Posted on 01/05/2009 2:54:13 AM PST by GonzoII
WHY CATHOLICS HAVE MORE FUN THAN PROTESTANTS WHILE STUDYING EARLY CHURCH HISTORY
Catholics admire evangelical Protestants for their courage to stand up on life issues and many other truths of moral law. Catholics also admire their Protestant brethren for their devotion to reading the Word of God and their willingness to stand up for what they believe and bring others to knowledge of Christ's saving work. Catholics see the grace of Christ at work in these Christians and often depend on their generous prayers in time of need.
So, Catholics feel badly for Protestants who oftentimes feel crushed upon embarking on studies of the Early Church only to discover the Early Church did not believe what they had envisioned.
Students of Protestantism hear it repeated on a regular basis that the 16th century Reformation "restored" doctrine to how things used to be in the Early Church. So it is not surprising that hearers of the above statement mistakenly take this to mean that Christians in the first few centuries held to the Reformers' doctrines of "faith alone" or "Scripture alone."
Naturally, they are not happy when they discover that not a single Christian between the Apostles and the next thousand years or so believed in these doctrines. In fact, the early Christians not only did not believe Luther's doctrines, they actually believed doctrines that sharply clashed with Luther's "faith-alone" theology of the 16th century.
What we find is that the early Christians vociferously defended Church authority, believing the Church and Scripture went hand in hand, and that Jesus had promised the Holy Spirit would guide His Church into "all the truth." (Jn 16:13). The early Christians vociferously defended the true Church as the one in union with the direct successor of St. Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom (Mt 16:19). The bishop who held this ongoing chief office was said to sit in the "Chair of Peter." Peter was directly succeeded by Linus, who was directly succeeded by Anacletus, who was directly succeeded by Clement of Rome, who . . . 261 men later, was directly succeeded by Pope Benedict XVI.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BAPTISM
On Baptism, evangelical Protestants are taught the sacrament does not remove any sin from the soul. They are taught it is merely a sign. So, they are crushed when they find out the Early Church unanimously taught that Baptism was indeed regenerative, removing original sin, as well as personal sin. Catholics continue to believe that babies receive the free gift of salvation, becoming a child of God, when they are baptized and washed clean of original sin. Only mortal sin can separate them from eternity with Christ.
BIBLE: Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
The early Christians were very aware that being "born of water and the Spirit" was a reference to Baptism. They knew the Bible was telling them that one could not enter heaven unless they were baptized.
BIBLE: Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name (Acts 22:16)
BIBLE: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (1 Pet 3:21)
St. Augustine echoes the early Church belief that sins are forgiven in Baptism: "There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized" (Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15 395 A.D. ).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EUCHARIST
Regarding the Eucharist, evangelical Protestants are taught the Bible's instruction to "eat" Christ's "flesh" are not literal. But, after perusing a library full of early Christian writings, they eventually realize the Early Church did take a literal interpretation. In fact, all Christians from the Apostles to the 16th century took a literal interpretation. The Early Church Fathers were unanimous on teaching the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. The early Christians accepted the literal message about the necessity of eating Christ's flesh for one's salvation in the Gospel of John (Jn 6:35-71). They accepted the literal definition of "is" when the Lord held up the host and said "This is my Body" (Mt 26:26). The early Christians celebrated the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.
In St. Ignatius of Antioch, the third bishop of Antioch, wrote: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins
In 151 A.D., Church Father Justin Martyr wrote the Eucharist "is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"
In 405 A.D., St. Augustine wrote: "Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [ 405 A.D.]).
Most Christians today do believe in the literal presence of the real Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. (but not evangelical Protestants)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORTAL SIN
Evangelicals know that Reformation theology states one cannot lose one's salvation (i.e. lose justifying grace once one has received it). So, naturally, they are surprised to find that not a single Christian believed this doctrine in the Early Church or at any time prior to the 16th century. In fact, the early Church Fathers agreed that serious sins (mortal sins) would result in a loss of God's grace. They all believed justification could be received, and then lost.
St. Augustine ponders the enigma of two men who are justified, yet one perseveres until the end and one loses his justification: Of "two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable. . . . had not both been called and followed him that called them? And had not both become, from wicked men, justified men, and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration?" (The Gift of Perseverance 9:21 [428 A.D.]).
Fortunately, as St. Ignatius of Antioch pointed out, those who fall still have the possibility of repenting and rising again: "And pray without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the repentance, that they may attain to God. For cannot he that falls arise again, and he may attain to God?" (Letter to the Ephesians 10 [A.D. 110]).
Where did the early Christians get the idea that one could fall from grace? From the Bible!
BIBLE: You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace (Gal 5:4)
BIBLE: Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. (Rom. 11:22)
BIBLE: Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1 Cor 10:11-12)
The Bible tell us some sins are deadly and some are not. If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. (1 Jn 5:16-17)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
Many evangelical Protestants are not even familiar with the doctrines of apostolic succession (all bishops of the Church must be successors of the College of Apostles) and Petrine succession (the head bishop of the Church must be a direct successor of St. Peter), so it comes as a surprise when they find these two things were MAJOR and NON-NEGOTIABLE doctrines of the Early Church.
The early Christians, by definition, were in union with the Chair of Peter. St. Jerome, for example, declared "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter (Against the Luciferians 23 [383 A.D.]).
This Chair of Peter has continued for almost 2,000 years, with Pope Benedict XVI being the current occupant of the Chair. Protestants cut themselves off from communion with this Chair in the 16th century. But now that the ancient concerns Luther had in the 16th century have long been eradicated in the Church, we hope Protestants will come back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANOINTING OF THE SICK
Catholics have always anointed the very sick or very injured with oil if a person's life could be in danger. We call this sacrament, which involves anointing and special prayers, the Anointing of the Sick or Extreme Unction. So, Protestants are disappointed when they hear why the Reformers in the 16th century eliminated this sacrament. The new theology of the Reformers said no sacrament could be remotely connected to forgiveness, so they had to get rid of it. The Bible shows Christians should anoint their sick, that it is connected to forgiveness, and the sacrament can heal people spiritually and even physically at times.
BIBLE: So they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them (Mk 6:12-13)
BIBLE Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. (James 5:14-15)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CONFIRMATION
Confirmation, which involves being sealed with the Holy Spirit, has always been a Sacrament of the Catholic Church. Some of the Protestant Churches got rid of it in the 16th century, while others completely changed its meaning and its true spiritual effect. So, it is disappointing for some Protestants to find the Bible clearly shows apostles confirming people with the Holy Spirit with the laying on of hands as a separate action from Baptism. In the early Church, many people got baptized and confirmed on the same day since they were already adults when they entered the Christian community.
BIBLE: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama'ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17)
BIBLE: On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:5-6)
BIBLE: But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us; he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee (2 Cor 1:21-22)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RELICS
Protestants are trained not to mention "relics" unless they tie it to the word "medieval" in order to conjure up terrible scary images of Catholics, who respect God's holiest friends. By constantly labeling relics as a "medieval" thing, most students of Protestantism mistakenly infer that relics were not a part of Christianity until medieval times. So, it is with much chagrin that they learn that the Early Church had just as much respect for relics (body parts, tiny pieces of bone, or clothes or things that touched a holy saint) as the Catholic Church has today.
Even in 156 A.D., Christians of Smyrna reverently took up the relics of their bishop Polycarp after he was martyred. According to the ancient writings: We took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together. [The Martyrdom of Polycarp]
In 419 A.D., St. Augustine testifies that even in his time, miracles were still being worked by God through the relics of saints. In his famous City of God, he wrote: For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by his sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints
The relics of St. Januarius, a bishop and martyr of the early 4th century, were known by the Early Church to be responsible for many miracles, including the halting of eruptions of Mt. Vesuvious. Christians always preserved the relics of the holiest saints and placed them in churches for Christians to venerate. That includes the relics of St. John the Baptist, the relics of St. Stephen (the first Christian martyr), the relics of St. Peter and Paul, the relics of St. Brigid of Ireland (died 525 A.D.), S.t Nicholas (bishop of Myra), Even the Christians who learned straight from the Apostles did this. If someone tries to tell you it's "medieval," don't believe it! In 386 A.D., St Ambrose (bishop of Milan and mentor of St. Augustine) was told in a dream where to excavate and find the relics of St. Gervasius and St. Protasius. The next bishop of Milan placed the relics of St. Ambrose in the same church with Saints G & P. Many miracles occurred while the relics of St. Monica (mother of St. Augustine) were being brought to Rome. You may have seen the news reports that in 2004, the relics of St. Augustine were brought to Rome for veneration
The Catholic Church today has the same attitude toward relics that the Early Church had. In the words of St. Jerome: "We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are." (Letter to Riparius, 420 A.D.)
Where did the Early Church get the idea that God could work through the relics of his saints? The Word of God!
BIBLE: And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them (Acts 19:11-12)
BIBLE: so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed (Acts 5:15-16)
BIBLE: So Eli'sha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Eli'sha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Eli'sha, he revived, and stood on his feet (2 Kings 13:20-21)
Truthfully, most Catholics don't know much about relics or indulgences. They only start looking them up when Protestants keep telling them about them. In fact, the first few people who told me about indulgences were all Protestant/non-denominational and I was already an adult at the time. After 12 years of Catholic school, approximately 1,460 religion classes, and decades of going to Sunday Mass, I still had never heard of Indulgences. So I found it very ironic to learn that Protestants who take even one class on Catholicism at their own church hear all about indulgences!
It blows my mind that these classes, which are supposedly about the Catholic faith, never seem to teach these sincere students one of our most basic, basic doctrines: that our pope is and has for 2,000 years been a direct successor of St. Peter in an unbroken line back to the first century. These teachers refuse to bring up the second pope Linus, the third pope Anacletus, the four pope Clement of Rome, etc. It's like this major doctrine didn't even exist. These teachers mysteriously fail to mention the basic Scripture passages Catholics offer for where Jesus hands over His awesome authority to his Church (Mt 28:18-20, Mt 16:18-19, Mt 18:17-18), or gives his Church His own authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23), or where the Bible refers to the Church as the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). It's almost like attending a class at Iceland University on the United States, and the Icelandic teacher mysteriously "forgets" to mention that the U.S.A. is led by a president or that we've had presidents in succession since George Washington.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE BIBLE STUFF
Finally, Protestants who have memorized the phrases such as "justification is by faith alone" are disappointed when they learn, sometimes not until old age, that the phrase "faith alone" appears in the Bible only one time (James 2:24), and it says the opposite of what they have memorized. ("Justification is by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24).
Similarly, Protestants who have memorized the phrase "Confess straight to God, not to men!" are disappointed when they come across the part of the Gospel of John where Jesus, instills in His representatives (who are men!) His awesome power to forgive sins. (John 20:23) This bestowing of the power to forgive or to withhold forgiveness occurs during one of those few sacred moments where Jesus actually breathes the Holy Spirit into his Apostles.
Don't be sad, Protestants. You have been blessed with faith and a loving family who instilled in you a love of Scripture. But Jesus really did build a Church on Peter and promise it truthful guidance by the Holy Spirit. He intended this Church to guide all of his flock and most importantly, to give us the personal gift of Himself through the sacraments. All of your ancestors were part of this Church. We have an assurance from Jesus Himself that this Church will still be here when Christ comes again. Even though some of our members may sin, we have a promise from Jesus that our Church will still proclaiming truthful doctrines (Jn 16:13). We have an assurance that when you take Communion, you will be allowing the living God to enter you, transform you, and refine you. It is hard for devout Catholics to imagine not having this personal encounter with our Savior. We can hardly live without Him.
John 6:56: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him"
John 16:13: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth"
Mt 16:16-18: And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Mt 18:18: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Protestants were correct that the original, true Church ceased to be the true Church at some point in time, then that would mean that Jesus did not tell the truth! Jesus promised that not even the powers of hell could prevail against His church (Mt 16:17). When his Church spoke, it would be Christ himself speaking (Lk 10:16).
He also promised to be with the teaching mission until the END OF THE AGE! Jesus said: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Mt 28:20)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FURTHER RESOURCES
Catholic Answers has compiled QUOTES from the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. Check them out!
Church Fathers on the Church and Papacy
Church Fathers on Salvation, Baptism and Mortal Sin
Church Fathers on the Sacraments
Church Fathers on Scripture and Tradition
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Baptism, Sacrament of Penance, Sin, Summa Theologica on Confession, Sacrament of Confirmation, Priest, Apostolic Succession, Sanctifying Grace, Infallibility, Relics, Miracles, Church Fathers on Infused Righteousness, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Calvinism, , The Reformation, The Counter-Reformation, Papacy, Sacrament of Confirmation (Aquinas) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Other stuff: Faith Alone: Luther's Discovery?, Do We Contribute to Our Salvation?, A Tiptoe through the TULIP, Justification by Faith, Justification in Catholic Teaching, Thomas Aquinas, Relics, Do Miracles Still Happen?, Salvation (Early Church Fathers), Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura article, Perspicuity of Scripture, Ask Any Question!
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (The Lutheran-Catholic Agreement!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuff on Peter, Petra, Petros, and the Papacy Respected Protestant scholars on Peter, Petra and Petros More on Peter, "Petra" and "Petros" Debate on "Petra" "Petros" and "Peter" Peter the Rock The Pebble Argument Goes Down Peter, Aramaic and Greek Scott Hahn on the Papacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suggested reading: The Salvation Controversy by Jimmy Akin, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie, Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bibliography: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic Answers, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3),
Back to www.stillcatholic.com
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.