Posted on 06/21/2011 4:23:40 PM PDT by Salvation
It’s clear. Stall all you like.
What a great legacy St. Thomas More left all of us.
Primacy of Truth over Power. St. Thomas More, Man for This Season
Justice Scalia urges Christians to have courage
Becket's Lesson Beckons
A Man for This Season: Thomas More
Life of Thomas More
Saint Thomas More, Patron of Lawyers and Jurists, Martyr
Saint Thomas More,Martyr, Chancellor of England 1535
9/11 in Perspective: Thomas More — A Man for This Season [St. Thomas More]
St. Thomas More: A Man for This Season
St. Thomas More and Modern Martyrdom
St. Thomas More Bearing Witness Long After His Death
“First of all, as shown by Gasquet, there is reason to believe Wycliffe’s Bible was actually an adaptation of a commonly copied Catholic vernacular Bible. If More didn’t realize that the translation he had was from Wycliffe, that would merely prove how common Catholic made and approved translations were in his day. I love it when anti-Catholics undermine their pet claims!”
You’ve claimed this silliness before. Gasquet was an idiot, and no reputable historian would repeat his stupid accusation that the people who loved AND hated Wycliffe didn’t know that the Wycliffe Bible was actually a catholic translation made by someone unknown. The folks who accused Wycliffe knew full well his role, as did Wycliffe’s supporters.
“His historical work has been attacked by later writers. Geoffrey Elton wrote of “the falsehoods purveyed by Cardinal Gasquet and Hilaire Belloc.”[1] His collaboration with Edmund Bishop has been described as “an alliance between scholarship exquisite and deplorable.”[2] A polemical campaign by G. G. Coulton against Gasquet was largely successful in discrediting his works in academic eyes.[3] One of his books contained an appendix “A Rough List of Misstatements and Blunders in Cardinal Gasquet’s Writings.”[4]
David Knowles wrote a reasoned piece of apologetics on Gasquet’s history in 1956, Cardinal Gasquet as an Historian.[5] In it he speaks of Gasquet’s “many errors and failings”, and notes that he “was not an intellectually humble man and he showed little insight into his own limitations of knowledge and training.” Coulton, though, he felt was in error, through over-simplifying the case.[6]
Eamon Duffy said in an interview:
“ ...Cardinal Francis Aidan Gasquet, a great Benedictine historian, was both a bad workman and not entirely scrupulous about what he said. So you can be a churchman and a lousy historian.[7]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Aidan_Gasquet
“that would merely prove how common Catholic made and approved translations were in his day”
There are no known Catholic translations into the vernacular during the 1300s. Wycliffe and later Tyndale provided them, at a terrible cost to themselves. No vernacular translation has ever been found that wasn’t done by either Wycliffe (and his supporters) or Tyndale during that time.
The idea that an unknown Catholic made a vernacular translation is a fantasy, and it isn’t one shared by any historian.
More didn’t hide his opposition to commoners having a vernacular translation. It is a shame that some choose to lie about what More proclaimed with pride.
Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
You wrote:
“You’ve claimed this silliness before.”
I guess you call things you utterly fail to refute silliness.
“Gasquet was an idiot, and no reputable historian would repeat his stupid accusation that the people who loved AND hated Wycliffe didn’t know that the Wycliffe Bible was actually a catholic translation made by someone unknown.”
They just repeat your accusation that even brilliant scholars of the day were unable to recognize Wycliffe’s translation? Isn’t that exactlywhat you said about More? I have much more logical reason to believe Gasquet and More, than you. What Gasquet says makes much more sense than what you say.
“The folks who accused Wycliffe knew full well his role, as did Wycliffe’s supporters.”
But More wouldn’t know?
“A polemical campaign by G. G. Coulton against Gasquet was largely successful in discrediting his works in academic eyes.[3] One of his books contained an appendix “A Rough List of Misstatements and Blunders in Cardinal Gasquet’s Writings.”[4]”
Coulton is discredited.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9605clas.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606clas.asp
I distinctly remember my secular minded historians speaking of Coulton with distain because of his polemical nature. No one takes him too seriously today.
Also, none of the historians you cite actually refutes anything Gasquet says.
“There are no known Catholic translations into the vernacular during the 1300s.”
False. Richard Rolle’s Psalter, Yorkshire, c. 1340. West Midlands Psalter, c. 1350. Translations were being made.
“Wycliffe and later Tyndale provided them, at a terrible cost to themselves.”
Nope. Wycliffe died in his bed after a stroke. Tyndale was never in trouble over his translation itself.
“No vernacular translation has ever been found that wasn’t done by either Wycliffe (and his supporters) or Tyndale during that time.”
Again, false: Richard Rolle’s Psalter, Yorkshire, c. 1340. West Midlands Psalter, c. 1350. Surtees Psalter, Midlands or Northern (Yorkshire), c. 1250-1300.
“The idea that an unknown Catholic made a vernacular translation is a fantasy, and it isn’t one shared by any historian.”
Actually the idea that parts of scripture were translated by unknown Catholics is shared by every reputable historian who has ever lived. Again, Richard Rolle’s Psalter, Yorkshire, c. 1340. West Midlands Psalter, c. 1350. Surtees Psalter, Midlands or Northern (Yorkshire), c. 1250-1300, Bible Historiale, etc.
Why don’t you actually learn some history - since all you see,m to do is rely on wikipedia - and read this: Kees Dekker “Reading the Anglo-Saxon Gospels in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, in: Anglo-Saxon Books and Their Readers, ed. Thoman N. Hall and Donald Scragg. Kalamazoo, MI, 2008), pp. 68–93.
or
and just for fun:
“More didn’t hide his opposition to commoners having a vernacular translation. It is a shame that some choose to lie about what More proclaimed with pride.”
Are you accusing me of lying?
“False. Richard Rolle’s Psalter, Yorkshire, c. 1340. West Midlands Psalter, c. 1350. Translations were being made.”
Psalters. NOT entire Bibles. Wycliffe did the entire Bible.
“Nope. Wycliffe died in his bed after a stroke. Tyndale was never in trouble over his translation itself.”
Wycliffe was hated by the Catholic Church. Ever read about what they did to his bones? And Tyndale & his translation were also hated, and lived in hiding until Tyndale was betrayed to his death.
“Again, false:”
Again, true. I’m talking about BIBLES, not psalters. Every BIBLE translated in English vernacular from Wycliffe to Tyndale is Wycliffe’s translation (and his followers). NO OTHER translation of the Bible into the vernacular has been found.
“I guess you call things you utterly fail to refute silliness.”
No, I say it is foolishness to claim that Wycliffe’s opponents falsely accused him of translating the Bible. I say it is foolishness to think that the Lo0llards didn’t know who translated the scriptures they kept at risk of death. And it is foolishness to believe a Catholic apologist, 500 years after the fact, suddenly realized what no one on either side had realized for 500 years - that Wycliffe’s translation was REALLY made by a true but unknown Catholic, and Wycliffe stole it.
“Actually the idea that parts of scripture were translated by unknown Catholics is shared by every reputable historian who has ever lived.”
True. PARTS! But we were discussing entire Bibles, and NO ONE did that into English (whatever form it existed as) until Wycliffe, and no one else until Tyndale. No one did the entire New Testament, except Wycliffe & his followers, until Tyndale.
“Are you accusing me of lying?”
I’m accusing you of making blatantly false statements. More made no attempt to hide what he did. Catholic apologists have tried to hide what “saint” More did, and to do so they have LIED.
More wrote 9 volumes about his opposition to Tyndale, and More was not a subtle writer. He pursued Bible believing Christians and had them tortured and burned for disagreeing with the Catholic Church. More was an evil man who wanted to keep scripture out of the hands of commoners - a policy the Catholic Church followed for hundreds of years.
You wrote:
“Psalters. NOT entire Bibles. Wycliffe did the entire Bible.”
Some historians affirm that, others do not. In nay case Wycliffe produced a translation of a large chunk of the Bible. It is debatable whether any single person could translate all of scripture in just a few short years in the 13th century. It is most likely that several people worked on what is now called “Wyclife’s Bible”.
“Wycliffe was hated by the Catholic Church.”
Nope. Quite frankly most Catholics never knew who he was - then or now. His heresies - which were numerous - were hated. People who are hated by almost every living human being around them do not die in their sleep in their beds.
“Ever read about what they did to his bones?”
Absolutely. Great idea too. It should probably happen more often. Please note, however, that your question there undermines your previous claim. He died in about 1386. His bones were not finally dug up until about 1427. If he was hated by almost everyone around him - the Catholic Church - then why did it take 50 years to do that?
“And Tyndale & his translation were also hated, and lived in hiding until Tyndale was betrayed to his death.”
Tyndale lived in hiding before he began his translation. He was a heretic after all.
“Again, true. I’m talking about BIBLES, not psalters.”
Psalms are part of the Bible and you can’t prove Wycliffe translated all of the Bible either.
“Every BIBLE translated in English vernacular from Wycliffe to Tyndale is Wycliffe’s translation (and his followers).”
Do you have any proof that Wycliffe even translated all of scripture himself? Was he aided by anyone? Do you have any evidence he used no other translations?
“NO OTHER translation of the Bible into the vernacular has been found.”
Oh, so that means none existed and that “Wycliffe’s Bible” was absolutely solely his product? Nope, sorry, there’s no logic there.
“No, I say it is foolishness to claim that Wycliffe’s opponents falsely accused him of translating the Bible.”
No, it would be foolishness to say that someone who lived hundreds of years ago - and was a scholar fluent in Greek and Latin - knew nothing about where his Bible came from.
“I say it is foolishness to think that the Lo0llards didn’t know who translated the scriptures they kept at risk of death.”
There was no risk of death. No Lollard was at risk of death for possessing a book, any book. I have already shown that in previous threads. You seem to be making things up out of thin air.
“And it is foolishness to believe a Catholic apologist, 500 years after the fact, suddenly realized what no one on either side had realized for 500 years - that Wycliffe’s translation was REALLY made by a true but unknown Catholic, and Wycliffe stole it.”
Are you making up something else out of thin air? More and others knew of Bibles in the vernacular THEN. I am not making up anything. Gasquet is not making up anything either.
“True. PARTS! But we were discussing entire Bibles, and NO ONE did that into English (whatever form it existed as) until Wycliffe, and no one else until Tyndale.”
As you claim, but cannot prove. We have no copies of the whole Bible. That doesn’t mean one was not made.
“No one did the entire New Testament, except Wycliffe & his followers, until Tyndale.”
There several problems there: 1) Wycliffe never wrote in English in his entire life. He wrote in Middle English, a language which only came into its own in about 1300. Since we know gospels existed in England in the vernacular since at least the 8th century, it is entirely possible someone prepared an entire New Testament in Middle English before Wycliffe. Remember, the claim for Wycliffe is that he produced the whole Bible in ME, not just the NT in ME.
“I’m accusing you of making blatantly false statements.”
And yet you seem utterly unable to show that they are false.
“More made no attempt to hide what he did.”
He didn’t do anything wrong so why would you expect him to hide anything?
“Catholic apologists have tried to hide what “saint” More did, and to do so they have LIED.”
Please document your claim there. Or will you fail at that as well?
“More wrote 9 volumes about his opposition to Tyndale, and More was not a subtle writer.”
And how many posts have you posted? And are you subtle?
“He pursued Bible believing Christians and had them tortured and burned for disagreeing with the Catholic Church.”
Nope. First, heretics do not believe in the Bible. Second, if he pursued them, he did so for their heresy. Third, no could be tortured and burned for merely disagreeing with the Church.
“More was an evil man who wanted to keep scripture out of the hands of commoners - a policy the Catholic Church followed for hundreds of years.”
No such policy ever existed. And that’s exactly why you fail to ever document it. You will fail to document it now as well. Is it evil to slander a saint and Christ’s Church and then fail - again - to even remotely document those false claims? Is that evil?
“If he was hated by almost everyone around him - the Catholic Church - then why did it take 50 years to do that?”
Because the English nobility appreciated his stand against the Catholic Church owning great riches...
“Tyndale lived in hiding before he began his translation.”
No, he went into hiding AFTER his translation of the New Testament. He went abroad in 1524/25, since translating it without permission in England would lead to his death - it had been outlawed in 1408. While his travels aren’t entirely known, he seems to have gone into hiding about the time his first edition of the NT was published.
“Psalms are part of the Bible and you can’t prove Wycliffe translated all of the Bible either.”
Psalters are small parts of the Bible, and I have repeatedly posted on this thread that the translating was done by Wycliffe and his followers.
“Do you have any proof that Wycliffe even translated all of scripture himself? Was he aided by anyone? Do you have any evidence he used no other translations?”
I indicated in previous posts on this thread that he probably did NOT translate the entire Bible all by himself. He was certainly aided, and a revised edition leaned heavily on work by his followers. And there was no complete translation anywhere in English for him to use as help.
Perhaps you should read about Wycliffe before blathering about him.
“There was no risk of death. No Lollard was at risk of death for possessing a book, any book. I have already shown that in previous threads.”
They most certainly were. I have a book that consists of the trials in one city of Lollards. The 1408 Oxford Constitutions made owning scripture translated in the vernacular without permission punishable by death.
Again, this is not open to dispute. The text of the Oxford Constitutions can be read. I suggest you do so.
Try reading here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/lollardbibleothe00deanuoft/lollardbibleothe00deanuoft_djvu.txt
The digitization is lacking, but it addresses More’s error about Wycliffe.
“More and others knew of Bibles in the vernacular THEN.”
What they knew of were translations by Wycliffe. Again, no translation of the entire Bible or entire New Testament into English has been found dating before Wycliffe, or apart from him prior to Tyndale.
If you wish to claim they exist, then you need to find one. Those More mentioned by owner were all Wycliffe’s.
“Since we know gospels existed in England in the vernacular since at least the 8th century, it is entirely possible someone prepared an entire New Testament in Middle English before Wycliffe.”
None has been found or claimed to exist. And Wycliffe wrote in the English available to him. I refuse to add Middle to all my posts. The fact remains it was a vernacular translation, meant for commoners, and also used by nobility. No other translation has ever been found.
“First, heretics do not believe in the Bible.”
Sorry, but the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years because they feared what men would realize when they read the scriptures - that Catholic doctrine is not found in scripture, and that it frequently conflicts with scripture.
“No such policy ever existed. And that’s exactly why you fail to ever document it. “
It isn’t open to debate. It was widely taught, and many died for defying it. If you don’t know enough about history to know that, then you need to step away from FreeRepublic and learn.
According to the British Library:
“Christians continued to be governed from Rome by the Pope during medieval times. Church services were conducted in Latin throughout the Christian world, and translation of the Latin Bible into the vernacular, in other words the local language anyone could understand, was actively discouraged.
None the less, by Tyndale’s day, vernacular Bibles were available in parts of Europe, where they added fuel to the popular questioning of religious authority initiated by the monk Martin Luther - a religious crisis known as the Reformation, which resulted in the splitting of Christianity into Catholic and Protestant Churches.
In England, however, under the 1408 Constitutions of Oxford, it was strictly forbidden to translate the Bible into the native tongue. This ban was vigorously enforced by Cardinal Wolsey and the Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More, in an attempt to prevent the rise of English ‘Lutheranism’. The only authorised version of the Bible was St Jerome’s Latin translation, known as the ‘Vulgate’, made in the fourth century and understood only by highly-educated people.”
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/tyndale.html
Or you can read what Thomas More wrote, if you don’t mind reading 9 volumes of dishonesty.
So what you’re saying is that More created a “climate of hate” against Tyndale and this therefore somehow responsible for his death even though More died first, basically the same charge that leftists use.
“So what you’re saying is that More created a “climate of hate” against Tyndale and this therefore somehow responsible for his death even though More died first, basically the same charge that leftists use.”
No, I’m saying the efforts he made to find Tyndale and kill him bore fruit after his own death. The policy of aggressively seeking ‘heretics’ to kill them was More’s.
Who paid the double agent who found Tyndale and betrayed him? No one knows for certain. One candidate was a man named John Stokesley. Brian Moynahan makes the argument that More was the most likely person to fund Tyndale’s betrayal. As he waited for sentence and death, More wrote at length of his hatred for heretics, and he took pleasure in their burning. Is Moynahan correct? No one knows.
What IS known, beyond a doubt, is that More was eager to prosecute and burn ‘heretics’. There is no way of knowing if he paid the man who betrayed Tyndale, but he certainly used torture and spies to prosecute and kill supporters of Tyndale prior to his fall. His record of seeking out Protestants to burn them is certainly at odds with the public image More now has in film and stage.
“Because the English nobility appreciated his stand against the Catholic Church owning great riches...”
False. Some nobles wanted to protect Wycliffe. Others not. In any case you are undercutting your usual arguments.
“No, he went into hiding AFTER his translation of the New Testament.”
No, he was already a heretic and already went to the continent in 1524.
“ He went abroad in 1524/25, since translating it without permission in England would lead to his death - it had been outlawed in 1408.”
False. All that was required was a permit and there was not death sentence for translating without one. You are essentially making things up out of thin air.
“While his travels aren’t entirely known, he seems to have gone into hiding about the time his first edition of the NT was published.”
He already went to the continent in 1524 – before his NT was published.
“Psalters are small parts of the Bible, and I have repeatedly posted on this thread that the translating was done by Wycliffe and his followers.”
No. You have said it was Wycliffe. Perhaps on a rare occasion you said it was his sycophants. One is not the same as the other for starters.
“I indicated in previous posts on this thread that he probably did NOT translate the entire Bible all by himself. He was certainly aided, and a revised edition leaned heavily on work by his followers. And there was no complete translation anywhere in English for him to use as help.”
That you know of.
“Perhaps you should read about Wycliffe before blathering about him.”
I have read and written more about Wycliffe than you probably ever will. On the other hand, there’s a good chance you’ve never read a single book about him by a reputable historian.
“They most certainly were. I have a book that consists of the trials in one city of Lollards. The 1408 Oxford Constitutions made owning scripture translated in the vernacular without permission punishable by death.”
Nope. The punishment is this according to the law itself: “thenceforth, no one should translate any text of sacred Scripture, by his own authority, into the English or any other tongue, in the way of book, tract, or treatise; and that no publication of this sort, composed in the time of John Wiclif, or since, or thereafter to be composed, should be read, either in part or in whole, either in public or in private, under the pain of the greater excommunication, until such translation should be approved by the diocesan of the place; or, if the matter should require it, by a provincial council: every one who should act in contradiction to this order, to be punished as an abettor of heresy and error.” (Constit. vii. Archb. Arundel. 1408)
And, of course, no one was actually arrested, tried and executed by the state in England for translating the Bible. And certainly nothing like that could be done by the Church since it had no power to execute in any case, ever.
“Again, this is not open to dispute. The text of the Oxford Constitutions can be read. I suggest you do so.”
Already did. Here’s the punishment: “greater excommunication,until such translation should be approved by the diocesan of the place; or, if the matter should require it, by a provincial council”
“Try reading here:”
Coulton. Sorry, read his works in grad school. Found him to often be in error.
“The digitization is lacking, but it addresses More’s error about Wycliffe.”
No, actually it addresses Coulton’s errors regarding More.
“What they knew of were translations by Wycliffe.”
Prove it.
“ Again, no translation of the entire Bible or entire New Testament into English has been found dating before Wycliffe, or apart from him prior to Tyndale.”
Prove none existed. You can’t. Prove what they had is now known about today. You can’t.
“If you wish to claim they exist, then you need to find one.”
Actually I don’t. We already know numerous translations existed of parts of the Bible. We also know Protestants destroyed thousands of Catholic books in the Protestant Revolution.
“Those More mentioned by owner were all Wycliffe’s.”
Prove it. Also, when you say all of those More mentioned that means there were plenty – and no one was being executed for having one including More. Again, you’re undercutting your own posts. If possessing such a Bible – and you claim More had one – was punishable by death (another claim of yours) then why wasn’t he executed? Why weren’t any of the other people you claim More alluded to?
“None has been found or claimed to exist.”
Except by More?
“And Wycliffe wrote in the English available to him. I refuse to add Middle to all my posts. The fact remains it was a vernacular translation, meant for commoners, and also used by nobility. No other translation has ever been found.”
Which says nothing about whether or not it existed.
“Sorry, but the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years”
False. If this were true, it would be easy for you to prove it. Instead all we have is post after post of your claim and no proof of it at all. And that’s what will continue to happen too. I am willing to bet we both know why too.
“ because they feared what men would realize when they read the scriptures - that Catholic doctrine is not found in scripture, and that it frequently conflicts with scripture.”
False. There are no conflicts at all and the Church has never hidden scripture from anyone. And, as always, you offer not even a scrap of evidence for your most outlandish claims. And, again, I am willing to bet we both know why too.
“It isn’t open to debate.”
Apparently it isn’t open to being proved by you.
“It was widely taught, and many died for defying it.”
It was never taught and no one died for it either.
“If you don’t know enough about history to know that, then you need to step away from FreeRepublic and learn.”
I probably know more about history than you ever will.
“According to the British Library:”
You think so? The British Library also said this _ which you omitted of course: “Translations of the Bible into various forms of English, such as Old English, were made over the centuries, but these were hand-written copies with a very limited circulation.”
What they say about the 1408 constitutions is clearly erroneous – according to the constitutions themselves. Original documents are always more trustworthy than opinions from the British Library or anywhere else.
“Or you can read what Thomas More wrote, if you don’t mind reading 9 volumes of dishonesty.”
There’s far more accuracy in any volume from More than in your posts.
Rather than deal with your version of 9 volumes of drivel, here is just one sentence:
“And certainly nothing like that could be done by the Church since it had no power to execute in any case, ever.”
As you well know, the Catholic Church would determine someone was a heretic, and then turn them over to the state for execution.
I suppose the Popes felt that kept their hands free of blood, but on the Great Day, I don’t think they will find Jesus Christ agrees.
You wrote:
“As you well know, the Catholic Church would determine someone was a heretic, and then turn them over to the state for execution.”
No. A tribunal would determine after a trial that a person was a heretic. That didn’t mean he would be executed. Very few people were ever executed by the state for heresy.
“I suppose the Popes felt that kept their hands free of blood, but on the Great Day, I don’t think they will find Jesus Christ agrees.”
Since they acted in good faith and on what they knew, there is no reason to believe Jesus will find greater fault with them than He does for other men.
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.