How Quickly Catholic Heresy Took Over the Church (Immediately)

"I would love for someone with a theological bent to research what the military learned about tribal vs Nation-state thought...

I think Victor Davis Hanson would do a pretty good job. His book Carnage and Culture tip-toed around that theme, but I see all of the necessary skills present.

341 posted on 11/13/2011 9:07:23 AM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, in not raise your standards.)

No wonder that you have spurned the Catholic Church. You spurn the very foundations of Christianity. Nobody who is Christian can possibly declare their own salvation. If you assume that, you mock the Judge and attempt to usurp His place.

Naw...It just the pagan Catholic religion that is spurned...We are the Children of God and have been confirmed by the Holy Spirit...

And as a result, there's nothing funnier that you telling us we can't possibly be saved right now...

342 posted on 11/13/2011 10:33:41 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)

Ephesians 3:3-14 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

11In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

We have it all NOW. Not because we say so but because God says so. That's what trust and faith is; simply believing God when He tells us something.

It gets back to *God said it, I believe it, that settles it*.

343 posted on 11/13/2011 11:09:34 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

Finally, a moment to reply! (Good heavens... this thread has gone to Mars, and back, in my absence!)

Mr Rogers wrote, in reply to my comment:

[Paladin]
“In the meantime, dear fellow: have you noticed how many of your objections have fallen in battle? “Sola Scriptura” (the very foundation of everything you are trying to argue) has collapsed into self-contradictory pieces. Your theory of “Matthew 28:18-20 being read as strict, discrete events in strict chronological order” fell in like manner.”

[Mr Rogers]
In your dreams.

(!) All right: can you please direct me to anywhere in Scripture which explicitly teaches that "one must not use anything but the Bible (and the truncated 66-book Protestant Bible, at that), in matters of salvation"? You seem rather vehement, which may be due to the fact that you know precisely where such a verse or verses might be; could you cite them (book, chapter, verse)? If it were established beyond all reasonable doubt, then your position would be quite solid, at least on that main point. I, for one, can find nothing of the sort, anywhere in Scripture. I've seen many attempts:

Revelation 22:18-19, which speaks only about adding or subtracting from the Book of Revelation;
Psalm 119:160, which asserts merely that Scripture is true [no faithful and well-informed Catholic would argue against that!];
2 Timothy 3:15-16, which asserts that Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, ministry, etc. [ditto: no faithful and well-informed Catholic would gainsay that];
Mark 7:13, which condemns human traditions which contradict God's Word (but not all tradition: see 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.)

Claims that Scripture is good, true, necessary, God-breathed, etc., are all true, and yet they all miss the main point: that Scripture never claims to be SOLELY sufficient (pardon the split infinitive!). When Catholics reject the nonsensical idea of "sola Scriptura", they're not rejecting the good and necessary "Scriptura"; rather, they're rejecting the erroneous, self-contradictory and unbiblical "SOLA"!

Making an assertion is not the same as doing it.

That is certainly true enough.

Matthew 28 reads, for example, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Only a Roman Catholic can change that into, “Go, baptize and make disciples.” Go. Make. Baptize. Teach.

(?) Forgive me, friend, but I do wonder whether you read my original reply to this point, at all! Here's the salient paragraph of mine, in reply:

:) Oh, come now! How, exactly, would you "make disciples" without first teaching them? According to the schema you're proposing (i.e. that one must take Matthew 28:18-20 in an utterly chronological fashion), "teaching" is not to be done until after one is made a disciple (Heaven only knows how!), and then baptized, and then one is allowed to start "teaching them to observe all of Christ's Commands"... the very first of which, by the way, was "Repent!" (cf. Matthew 4:17) I fail to see how one would have made any disciples at all, by that method.

If it helps, think of the case of someone saying: "I will give you $1,000,000,000 US, and you will be rich!" Would you argue that "getting rich" happens well after the gift of money, on the basis that it was mentioned later in the sentence? I hope not; it seems rather apparent that the gift and the "richness" of the recipient happen simultaneously; the "richness" happens in and through the gift of money. Just so: the advent of one's "discipleship" (however imperfect and nascent) happens in and through the gift of Baptism; one enacts the other, by definition.

That is what Jesus said,

He did. I merely assert that you (Mr Rogers) have misunderstood what He said.

and it is a pity that Popes and priests disagree with his word.

Again, a correction: faithful and well-informed popes and priests disagree with your misunderstanding of His Word. I assure you, they adhere to His Word quite faithfully.

There is a reason why the Roman Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations of scripture, and it is NOT because scripture supports the Roman Catholic doctrine!

Good heavens! My dear chap, do you rear even your own comments? We already discussed this: numerous vernacular translations were approved by the Pope *centuries* (and, in some cases, a millenium) before Protestantism ever appeared on the scene! Is the Vulgate, which was translated into the vernacular (Latin) from the Greek (and the Hebrew), irrelevant to you? Are the Slavic people (who benefitted from the tireless efforts of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, approved by the Pope) beneath your notice? Does the Douay-Rheims Bible "not count", to you? By all that is good and holy, man, do think about this reasonably! The Church is not at all against having vernacular translations of the Holy Scriptures; rather, She is against having FLAWED and ERROR-RIDDEN DISTORTIONS of the Holy Scriptures in print.

Please do keep that in mind: the Church is against DISTORTIONS of the Scriptures (in print, or in the pulpit), not the Scriptures themselves! Again: do you truly think She'd have made the Scriptures so widely available, and saturated all Her liturgies and rituals and art-work with Scripture, if She were so dead-set on destroying and/or hiding it? On the one hand, you attribute the most cunning and ruthless schemes to the Church (i.e. having "crafty and diabolical priests" teach distortions in favour of the reality), and you then attribute the most basic stupidity and naivete to the very same people (i.e. not thinking to get rid of the Scriptures entirely, or strip all references of it from all Church liturgies, etc., so that even a child could supposedly "read the Scriptures and find the Church's hypocrisy")! Do make up your mind: are you accusing the Church of nefarious cleverness in eradicating the Scriptures, or are you attributing such stupidity to Her that she would leave lying about (and even work to publish, in any number of languages, and to distribute widely) teh very Book which would put the lie to everything She ever taught?

But as you consider the above, please don't let that distract you from my first request: to cite the Scripture references which establish "sola Scriptura" beyond all reasonable doubt. I do not say this out of cockiness or vainglory; I say this as an earnest plea for you to question/examine your starting assumptions (especially those which lead you to attack the Church with such blind vehemence).

344 posted on 11/13/2011 2:12:04 PM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)

Just one point, since I think much of this is pointless:

“Good heavens! My dear chap, do you rear even your own comments? We already discussed this: numerous vernacular translations were approved by the Pope *centuries* (and, in some cases, a millenium) before Protestantism ever appeared on the scene!”

I have already documented that A) in countries like England, there were NO vernacular translations of the Bible prior to Wycliffe. None. For 1300 years. The closest was a translation of the gospels in 1000 AD.

Then Wycliffe’s translation was persecuted, although it was an accurate translation. Then Tyndale’s, also a fine translation.

I’ve documented that from 1200-1800is, it was a matter of policy in the Roman Catholic Church to deny commoners access to vernacular translations.

You are entitled to your beliefs, but you do not get to make up facts.

“Please do keep that in mind: the Church is against DISTORTIONS of the Scriptures (in print, or in the pulpit), not the Scriptures themselves!”

Another false statement. The church opposed accurate translations meant for COMMONERS. The rich who were devout and under Catholic control could read vernacular translations - at times needing written permission from the Pope himself - but COMMONERS could not. Tyndale’s translation was excellent. it is today still a fine translation.

And no, the liturgy was NOT filled with scripture. Prior to the 1900s, there was almost none, and what there was present was in Latin.

345 posted on 11/13/2011 2:23:33 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")

What is your comment on this:

► Preface:

That Rome did not overall promote Biblical literacy is true, and until recently little of the Bible was read in Mass, and today this is still not much. The average Catholic does not even get to Mass weekly, less alone daily as would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle, and it has already been established that historically Rome did not encourage Bible literacy among the laity, and even discouraged it. Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951. (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm) Also “at mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, only going to Mass will not give one a functional knowledge of Scripture. TOC

While accusations of censure of the Bible by Rome are sometimes exaggerated, and while Roman Catholicism did print Bibles in the common (“vulgar”) tongue (and in a notable encouragement, Pius VI in his letter to Martini, commended the printing and reading of his translation of his Bible into Italian), yet for most of her history she evidences that she not only did not place a priority upon personal Biblical literacy among the laity, but she actually hindered it, including by requiring permission to privately read Scripture, or more rarely, in some places outright banning the laity from reading it. Translations in the language of the laity was typical judged as “doing more harm than good.” This suppression based upon the position of “sola ecclesia,” that the Roman church only is the supreme authority and sufficient infallible authority on faith and morals. As stated in 1528 by Dominican Johannes Mensing, "Scripture can deceive, the Church cannot deceive. Who does not perceive then that the Church is greater than Scripture and that we can entrust ourselves better to the Church than to Scripture." (“Gründliche vnterricht: Was eyn frommer Christen von der heyligen Kirchen, von den Vetern vnd der heyligen schrifft halten sol”)

However, while Rome infallibly declares she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula (but which does not insure infallible interpretation of her), Scripture is the only transcendent material authority on faith and moral that is infallible, being wholly God-breathed, and which was established as being so due the supernatural attestation given them from God, and their unique heavenly qualities, and conflation and progressive complementarity to what was previously established as being from God.

Moreover, while today Bible reading is somewhat encouraged in Roman Catholicism, its authority is yet impugned by inculcating the idea that what Rome says it means is all that really doctrinally matters, and by the overall liberal interpretive approach to exegesis of most of her modern scholars, such as is seen (below) in the approved commentary in the official Roman Catholic Bible for America.

► Historical view:

It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests (De Lazaro concio, iii, MPG, xlviii, 992; Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, lvii, 30, NPNF, 2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament (Hom. ix in Col., MPG, lxii, 361, NPNF, xiii, 301). The women also, who were always at home, were diligently to read the Bible (Hom. xxxv on Gen. xii, MPG, liii, 323). Jerome recommended the reading and studying of Scripture on the part of the women (Epist., cxxviii, 3, MPL, xxii, 1098, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 259; Epist., lxxix, 9, MPG, xxii, 730-731, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 167). The translations of the Bible, Augustine considered a blessed means of propagating the Word of God among the nations (De doctr. christ., ii, 5, NPNF, 1st ser., ii, 536); Gregory I recommended the reading of the Bible without placing any limitations on it (Hom. iii in Ezek., MPL, lxxvi, 968). — New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia
► The Middle Ages:
Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff�, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular...
With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. (Philip Schaff, Bible reading by the laity, restrictions on. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II: Basilica – Chambers)
“There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us.” (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, The Catholic Publication Society, 1887, page 509)
Through most of the fourth century, the controversy with the Arians had turned upon Scripture, and appeals to past authority were few. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 6, page 2)
Our present convenient compendiums -- the Missal, Breviary, and so on were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed. [Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 9, page 296]
Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations (Canon 825 §1).
The Catholic dictionary states that, “In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people...New dangers came in during the Middle Ages...To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Terragona, (1234) [local councils], forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Toulouse was in response to the Albigensian heresy, and it is understood that when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France. http://www.lazyboysreststop.com/true_attitude.htm
Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14: "We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue" (Pierre Allix, Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213).
Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.” (Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1887, page 82).

During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times. Their history is chiefly connected with the names of medieval heretics like Berengarius of Tours, Abelard, John Wyclif, and John Hus. However, especially in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, there were also issued prohibitions of various kinds of superstitious writings, among them the Talmud and other Jewish books. In this period, also, the first decrees about the reading of translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigenses. What these decrees (e.g. of the synods of Toulouse in 1229, Tarragona in 1234, Oxford in 1408) aimed at was the restriction of Bible-reading in the vernacular. A general prohibition was never in existence. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, (v3, pg. 520; http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Censorship_of_Books)

The Council of Trent broadly prohibited all Latin translations of the New Testament coming from what she decreed were were heretics, and also prohibited “all their books, even those free from objection, i.e. not treating of religious questions, as well as future publications.” “Any person reading or keeping a book prohibited for other reasons commits a grievous sin and is to be punished according to the bishop's discretion. The ten rules remained in force until Leo XIII abrogated them by the Constitution "Officiorum ac Munerum" (January 25, 1897) and replaced them by new general decrees.” However, consistent with other hindrances, Trent did allow reading of Scripture, that of “reading of Latin translations of the Old Testament edited by heretics, and for the use of Bible-versions in the vernacular written by Catholics,” but only after a license in writing was obtained from the proper ecclesiastical authority:

Council of Trent

Session XXV: Rule IV of the Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books Drawn Up by The Fathers Chosen by the Council of Trent and Approved by Pope Pius:

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with English Translation (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1955), p. 274-75. http://teachers.sduhsd.net/mmontgomery/world_history/reformation/trent.htm
The most stringent censorship decree after the Reformation was the Papal bull “Inter Solicitudines,” issued by Pope Leo X, December 1516, which Leo X ordered censorship to be applied to all translations from Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Chaldaic into Latin, and from Latin into the vernacular. (Hirsch, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450-1550 [1967] 90).
In addition to the printed books being seized and publicly burnt , payment of a hundred ducats to the fabric of the basilica of the prince of the apostles in Rome , without hope of relief , and suspension for a whole year from the possibility of engaging in the printing , There Is To be imposed upon anyone presuming to act otherwise the sentence of excommunication . Finally , if the offender 's contumacy Increases , he is to be punished with all the sanctions of the law , by His bishop or by our vicar , in Such a way That others will have no incentive to try to follow His example. Papal Bull, Inter Sollicitudines (December 1516) [Wiki Translation].
Between 1567 and 1773, not a single edition of an Italian-language Bible was printed anywhere in the Italian peninsula. “When English Roman Catholics created their first English biblical translation in exile at Douai and Reims, it was not for ordinary folk to read, but [primarily] for priests to use as a polemical weapon.—the explicit purpose which the 1582 title-page and preface of the Reims New Testament proclaimed. Only the Jansenists of early seventeenth-century France came to have a more positive and generous attitude to promoting Bible-reading among Catholics" (Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History, 2003, p. 406; p. 585.)
Douay-Rheims
The Douay–Rheims Bible...is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English undertaken by members of the English College, Douai in the service of the Catholic Church.
Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all, or could be easily understood by every one that readeth or heareth them in a known language; or that they were not often through man's malice or infirmity, pernicious and much hurtful to many; or that we generally and absolutely deemed it more convenient in itself, and more agreeable to God's Word and honour or edification of the faithful, to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages.
Not for these nor any such like reasons do we translate this sacred book, but upon special consideration of the present time, state, and condition of our country, unto which diverse things are either necessary or profitable and medicinable now that otherwise, in the peace of the Church, were neither much requisite, nor perchance wholly tolerable.
In our own country, notwithstanding the Latin tongue was ever (to use Venerable Bede's words) common to all the provinces of the same for meditation or study of Scriptures, and no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church,..
Which causeth the Holy Church not to forbid utterly any Catholic translation, though she allow not the publishing or reading of any absolutely and without exception or limitation, knowing by her Divine and most sincere wisdom, how, where, when, and to whom these her Master's and Spouse's gifts are to be bestowed to the most good of the faithful. http://www.bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html

INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS:

The Index of Prohibited Books was first published in 1544, and the Inquisition in Rome prepared the first Roman Index, issued by Paul IV in 1559. It contained more than a thousand interdictions divided into three classes: authors, all of whose works were to be prohibited;...
The number of writers and works placed on the Roman Index from the mid-sixteenth century to the end of the eighteenth amounted to about four thousand...
“The defense against Protestantism always remained a major pre-occupation of Roman censors. Protection of the political and juridical rights and privileges of the church, the pope, and the hierarchy also find a notable echo in the Index. Thus, writings favoring Gallicanism and those advocating the right of civil authorities to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs appear prominently, alongside polemical works dealing with the political intervention of the Holy See, such as during its conflict with the Republic of Venice in 1606–1607, or the oath of loyalty in England during the pontificate of Paul V (1605–1621).” http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eemw_03/eemw_03_00542.html

The Bull Unigenitus, published at Rome, September 8, 1713, as part of its censure of the propositions of Jansenism*, also condemned the following as being errors:

79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.
84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.
85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication. (INNOCENT XIII 1721-1724 BENEDICT XIII 1724-1730, CLEMENT XII 1730-174, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm)

INTER PRAECIPUAS (On Biblical Societies) of Pope Gregory XVI, MAY 8, 1844:

1. Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that We now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels. Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided.
In the many translations from the biblical societies, serious errors are easily inserted by the great number of translators, either through ignorance or deception. These errors, because of the very number and variety of translations, are long hidden and hence lead the faithful astray...
3. For this end the same biblical societies never cease to slander the Church and this Chair of Peter as if We have tried to keep the knowledge of sacred Scripture from the faithful. However, We have documents clearly detailing the singular zeal which the Supreme Pontiffs and bishops in recent times have used to instruct the Catholic people more thoroughly in the word of God, both as it exists in writing and in tradition.
5. ..the school of Jansenius. Borrowing the tactics of the Lutherans and Calvinists, they rebuked the Apostolic See on the grounds that because the reading of the Scriptures for all the faithful, at all times and places, was useful and necessary, it therefore could not be forbidden anyone by any authority...
11. Therefore, taking counsel with a number of Cardinals, and weighing the whole matter seriously and in good time, We have decided to send this letter to all of you. We again condemn all the above-mentioned biblical societies of which our predecessors disapproved. We specifically condemn the new one called Christian League founded last year in New York and other societies of the same kind, if they have already joined with it or do so in the future. Therefore let it be known to all that anyone who joins one of these societies, or aids it, or favors it in any way will be guilty of a grievous crime. Besides We confirm and renew by Our apostolic authority the prescriptions listed and published long ago concerning the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/g16inter.htm)

"A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church...We must also keep in mind that whenever or wherever reading endangers the purity of Christian thought and living the unum necessarium it has to be wisely restricted." — A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953) pp. 11-12.
► Modern era

Providentissimus Deus: On the study of Holy Scripture, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII , November 18, 1893,

6. It is in this that the watchful care of the Church shines forth conspicuously. By admirable laws and regulations, she has always shown herself solicitous that "the celestial treasure of the Sacred Books, so bountifully bestowed upon man by the Holy Spirit, should not lie neglected."25 She has prescribed that a considerable portion of them shall be read and piously reflected upon by all her ministers in the daily office of the sacred psalmody. She has ordered that in Cathedral Churches, in monasteries, and in other convents in which study can conveniently be pursued, they shall be expounded and interpreted by capable men; and she has strictly commanded that her children shall be fed with the saving words of the Gospel at least on Sundays and solemn feasts.26 Moreover, it is owing to the wisdom and exertions of the Church that there has always been continued from century to century that cultivation of Holy Scripture which has been so remarkable and has borne such ample fruit. (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm)

Comment:

While the above encyclical was partly motivated by the rise of the historical-critical method of analyzing Scripture, which impugns its authority, yet liberal scholarship reigns in Roman Catholicism. See below for more.

Officiorum ac Munerum, Encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII. The prohibition and censorship of books Apostolic Constitution, January 25, 1897
5. Editions of the Original Text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in Theological and Biblical Studies, provided also that the Dogma of Catholic Faith are not impugned in the Prolegomena or Annotations.
6. In the same manner, and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible, whether in Latin or in any other dead language, published by non-Catholics, are permitted. 5. Editions of the Original Text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in Theological and Biblical Studies, provided also that the Dogma of Catholic Faith are not impugned in the Prolegomena or Annotations.
6. In the same manner, and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible, whether in Latin or in any other dead language, published by non-Catholics, are permitted.
23. Those only shall be allowed to read and keep books prohibited, either by Special Decrees or by these General Decrees, who shall have obtained the necessary permission, either from the Apostolic See or from its delegates.
41. All the faithful are bound to submit to preliminary Ecclesiastical Censorship at least those books which treat of Holy Scripture, ..
48. Those who, without the Approbation of the Ordinary, print, or cause to be printed, books of Holy Scripture, or notes of commentaries on the same, incur ipso facto excommunication, but not reserved.
49....We Decree that these presents and whatsoever they contain shall at no time be questioned or impugned for any fault of subreption, or obreption, or of Our intention, or for any other defect whatsoever; but are and shall be ever valid and efficacious, and to be inviolably observed, both Judicially and extra-Judicially, by all of whatsoever rank and pre-eminence. And We declare to be invalid and of no avail, whatsoever may be attempted knowingly or unknowingly contrary to these, by any one, under any Authority or pretext whatsoever; all to the contrary notwithstanding. http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/Censorship.htm
Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920: "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, with the veneration due the divine Word, make a spiritual reading from the Sacred Scriptures. A plenary indulgence is granted if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour."
DeI Verbum Pope Paul vi on November 18, 1965: Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful...But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. [Note: The ecumenical Council of Trent declared that the Catholic Church, "ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever (Council of Trent, fourth Session)", and restricted access to it.] And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them. [Note also that the NAB notes (below) reflect very liberal scholarship.]

Vatican Two: With Vatican came a marked difference in the Roman Catholic stance toward general Bible reading.

The Second Vatican Council, 1966, under Pope Paul VI abolishes the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which was founded in 1557.
The Catholic Study Bible: At mid-century the Scripture were read in Latin at Mass. There were few selections from the Old Testament, and a rather small number of New Testament passages dominated... Since Vatican 2...the Old Testament is very prominent and almost the entire New Testament...is represented...At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts...Now the texts of the Bible form the primary resource for Catholic religious education at all levels. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16)
"A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due to the divine word make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture. A plenary indulgence is granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour." (Enchiridion of Indulgences. Authorized English edition. 1969. Catholic Book Publishers. New York. Page 68. # 50) TOC

* a distinct movement within the Catholic Church from the 16th to 18th centuries. It opposed Pelagianism (and semi-Pelagianism), and what is saw as the "relaxed morality" of Jesuitism and its frequent communion, and it followers identified themselves as rigorous followers of Augustinism, and it thus shared some tenets of Calvinism (though its pious Catholic founder, Jansen, rejected the doctrine of assurance). Its key conflict with Roman Catholic soteriology is that it denies the role of free will in the acceptance and use of grace.

The Bull condemns 101 propositions which are taken verbatim from the last (and enlarged edition of Pasquier Quesnel's book entitled Abrégé de la morale de l'Evangile ("Morality of the Gospel, Abridged") , first published 1671. The work was approved by the French bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne, and the last edition of 1693 was highly recommended by the new bishop of Châlons, Gaston-Louis de Noailles.

Pope Clement XI condemned it in a brief, July 13, 1708, but Noailles, who had become Archbishop of Paris and cardinal, was not prepared to withdraw his approbation of it. This resulted in the Pope issuing the Bull Unigenitus, and later the Bull "Pastoralis officii" on 28 Aug., 1718, excommunicating all that refused to accept the Bull "Unigenitus," as Noailles, who did withdraw his approval of Morality of the Gospel, worked to prevent unconditional acceptance of the Bull "Unigenitus," but relented shortly before his death. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenist)

The 101 propositions were overall “Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.”

Among the condemned propositions were that: grace works with omnipotence and is irresistible; without grace man can only commit sin; Christ died for the elect only; every love that is not supernatural is evil; without supernatural love there can be no hope in God, no obedience to His law, no good work, no prayer, no merit, no religion; the prayer of the sinner and his other good acts performed out of fear of punishment are only new sins, etc. http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/11/alleged-errors-of-paschasius-quesnel.html TOC

As for SS, it depends upon the definition of it, which RCs often go radical on, but the sola refers to Scripture along being the supreme authority on faith and morals, based upon it being the only transcendent material source of revelation which is perpetually infallible.

Nowhere is their a promise (esp. in the explicit manner demanded for SS) that the church will perpetually be infallible whenever it speaks on faith and morals. Support for this is extrapolated out of a few texts, and arguments for it are also heavily dependent upon invalid presuppositions.

These include the premise that the church of Rome was the instrument revelation and is the unique steward of it, and thus is perpetually assuredly infallible, and that this magisterium is necessary for the preservation of truth.

But which presuppositions Scripture reveals are specious, as unlike Rome, the Jews were the unique instruments and stewards of revelation, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and yet they had no perpetually assuredly infallible magisterium, and truth was preserved and most of the Divine writings established as such without one.

Tthis preservation of truth included raising up men from outside the formal magisterium to reprove it, as did John the Baptist and the Lord Himself, (Mk. 7:3-13) and thus Christianity itself is founded upon a holy rebellion against those who presumed more authority than Scripture.

Which, being God-breathed, and being established as such due to its Divine qualities and effects and other manifestation of supernatural attestation, is abundantly substantiated as being the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial

I addition, its sufficiency includes providing for the church, but which is subject to it, as even the instruments of Holy Writ were (sometimes they did not even understand what they were writing.)

Rome however, infallibly defines that she is infallible whenever she speaks according to her infallibly(?) defined formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible to be infallible, and whatever else may be needed to support her.

Moreover, while RCs claim an infallible interpreter, they cannot be sure how many times Rome has spoken infallibly, nor if their interpretation of Rome is correct, but based upon fallible human reasoning (which they demeans Prots for using) they give assent of faith to her infallible decrees, if they are reasonably sure they are such.

Late night posting

346 posted on 11/13/2011 7:08:42 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)

I’ll bookmark that for future reference. It is a good summary and well linked.

The Apostles were considered unlearned men, yet they knew the scriptures. It was entirely possible to do - IF it was considered important or worthwhile. I think it speaks volumes about the role of scripture in Catholic thought to know that there were no attempts to translate the scriptures into English until Wycliffe in the 1300s. For well over 1000 years, no one tried. The best was the gospels around 1000 AD.

And when it did become available, the Roman Catholic Church fought against it, and didn’t change their approach until nearly 1900 AD.

347 posted on 11/13/2011 8:12:06 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")

"IF it was considered important or worthwhile. I think it speaks volumes about the role of scripture in Catholic thought to know that there were no attempts to translate the scriptures into English until Wycliffe in the 1300s."

I though you were too well educated and too well read to be this historically ignorant. Perhaps I was wrong.

First, until the 16th century there was no common language spoken and understood across England. Many regions still spoke a dialect that was largely based upon the origins of the peoples in the area. These included Celtic regions of Cornwall, Wales, Manx, and some areas where Breton was spoken. Others were largely Anglo-Saxon where the language was largely based upon the Germanic languages of the Angels, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, and Fresians. Significant portions of the country were under the Vokings such as York and the Eastern low areas. Following the Norman conquest the language of the Church, education, and the law was Latin and the language of the court was French. Still no common or recognizable "English" language. Try picking up a copy of Aelfric's "Homily on St. Gregory the Great". I guarantee you won't be able to read it:

"Eft he axode, hu ðære ðeode nama wære þe hi of comon. Him wæs geandwyrd, þæt hi Angle genemnode wæron. Þa cwæð he, "Rihtlice hi sind Angle gehatene, for ðan ðe hi engla wlite habbað, and swilcum gedafenað þæt hi on heofonum engla geferan beon."

It wasn't until the 13th Century that the first books in what we call Middle English appeared and it wasn't until the late 13th century that the language of the English law courts became English, but none of that was a recognizable English for the commoner as the following example from Mandeville's Travels published in the late 14th century illustrates:

"In þat lond ben trees þat beren wolle, as þogh it were of scheep; whereof men maken clothes, and all þing þat may ben made of wolle. In þat contree ben many ipotaynes, þat dwellen som tyme in the water, and somtyme on the lond: and þei ben half man and half hors, as I haue seyd before; and þei eten men, whan þei may take hem. And þere ben ryueres and watres þat ben fulle byttere, þree sithes more þan is the water of the see. In þat contré ben many griffounes, more plentee þan in ony other contree. Sum men seyn þat þei han the body vpward as an egle, and benethe as a lyoun: and treuly þei seyn soth þat þei ben of þat schapp. But o griffoun hath the body more gret, and is more strong, þanne eight lyouns, of suche lyouns as ben o this half; and more gret and strongere þan an hundred egles, suche as we han amonges vs. For o griffoun þere wil bere fleynge to his nest a gret hors, 3if he may fynde him at the poynt, or two oxen 3oked togidere, as þei gon at the plowgh."

The Wycliffe translations were largely unintelligible and useless. One of the biggest criticism of them (There were many versions) was that there were too many Middle English dialects represented in them.

348 posted on 11/14/2011 10:12:35 AM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)

“The Wycliffe translations were largely unintelligible and useless.”

That would explain why people risked their lives to copy them and distribute them and own them...

“First, until the 16th century there was no common language spoken and understood across England.”

Actually, while there WAS a lot of variation - something Tyndale struggled with, as did Wycliffe - there was enough in common for the 4 gospels to be translated in 1000 AD.

And if it had been a priority, then each dialect could have had a translation. Bede translated the Gospel of John, so presumably he had something to translate it IN TO.

By 1400, there was definitely a thirst in England for a translation into the vernacular. Wycliffe and his friends tried to meet that need - but did so at severe risk. But you cannot sell something that has no market. The Wycliffe Bible (or sections of it) could not have sold unless there were people who wanted the product.

349 posted on 11/14/2011 11:07:15 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")

"Actually, while there WAS a lot of variation - something Tyndale struggled with, as did Wycliffe - there was enough in common for the 4 gospels to be translated in 1000 AD."

Please get your time lines correct. The Lindisfarne Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were translated into Old English by a monk named Eadfrith (Aldred), who became Bishop of Lindisfarne in 698. These "Glosses" were done by inserting a line of vernacular between the lines of Latin. He is also credited with translating the Durham Rituals into Northumbrian. These provide clear evidence that 600 years before Wycliffe and 300 years before the Wessex Gospels produced in 990 without the interlinear Latin, the Church was not "hiding" Scripture from anyone.

In the 12 century a monk named Orm produced a work of biblical exegesis called the Ormulum, consisting of about 19,000 lines of early Middle English vernacular verse to assist priests in explaining the Gospels and the Liturgy to the illiterate natives.

In the 13th century Catholic mystic St. Richard Rolle produced a Psalter in Middle English and is credited with many other vernacular publications, few of which survive intact largely due to the purges of Henry VIII and the enlightenment of the Reformation.

Was there a thirst you spoke of but there were many others besides Wycliffe there to help satisfy them. Wycliffe's problems were more political than theological, but his main point was a strong belief in predestination that enabled him to declare an “invisible church of the elect", made up of those predestined to be saved, rather than in the “visible” Catholic Church. He advocated that Church property be "secularized" and much of it be given to him. He believed himself to be elect and wrote a bible translation to prove it (sounds like a lot of the anti-Catholics on these threads doesn't it).

350 posted on 11/14/2011 11:41:25 AM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)

“Please get your time lines correct. The Lindisfarne Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were translated into Old English by a monk named Eadfrith (Aldred), who became Bishop of Lindisfarne in 698.”

I don’t think so. They are a LATIN manuscript. They were translated into Old English around 1000 AD.

“In the 10th century an Old English translation of the Gospels was made: a word-for-word gloss inserted between the lines of the Latin text by Aldred, Provost of Chester-le-Street.[4] This is the oldest extant translation of the Gospels into the English language.[4]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindisfarne_Gospels

“Like most medieval Christian manuscripts, the Lindisfarne Gospels was written in Latin. However, around 970, when it was owned by the Minster of Chester-le-Street, Aldred, the Provost, added an Anglo-Saxon translation in red ink beneath the original Latin. This is the oldest surviving version of the gospels in any form of English - another indication of the manuscript’s importance in the growth of England’s national identity.”

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/lindisfarne.html

Also notice this, from the same link:

“This legacy of an artist monk living in Northumbria in the early eighth century is a precious testament to the tenacity of Christian belief during one of the most turbulent periods of British history. Costly in time and materials, superb in design, the manuscript is among our greatest artistic and religious treasures. It was made and used at Lindisfarne Priory on Holy Island, a major religious community that housed the shrine of St Cuthbert, who died in 687.”

This was not, in any sense, an attempt to make a vernacular translation for the common man.

“These provide clear evidence that 600 years before Wycliffe and 300 years before the Wessex Gospels produced in 990 without the interlinear Latin, the Church was not “hiding” Scripture from anyone.”

Again, these were NOT for public consumption. WYCLIFFE’s translation was intended for the common man, and his followers tried to place it in the hands of commoners. Tyndale’s translation was also intended for the common man. This is very different than a translation of a small PART of the scripture done for monks.

“In the 12 century a monk named Orm produced a work of biblical exegesis called the Ormulum, consisting of about 19,000 lines of early Middle English vernacular verse to assist priests in explaining the Gospels and the Liturgy to the illiterate natives.”

Nice, but it is a pity he didn’t produce 19,000 lines of vernacular translation instead of a poem for Catholic priests to use.

“Was there a thirst you spoke of but there were many others besides Wycliffe there to help satisfy them.”

Really? Who was trying to put a translation of scripture into the hands of commoners before Wycliffe? Why did the Catholic Church oppose vernacular translations, as already documented on this thread?

“He advocated that Church property be “secularized” and much of it be given to him. He believed himself to be elect and wrote a bible translation to prove it (sounds like a lot of the anti-Catholics on these threads doesn’t it).”

Actually, no. He did not try to make himself rich. In fact, the Lollards were known, in part, for their poverty.

“The same year, the Peasants’ Revolt broke out, but there is no evidence that Wyclif had any more sympathy with the movement than Luther had with the Peasants’ Rising of 1525. After the revolt was over, he proposed that Church property be given to the upper classes, not to the poor.12 The principles, however, which he enunciated were germs which might easily spring up into open rebellion against oppression. Had he not written, “There is no moral obligation to pay tax or tithe to bad rulers either in Church or state. It is permitted to punish or depose them and to reclaim the wealth which the clergy have diverted from the poor?” One hundred and fifty years after this time, Tyndale said, “They said it in Wyclif’s day, and the hypocrites say now, that God’s Word arouseth insurrection.”

http://www.bible-researcher.com/wyclif1.html

Wycliffe and his followers could be accused of many things, but not of seeking to make themselves wealthy.

And his translation was a good one. Wycliffe’s edition, in fact, was too literal, and thus hard to use. His followers put out a second edition, which flowed better.

“It is easy to see how a thoughtful man like Wycliffe should be disillusioned by the spectacle
presented by the Western Church of his day. Its prestige, damaged already by the Babylonian
Captivity of 1309-1378, was shattered in his eyes (as in the eyes of many others) by the start
of the Great Schism of 1378-1417, with two rival popes, at Rome and Avignon respectively.
Nothing could redeem the Western Church, Wycliffe argued, but a return to the apostolic
poverty of New Testament times. The church was never more vitally powerful than when it
could say, ‘Silver and gold have I none’. He called for the disendowment of monasteries and
episcopal sees, and an end to the appointment of leading clerics—the ‘Caesarean clergy’, as
he called them—to the great offices of state, to which they devoted time and energy that
should have been expended on their spiritual commitments. The material wealth and secular
power of the papacy, he held, were in total contradiction to the teaching and example of
Christ and the apostles, and he disapproved of the export of so much English money to
augment the papal wealth.

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_098_4_Bruce.pdf

351 posted on 11/14/2011 12:33:42 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")

“Parts of the Bible had, of course, been translated into English before Wycliffe’s time—both
in the Old English period and, more recently, in Middle English. But these partial translations
had been designed for devotional or liturgical use or for narrative interest. In the Old English
period we have the translation of the Psalter by Aldhelm of Sherborne as early as the eighth
century, while from the tenth century we have the Wessex Gospels and the Heptateuch
(Genesis-Judges) of Aelfric of Eynsham. Alfred the Great’s law-code was introduced by an
English version of the Decalogue and other parts of Exodus 20-23. From the early fourteenth
century we have Middle English translations of the Psalter, the best known of which is that
by Richard Rolle, the hermit of Hampole (near Doncaster), which was accompanied by a
verse-by-verse commentary; it was evidently a popular work, being copied in other dialects
than Rolle’s own. Later in the same century comes a version of the New Testament epistles
made apparently for members of religious houses.

But before the time of Wycliffe no one seems to have thought of providing ordinary layfolk
with a vernacular version of the whole Bible. The provision of such a version, however, was
imperative if ordinary layfolk were directly responsible to God as Wycliffe taught, for
knowing and obeying his law...

...The later Wycliffite version should in all probability be regarded as the work of John Purvey.
His name is not actually attached to it, but all the available evidence points to him. After
Wycliffe’s death, Purvey betook himself to Bristol and undertook a thorough revision of the
earlier version. Whereas the earlier version, in keeping with its purpose, was a painfully
literal rendering of the Latin Bible, the revised version was composed in idiomatic English,
and speedily attained remarkable popularity.

The principles on which Purvey worked are set forth in a work of fifteen chapters commonly
called the General Prologue, evidently composed in 1395 or 1396. Its working implies that
the task of revision had now been completed, but it is no unusual thing for a prologue or
introduction to a book to be written last of all. The General Prologue insists that every one,
great or small, learned or unlearned, should become acquainted with God’s law—that is the
Bible, and not least the Old Testament.

The fifteenth chapter of the General Prologue is of special interest, because it defends the
right of the common people to have the Scriptures in their own vernacular, and sets out the
procedure necessary in translating them.

‘For these reasons and other, with common charity to save all men in our realm, which God
would have saved, a simple creature hath translated the Bible out of Latin into English. First,
this simple creature had much travail, with divers fellows and helpers, to gather many old
Bibles, and other doctors, and common glosses, and to make one Latin Bible some deal true;
and then to study it anew, the text with the gloss, and other doctors, as he might get, and
specially Lyra on the Old Testament, that helped full much in this work: the third time to
counsel with old grammarians and old divines of hard words and hard sentences, how they
might best be understood and translated; the fourth time to translate as clearly as he could to the
sentence, and to have many good fellows and cunning at the correcting of the translation.’”

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_098_4_Bruce.pdf

352 posted on 11/14/2011 12:41:05 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")

"But before the time of Wycliffe no one seems to have thought of providing ordinary layfolk with a vernacular version of the whole Bible."

Primarily because there was no such thing as literate "ordinary layfolk". What do you think the literacy rate in Old or Middle English was within 10th, 11th, 12th, or 13th century England and what percentage of the population were even fluent in Old or Middle English?

353 posted on 11/14/2011 1:15:13 PM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)

Mr Rogers wrote:
Just one point, since I think much of this is pointless:

(?) I'd think that any topic which is foundational to your case would not be "pointless"! You flatly claimed, friend, that my claims were "in my dreams", and then you pass over multitudes of them in silence! [Paladin]
“Good heavens! My dear chap, do you read even your own comments? We already discussed this: numerous vernacular translations were approved by the Pope *centuries* (and, in some cases, a millenium) before Protestantism ever appeared on the scene!”

[Mr Rogers]
I have already documented that A) in countries like England, there were NO vernacular translations of the Bible prior to Wycliffe. None.

Er... you seem to have a rather esoteric and loose definition of "documented", sir; I see a claim (at #63 in this thread), but I see nothing which could be called "documentation". Do you recall your own dictum: "making an assertion is not the same as doing it"? "Documentation" requires (by definition) references, not simply raw statement... which would be rather a challenge for you, since I've shown (by giving even one counter-example) that your claim (of "no" vernacular translations) is inaccurate.

To wit: are you forgetting St. Bede? I referenced him, earlier in this thread, as a translator of many parts of the Scriptures into early Saxon, all before his death in 735 A.D. (despite the Saxons not really having a coherent written language in the first place; like the heroic efforts of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, translating a Book into a language without a coherent alphabet and grammar was rather a challenge). You might also consider the ideas that (a) the written language really didn't exist in England in the centuries before 1000 A.D.; and (b) the vast majority of those who spoke proto-English/Saxon were illiterate; surely these would help to explain why there were not millions of copies of the "Bible in English" during those years?

Beyond this, I've had a free moment to find a reference for which I was seeking, which flatly contradicts your claim; perhaps you might peruse Chapter XI, in particular? Here is a salient portion:

I HAVE said that people who could read at all in the Middle Ages could read Latin: hence there was little need for the Church to issue the Scriptures in any other language. But as a matter of fact she did in many countries put the Scriptures in the hands of her children in their own tongue. (I) We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing, but we shall confine ourselves to England, so as to refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382.

To anyone that has investigated the real facts of the case, this fondly-cherished notion must seem truly ridiculous; it is not only absolutely false, but stupidly so, inasmuch as it admits of such easy disproof; one wonders that nowadays any lecturer or writer should have the temerity to advance it. Now, observe I am speaking of the days before the printingpress was invented; I am speaking of England; and concerning a Church which did not, and does not, admit the necessity of Bible-reading for salvation; and concerning an age when the production of the Scriptures was a most costly business, and far beyond the means of nearly everybody. Yet we may safely assert, and we can prove, that there were actually in existence among the people many copies of the Scriptures in the English tongue of that day. To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died whilst busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great who was working at the Psalms when he died, and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury; as well as popular renderings of Holy Scripture like the Book of Durham, and the Rushworth Gloss and others that have survived the wreck of ages. After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly 'specimens' for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished.

For 1300 years.

Er... England, as such, hadn't existed for nearly that long at that point, friend. Certainly, there was no written language (save for Latin, which was already done, by order of the Pope) into which the Scriptures could be translated, on that isle, for much of that time. But again, see above.

The closest was a translation of the gospels in 1000 AD.

I also wonder why you seem so casual, and almost flippantly dismissive, about the existence of the Gospels in the vernacular! Does that seem so small a matter, to you? Why would the so-called "false Church Who seeks to keep the Scriptures from people" be so chevalier with spreading the Gospels (including John 3:5-16, I assume)--the parts which were allegedly "most likely to reveal the Church's programme of deception"--to ANY of the people of England? But once more, see above.

Beyond this: you seem to be trying to hammer the issue of England relentlessly, while passing over the much larger issues (and FAR larger populations) of (a) the Roman Empire (given the vernacular Latin Scriptures by St. Jerome, and even by by scholars before him, c. 400 A.D., at the express command of Pope Damasus I) and (b) the Slavic nations (given the vernacular Slavic Bible--complete with an alphabet and written language designed "from scratch"--by Sts. Cyril and Methodius, c. 863 A.D., with the express permission and blessing of Popes Nicholas I and Adrian II).

Do think this through, friend: if the Church is as loath to spread the Scriptures as you claim, then why did She spread it so far and wide, and against many nigh-insurmountable difficulties, to such vast numbers of people who would otherwise have never seen the Scriptures at all? Your accusations are--forgive me--thoughtless, utterly illogical, in defiance of all common sense, and carbon-copied from anti-Catholic sources (which I've heard before, interminably--you're hardly the first to trot out these sorts of time-worn canards). It would have been so much easier to keep a very few copies in museums (which could be seen for exorbitant admission fees) and "not risk any accidental exposure of the Scriptures to the common man". Your comments ignore that fact, rather relentlessly.... and frankly, friend, it's getting a bit tiresome to keep reminding you.

Then Wycliffe’s translation was persecuted, although it was an accurate translation. Then Tyndale’s, also a fine translation.

With all due respect to your esteem for those translations, I'm afraid these claims simply can't be maintained. Tyndale (perhaps through no fault of his own) was using a rather error-ridden Greek manuscript compiled by Erasmus; that, coupled with his own penchant for sola-fide, proto-Protestant word choices (e.g. rendering "ecclesia" as "congregation" rather than "Church", to diminish the idea of the institutional Church in his readers' eyes, coupled with his rather strident commentary and notes which denied free will (and Luther followed him off that very cliff, in fact), supported the anti-Biblical idea of "sola fide", and other plain errors); and his Bible (unauthorised from the beginning, and complete with heretical commentary) was suppressed. Tyndale followed a similar path, promoting similar errors.

I’ve documented that from 1200-1800is, it was a matter of policy in the Roman Catholic Church to deny commoners access to vernacular translations.

My dear fellow, you've "documented" nothing. You've made some bald and unsubstantiated assertions, bereft of resources which corroborate/authenticate your claims, and that simply won't do.

You are entitled to your beliefs, but you do not get to make up facts.

Just so. I'd remind you that you also fall under that dictum.

[Paladin]
“Please do keep that in mind: the Church is against DISTORTIONS of the Scriptures (in print, or in the pulpit), not the Scriptures themselves!”

[Mr Rogers]
Another false statement. The church opposed accurate translations meant for COMMONERS.

Do look at your dictum, above, friend. Stating your raw opinion, forcefully and colourfully, does not make it true, thereby! And your comment is provable nonsense; the only requirement was that the Bible translations be approved; once that was satisfied, all was well. And whom do you think would PURCHASE these expensive, highly-decorated copies of the Sacred Scriptures, but the wealthy? Does not the fact that each copy was worth several-years' wages of a typical worker (which was illiterate, more often than not) impact your opinion, at all? Do think about this: what would be the most effective way for a good and holy Church to spread the Gospel to an illiterate mass of people? Would it not be through Scripture readings at Holy Mass (and I attend [and sometimes serve] the traditional latin Mass when I can, friend, so I know full well how much Scripture is read, and how much saturates all the prayers!), through religious art-work, and through preaching? You currently hate the Catholic Church, so of course you're of a mind to attribute all sorts of foul motives and treachery to Her; but the reality is utterly removed from your ideas. Sinful men have certainly ascended to positions of power in the Catholic Church, yes... but the same is true of every last denomination and religion on the face of the Earth! No... the Church has never ceased to safeguard the very Scriptures which She compiled and discerned, and She has never ceased to preach that Word (the complete Word--the 73-book Written Word, the vast Unwritten Word, and the living Tradition/Liturgy safeguarded by the Church Magisterium). Your claims that the Church "desired and strove to keep the Scriptures from commoners" is the most base kind of slander, and it is beneath you.

The rich who were devout and under Catholic control could read vernacular translations

(!) If you're under the impression that the rich of any era, of any country, were "easily controlled", then I'll have to accuse you gently of the most spectacular naivete! Is it not far more likely that the rick were the very people who would be more prone to "go it alone" and flout the "unreasonable distates of Rome"? The Protestant princes who supported Martin Luther certainly seemed to think so... as did the nobility in England, under Henry VIII, and so on. I also wonder at your assumption that the rich were especially devout; I wish that were so, but that's very often not the case.

at times needing written permission from the Pope himself - but COMMONERS could not.

Correction: TRANSLATIONS required approval from the Pope, himself; approved translations were not considered problematic, so long as the readers took pains to check their interpretations and theories with the Church before publishing them (cf. the problem with Tyndale, et al.).

Tyndale’s translation was excellent. it is today still a fine translation.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion; but I hope you don't expect that to carry any logical weight, above (for example) my comment of "The Douay-Rheims translation is excellent; it is still a fine translation, today!" Would that convince you? I rather doubt it.

And no, the liturgy was NOT filled with scripture.

I'm afraid that, at least on this particular point, you don't know what you're saying. Virtually every last prayer and gesture finds its roots in Scripture, and in the Tradition passed down from the Apostles. Honestly: do you know even a scrap of the traditional liturgy? The first 3 minutes are virtually nothing but Scripture quote after Scripture quote (perhaps you dismissed them, because they are in Latin?): Psalm 42 (43, in modern Bibles), followed by a veritable shower of one-line Scripture quotes between the priest and the server (Psalm 84:7-8, Psalm 123:8, etc.). Honestly, you can't go more than a sentence or two, without hitting either a paraphrase or a direct quote of some bit of Scripture! Check, and see!

Prior to the 1900s, there was almost none, and what there was present was in Latin.

You seem to be confusing "readings" with "the entire liturgy"; there were fewer readings in the Usus Antiquor than are now present in the Novus Ordo form of the Mass, though there was always one OT reading and one NT reading in every Mass (which happened every DAY, as opposed to most 1-2/week Protestant services, many of which would take a single snippet of Scripture and preach on it exclusively, depending on the tastes of the pastor). But beyond this, as I mentioned: the standard prayers are positively dripping with Scripture, as is the entire structure of the Mass. (You might find this document by St. Justin Martyr (c. 120-165 A.D.), describing the structured worship of the early Christians, interesting; note especially chapters 66 and 67 [LXVI and LXVII].)

354 posted on 11/14/2011 1:40:03 PM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)

Whoops... in addition to some formatting glitches (as usual, when trying to insert HTML breaks, and such, by hand), two rather critical words were lost, in one sentence:

the written Middle-English language really didn't exist in England in the centuries before 1000 A.D.

There were smatterings of proto-English/Saxon, here and there, but (as Natural Law has since highlighted) there was no coherent consensus of a "common tongue" in England.

355 posted on 11/14/2011 1:48:19 PM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)

“To wit: are you forgetting St. Bede? I referenced him, earlier in this thread, as a translator of many parts of the Scriptures into early Saxon, all before his death in 735 A.D.”

The Gospel of John is hardly many parts of scripture. And glosses in a monk’s book doesn’t qualify for why I was discussing - translations into the vernacular for commoners.

“You might also consider the ideas that (a) the written language really didn’t exist in England in the centuries before 1000 A.D”

The Apostles were unlearned men, yet they knew their scriptures. Why? Because the Jews thought it important. The Catholics did not.

“the vast majority of those who spoke proto-English/Saxon were illiterate; surely these would help to explain why there were not millions of copies of the “Bible in English” during those years?”

I don’t ask for millions. I would be content with ONE. ONE translation of the entire Bible into the language of some county or region, even, for use by commoners.

ONE. And you don’t have ONE to provide.

Your citation is a crock.

“In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, “

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldhelm#Life

I have no idea what you think he did per translating the Bible for the masses. In my post 352, I report he did a Psalter, which is hardly a vernacular translation of the Bible.

“Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough”

Is that this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthlac_of_Crowland

Again, there was no Guthlac Bible.

“Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island”

I’m once again at a loss for what he is supposed to have translated. I didn’t see anything about translations in a quick search of his biographies. There was, again, no “Egbert Bible”!

And that is why I said this has no point. You quote nonsense from a Catholics apologetic site, and don’t bother to see if the men it mentioned DID anything relevant!

Wiki does a far better job than your Catholic apologetic site of summarizing the translation efforts:

Known translations

Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne (b. 639, d. 25 May 709) is thought to have written an Old English translation of the Psalms, although this is disputed.

Caedmon is mentioned by Bede as one who sang poems in Old English based on the Bible stories, but he was not involved in translation per se.

A translation of the Gospel of John into Old English by the Venerable Bede, which he is said to have prepared shortly before his death around the year 735. This translation is lost; we know of its existence from Cuthbert of Jarrow’s account of Bede’s death.[1]

The Vespasian Psalter,[2] an interlinear gloss found in a manuscript of the Book of Psalms.[3] The gloss was prepared around 850. This gloss is in the Mercian dialect.

Eleven other 9th-century glosses of the Psalms are known, including Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter.[4]

King Alfred had a number of passages of the Bible circulated in the vernacular around AD 900. These included passages from the Ten Commandments and the Pentateuch, which he prefixed to a code of laws he promulgated around this time. Alfred is also said to have directed the Book of Psalms to have been translated into Old English. Many scholars believe that the fifty Psalms in Old English that are found in the Paris Psalter [5] represent Alfred’s translation.

Between 950 and 970, Aldred the Scribe added a gloss in the Northumbrian dialect of Old English (the Northumbrian Gloss on the Gospels) to the Lindisfarne Gospels as well as a foreword describing who wrote and decorated it.

At around the same time, a priest named Farman wrote a gloss on the Gospel of Matthew that is preserved in a manuscript called the Rushworth Gospels.[6]

In approximately 990, a full and freestanding version of the four Gospels in idiomatic Old English appeared, in the West Saxon dialect; these are known as the Wessex Gospels. Seven manuscript copies of this translation have survived; they apparently had some currency. This version gives the most familiar Old English version of Matthew 6:9–13, the Lord’s Prayer...

At about the same time as the Wessex Gospels, the priest Ælfric of Eynsham produced an independent translation of the Pentateuch with Joshua and Judges. His translations were used for the Illustrated Old English Hexateuch.

The Caedmon manuscript which was initially ascribed to Caedmon, was written between 700-1000. The extant manuscript was copied about 1000. It includes Biblical material in vernacular verses.

In 1066, the Norman Conquest of England marked the beginning of the end of the Old English language and initiated profound changes in its vocabulary. The project of translating the Bible into Old English gradually ended after that process began. A period of change from Old English to Middle English began (though evidence is very scanty), and eventually there were attempts to provide Bible translations in that language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_Bible_translations

As I said, the Gospels were finally translated around 1000 AD. Not the rest of the New Testament. And that was it.

See post 346:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2803225/posts?page=346#346

I see no reason to debate someone who refuses to believe the facts, and instead makes up his own personal history. This stuff is not open for debate. You don’t get to have imaginary catholic facts to support your side. There was NO vernacular translation of the Bible into any form of English prior to Wycliffe. There was no attempt, apart perhaps from the Wessex Gospels, to get scripture into the hands of commoners. You do not get to invent translations that didn’t exist to support your claim.

Had the Catholic Church valued God’s Word as highly as the Jews of Jesus’ time, the commoners WOULD have known large chunks of scripture, by memory if needed. But the Roman Catholic Church did not value God’s Word, and in fact opposed its distribution for hundreds of years.

356 posted on 11/14/2011 3:20:46 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")

357 posted on 11/14/2011 3:22:02 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")

358 posted on 11/14/2011 8:54:26 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)

Mr Rogers wrote, in reply to my comment:

The Gospel of John is hardly many parts of scripture. And glosses in a monk’s book doesn’t qualify for why I was discussing - translations into the vernacular for commoners.

My dear fellow, you really do need to leave your goal-posts stationary, if you expect them to be taken seriously! You started with the flat, absolute insinuation that the Catholic Church "kept the Scriptures from the common people"; then you settle for claiming that the Catholic Church "kept most of the Scriptures from the common people"; after that, you content yourself with asserting that the Catholic Church "kept most of the Scriptures from most of the common people", and now you (temporarily, at least) stake your claim on the idea that the Catholic Church "refused to translate EVERY LAST PAGE of the ENTIRE BIBLE for most of the common people IN ENGLAND". I'll address your England-specific cooments, below, but: your utter insistence on "hammering" the England issue (with its 3-6 million people at the time), coupled with your utter refusal even to acknowledge the Church's wide-spread efforts to give the Scriptures (whole and entire, in many cases) to virtually the rest of the known world (cf. the Holy Roman Empire [50-75 million, at the time of St. Jerome], the Slavic nations (at least 1-2 million, even in the immediate area evangelised by Sts. Cyril and Methodius) is rather telling. Are you so ethno-centric as to be concerned exclusively with the British Isles? If the Catholic Church existed (and claimed to have jurisdiction) ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY in England, then your argument (if it were accurate) would have quite a bit more weight. But surely you know that the Catholic Church exists world-wide, including all peoples and nations? The word "Catholic" does mean "universal", you know...

I'd also add (without intending to neglect your favourite point of proto-Great Britain), sir, that you've neglected to answer (save for mere assertions and slogans) a great many points which I discussed with you... including, but not limited to: (a) sola Scriptura and its utter absence in the Bible (which makes it self-contradictory and invalid, above and beyond its disastrous implementation); (b) the "chronological reading" of Matthew 28:18-20 (how does one make disciples without first teaching them?); (c) the plenitude of vernacular translations prior to Protestant (and proto-Protestant) versions, including the Vulgate, Cyrillic, etc.; (d) your vague and utterly unsubstantiated claim that "Purgatory contadicts the mercy of Christ" (how can it, if it exists only BY the mercy of Christ?); (e) your misunderstanding of eternity and how it pertains to the actions of God (esp. regarding transubstantiation); and more. You needn't attend to all of these immediately, of course... but it really would be sporting of you to address them at SOME point... especially since you made the original claims/attacks against the Catholic Church in those (and other) areas...

[Paladin]
“You might also consider the ideas that (a) the written language really didn’t exist in England in the centuries before 1000 A.D”

[Mr Rogers]
The Apostles were unlearned men, yet they knew their scriptures. Why? Because the Jews thought it important. The Catholics did not.

Oh, piffle! First: "unlearned" in the tiny and culturally homogenous nation of Israel was almost utterly different than "unlearned" in Medieval times in all the countries of the former Roman Empire; you're comparing apples with ostriches. Second: you missed and evaded the key point enitrely: how can your objection of "they never translated the Bible into the local British language" be valid, if there was no common written British language into which to TRANSLATE it? Have some sense.

I don’t ask for millions. I would be content with ONE. ONE translation of the entire Bible into the language of some county or region, even, for use by commoners.

...and apparently only in Great Britain! But in the hopes that you'll get a bit less provincial in your requirements, I'll take you at your word, and give you not one, but three:

a) the Latin Vulgate (translated from the koine Greek, and from Hebrew), in the common tongue of the Roman Empire. Without it, only the scholars of Greek and Hebrew could have read it.

b) the Bible translated by Sts. Cyril and Methodius into Cyrillic (hence the name), in the 9th century. For whom did you expect it to be used, if not the common people in the common tongue?

c) The Douay-Rheims Bible (a few years before the "Authorised Version" came out), in English.

I'm starting to suspect that, unless you see evidence of a Bible in the hands of every last illiterate peasant in every country, you'll cry "censorship and repression of the Scriptures!" If so, then I really don't know what to say to you, for the standard is ridiculous. Surely you know that the printing press was not invented until the 15th century? Would that not, in your mind, make a difference in the dissemination of "multitudes of vernacular Bibles" in the centuries before that? You complained about the "centuries of people without the Scriptures", while ignoring that fact (and the expense of making a Bible--Google it, and you'll see), which is hardly reasonable, and hardly a stable argument.

ONE. And you don’t have ONE to provide. Your citation is a crock.

See above. I can only wonder, when you say things such as this, if you're letting your temper and impatience get the best of you. There's really no need for that; I'm not trying to "conquer" or "win a battle" or play "gotcha!"; I'm pursuing the Truth. If it reassures you: I, for one, do not "crow" when an opponent does not know the answer to a particular point of mine (especially since I'm often in that position, myself); I merely ask, and let you think and research, and return with your best answer. Honestly, dear fellow, I'm not out to "get you". No need for temper!

[Paladin]
“In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon,“

[Mr Rogers]
Nope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldhelm#Life) I have no idea what you think he did per translating the Bible for the masses. In my post 352, I report he did a Psalter, which is hardly a vernacular translation of the Bible.

(*sigh*) See above, re: "moving the goal-posts"; why you now require an example where "every last page of the Bible was disseminated to every last commoner of every last country (or at least Great Britain, whose existence seems to trump all else, in your mind--I suppose I should thank you for the nod to my heritage, but honestly...!)", on pain of you "accusing the Church of hiding the Scriptures", I honestly don't know. If the Church is "hiding the Scriptures", then would She not hide ALL of them? Your accusation makes no sense at all; if I'm hiding documents from a foreign government, I do not go out of my way to release some of them to that very power! Are you even reading what you write, here?

You do admit, however, that the Psalms (i.e. the "Psalter") are, in fact, part of Scripture? Honestly: given that you're a user of the incomplete 66-book Protestant Bible, this disdain for fragmentary translations of Scripture is strange, as well as ironic!

[Paladin]
“Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough”

[Mr Rogers]
Is that this guy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthlac_of_Crowland) Again, there was no Guthlac Bible.

(*wry look*) I was unaware of the fact that you held Wikipedia in such high esteem. Perhaps this example, from a slightly different source, might help?

Ironically enough, your own Wikipedia source cross-linked to the following reference for Ælfric of Eynsham's translation of the first six books of the Bible into early Anglo-Saxon in the early 12th century. It was not the entire Bible--alas--so I don't know if it will disprove the "Bible-hiding conspiracy of the Church" in your eyes, or not.

“Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island” I’m once again at a loss for what he is supposed to have translated. I didn’t see anything about translations in a quick search of his biographies. There was, again, no “Egbert Bible”!

Perhaps an "Egbert Four Gospels" would do? This fellow KJV-loving Protestant believes it, at any rate. Ditto for this 'spirit-led' fellow, as well. I could cite more authoritative sources for you, if only you could tell me what you'd consider "authoritative"...

As I said, the Gospels were finally translated around 1000 AD. Not the rest of the New Testament. And that was it.

Friend, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how the "Bible-hiding Church" could be so foolish as to release even one LINE of the Scriptures, to say nothing of the Gospels themselves, for public consumption! Were these translators of "incomplete Bibles" punished by the Church for "leaking state secrets", do you think? Were they put to death, a la "the DaVinci Code", to protect the Church's clandestine evil? (You've said nary a word about the complete Bible of St. Jerome, or of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, I'll remind you.) This is mere hysteria, not reasoning. This is mere thoughtless anti-Catholic screed, not evidence and history; and again, it is beneath you.

Had the Catholic Church valued God’s Word as highly as the Jews of Jesus’ time, the commoners WOULD have known large chunks of scripture, by memory if needed.

My dear sir, this is simply boiler-plate material, and it makes no sense at all. I would be just as illogical if I were to say, "If Protestants valued unity as highly as the Jews of Jesus' time, every last Protestant would have died rather than splinter off into thousands of contradictory denominations and sects." But that is not so: many Protestants, following the false and anti-Biblical guide of "sola Scriptura", felt that they had no choice but to split, and split, and split again, in order to preserve what they sincerely believed to be the "pure, real Gospel" (and that all others were more-or-less heretical). Beyond this, I'd only invite you to read a bit about European Medieval history; the very idea that the populations would be similar enough to make such a wild claim is bizarre, in the extreme.

In summary, then:

1) I have presented numerous cases where the Catholic Church specifically authorized (and even commanded) that the Bible (whether in parts or in its 73-book entirety)be translated into the local vernacular; please either address them, or concede the point. I say this not to attack you, but to defend the Church I love against baseless and scurrilous attacks.

2) I have asked you to give an accounting for the unbiblical idea of "sola Scriptura", and to find it in Scripture. Please do so, or else concede the point (or at least stop attacking the Church with arguments which presuppose sola Scriptura).

3) I have explaind to you that the Holy Mass, the Sacraments, and the entire body of teachings of the Catholic Church are in harmony not only with Scripture, but with the unbroken Tradition and history of Christianity; we worship at the same Mass that St. Justin Martyr experienced; we receive the same Sacred Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist that St. Paul received; we rejoice in the fatherly guidance of the same office of successor of St. Peter that all the Fathers of the Church (including ones whom you probably revere) had. You've yet to give even one example of how any of the above contradicts Scripture (and not simply your feelings about what Scripture means to you). Please explore that, or else drop your attacks upon the Bride of Christ, His Church.

No one is forcing you to reply, or even to read any of this. But common decency does, I think, lead you to give an accounting for the attacks that you've levelled against the Church... or else rescind them. True?

359 posted on 11/15/2011 3:00:55 PM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)

“My dear fellow, you really do need to leave your goal-posts stationary, if you expect them to be taken seriously! You started with the flat, absolute insinuation that the Catholic Church “kept the Scriptures from the common people”; then you settle for claiming that the Catholic Church “kept most of the Scriptures from the common people”; after that, you content yourself with asserting that the Catholic Church “kept most of the Scriptures from most of the common people”, and now you (temporarily, at least) stake your claim on the idea that the Catholic Church “refused to translate EVERY LAST PAGE of the ENTIRE BIBLE for most of the common people IN ENGLAND”.

HOGWASH. The Catholic Church DID keep scripture from the hands of commoners.

Yes, I focus on England because I’ve already researched the history. And since you like to post false information and pretend it is true, I’d rather keep the subject focused where I have already done the research. I have no desire to research every country in the world.

However, you have been provided evidence that the Catholic Church, as a matter of policy, DID restrict the reading of any vernacular translations for hundreds of years.

And no, there were no vernacular translation of anything in England until the Wessex Gospels in 1000 AD, and the Wycliffe’s translation.

The Latin Vulgate was NEVER in the tongue of common Englishmen. You cannot point to the Vulgate and claim it as a vernacular translation.

Missionaries to Bulgaria don’t count either. But yes, I’m glad to see missionaries to Bulgaria in 860 translated the Bible into Old Slavonic. Didn’t do much for Germany, France, or England, did it?

“c) The Douay-Rheims Bible (a few years before the “Authorised Version” came out), in English.”

The DR came out after Tyndale’s translation. IN fact, it came out after Tyndale’s Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

DR was damage control, with the NT printed nearly 60 years after Tyndale. It was an attempt to force Catholic theology on the scripture, with ‘do penance’ instead of ‘repent’, for example. And it stunk so bad as a translation that it was barely available until it was replaced with the Challoner version in 1750.

Psalters were not for commoners, nor were psalters useful for teaching the Gospel. They were useful for LITURGY.

Nor do glosses count. A gloss meant for a monk who had difficulty reading Latin is obviously NOT what I have talked about from the beginning - a translation made in the vernacular for the commoners. And even you admit my original argument was “that the Catholic Church “kept the Scriptures from the common people”.

I repeat what you pretend doesn’t exist - that if the Catholic Church placed as much value on knowing God’s Word as did the Jews of Jesus’ time, it would have happened. If the Jews of Palestine in 20 AD could do it, the folks in England in 800 AD or 1200 AD could have done it.

“1) I have presented numerous cases where the Catholic Church specifically authorized (and even commanded) that the Bible (whether in parts or in its 73-book entirety)be translated into the local vernacular; please either address them, or concede the point.”

No, you have not. You have pointed to glosses in monestaries, or psalms for liturgy. As I said at the beginning, it was 1000 AD before the Gospels were translated for commoners, and it took Wycliffe and his followers to translate the entire Bible.

Maybe you would be happy to have the psalms, and nothing else. I’d prefer the New Testament.
“2) I have asked you to give an accounting for the unbiblical idea of “sola Scriptura”, and to find it in Scripture. Please do so, or else concede the point (or at least stop attacking the Church with arguments which presuppose sola Scriptura).”

Since you have blown smoke rather than address my argument on translations, I see no reason to engage in debate on sola scriptura, other than to point both Jesus and the Apostles used it. When they wanted authority, they quoted the Old Testament. When Jesus confronted Satan, he quoted the Old Testament. They did NOT quote ‘sacred tradition’. ON the contrary, tradition has a bad name in the New Testament. Perhaps you could try reading something beside the Psalms...

“3) I have explaind to you that the Holy Mass, the Sacraments, and the entire body of teachings of the Catholic Church are in harmony not only with Scripture”

You have asserted that. I have quoted many passages that conflict. Although Paul taught “the whole counsel of God”, and that scripture prepares one for “every good work”, the scriptures know nothing of priests, mass, the continual sacrifice of Jesus, ever ongoing, of Purgatory, indulgences or Popes.

The only priests in the New Testaments that were Christians were EVERY Christian, and Christians offered a sacrifice of good deeds and thanksgiving - not Jesus. There is no Purgatory in the NT, and the very thought is repulsive to hundreds of verses. Same for indulgences.

You can follow the Pope. I’ll follow what the Apostles said:

“12Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

16For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” - Peter the Apostle

360 posted on 11/15/2011 4:44:49 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794