies burned in public because he was uncomfortable with the idea of the Bible in the vernacular.
As a bit more background, Tyndale was a difficult guy -— attacking Henry VIII (for an “unbiblical” divorce), the Lutherans for breaking away, and the Roman Church for not adopting many of the reforms the Lutherans talked about.
In other words, Tyndale pretty well PO everyone, but, in hindsight, he had a point (or rather 3 good points).
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.