Replies

Mr Rogers wrote, in reply to my comment:

At this point, you’ve entered into deceit.

Er... sir, I think you may have run counter to the Religion Moderator's wishes, here. Would you mind avoiding suggestions that I am a liar/deceiver? If you think a comment of mine is incorrect, do say so; but I'll thank you not to attribute dishonesty to me; I've never accused you of anything of the sort, despite your many provocations... true?

There was no attempt to translate the Bible for commoners into English prior to the Wessex Gospels (1000 AD), and arguably they were not meant for distribution to commoners. In any case, I had already mentioned them.

(?) Are you supposing that the Gospels, translated into English by St. Egbert, were for "use in the Liturgy" (despite the fact that all liturgical readings, save perhaps the readings from the Holy Rule of the Order or the Office of Readings/Vigils, were in Latin)? And again: the English Psalter was not made solely for use in the liturgy, especially since the Divine Office (i.e. Liturgy of the Hours) was prayed exclusively in Latin, well into the 19th and 20th centuries (depending on the location). But I'll address your Anglo-phile tendencies on this subject, below.

Suggesting that a gloss in a monk’s book in a monastery,

Forgive me, dear fellow, but--at least on this particular topic--you are woefully misinformed. A "gloss" is a note, aspiration, reminder or clarification placed alongside a text (especially a sacred text), usually in the margin, but sometimes as a footnote. (Example: "for Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, now and forever" is a gloss; various parenthetical remarks, such as found in virtually all translations of the Bible when explaining obscure foreign terms or idioms, are glosses.) In no way can an entire translation of an entire Gospel be considered a "gloss"; it's called a "translation"... unless you'd consider the entire Wycliffe Bible to be a "gloss" of earlier versions?

or a handful of Psalters (the Psalms, used for liturgy)

See above.

is evidence that the Catholic Church allowed commoners to access scripture goes beyond ignorance into either gross foolishness or deceit

:) Hm. I suppose I should appreciate you softening your accusation, and saying now that I might be a mere fool (albeit a gross one), instead of a lying knave; but would you be so kind as to keep your comments objective, and non-personal? I've treated you quite civilly, have I not?

I won’t read the rest of your post because I wish to immerse myself in neither.

No one is forcing you to reply to, or even read, anything. But again: if you have the time and ambition to hurl accusations against the Church, is it not incumbent on you to summon the time and ambition to defend them reasonably, or else retract them? Otherwise, you'll give the impression that you're concerned only with throwing ill-conceived, thoughtless "incendiary bombs", only to run away when challenged. That isn't right, friend... and I think you know that. If you'd like to retract your accusations, then I'll certainly let those matters drop; and if you'd like to defend them logically, then I'll certainly consider your replies, and respond (God willing) in kind. But do not, I pray you, hurl vituperative rhetoric without any intention of finding out whether the claims are true!

That Catholic apologists have to go to such lengths proves my point.

With all due respect, friend, this is simply empty theatre, and grandiose rhetoric; anyone could say the same about almost anyone, with equal [and vacuous] basis.

With nothing of substance there - and I’ll reduce my demand down to just ONE copy of a New Testament, or the full Gospels other than the Wessex Gospels I first mentioned - with no substance, the apologist is reduce to saying, “If a monk in a monastery could read a few verses translated inside the Vulgate...”

If you still insist on "England or nothing" while attacking the Universal Church, perhaps St. Egbert would now garner your attention? I have doubts, but I'll happily mention him again...

I don’t require the full loaf, but you have not produced a crumb.

I'm to the point where I'll let the reader decide what I (and you) have--and have not--produced, friend; I've repeated myself enough, on that point, at least for now.

You say I required: “if the Church did not manage to translate the entire Bible for every last layman, then the Church must necessarily have been trying to hide the Scriptures from the laity entirely!” That is dishonest, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Or produce the post where I required it...

All right (and do avoid the accusations of motive and dishonestly, eh?)...

1) First, you stated (without qualification) that 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!" (Comment #254) In addition to the fact that this statement is provably false (especially without qualifiers), you clearly suggest that the Church wished to suppress vernacular translations of Scripture because (in your mind) Scripture "did not support Roman Catholic doctrine". Unless you think that Scripture would only fail to support Roman Catholic doctrine in ENGLAND (and I'd dearly love to see the reasoning for that!), this has the inescapable implication that "the Church wishes to suppress Scripture from all commoners".

2) Second: when I supplied examples where the Church did indeed translate the Scriptures into the vernacular (Latin, Cyrillic, etc.), you dismissed them utterly, as being unimportant (where "unimportant" apparently meant "I'm not prepared to debate them": since you'd prepared yourself for a discussion on England (and not of anything else), you were prepared to ignore every last instance of the Church supplying the vernacular Scriptures to any other country, whatsoever). Had you confined yourself to saying, "The Catholic Church seems to have been lax in supplying the vernacular Scriptures to the common people in England, for some reason", then I'd have found it very difficult to argue with you (though I could offer some counter-points, even then); but when you go very much further, and declare (perhaps in order to be in unison with a "classic anti-Catholic battle-cry" of "the Church hates the Scriptures and doesn't want the common people exposed to them, because otherwise the commoners would learn the truth and leave the Church"?) that there is NOT ONE INSTANCE, in any country, in any era before Wycliffe/Tyndale, where the Catholic Church supplied the vernacular Scriptures to the laity. That, sir, is utter balderdash, and easily proven wrong (as I have done, repeatedly).

3) You've utterly ignored my main criticism of your very premise! If the Catholic Church were so desperate to withhold the Scriptures (and their apparent "plain meaning") from the laity, then why did the Church release them at all--to the Roman Empire, to the Slavic peoples (even to the extent of inventing an alphabet and consistent grammar, purely for the purpose of GIVING them the Scriptures! That's the original reason why the Catholic Church CREATED the Cyrillic language--to give them the Scriptures and the Liturgy!), and so on? Why not punish any errant monk who dared to translate even one WORD of the Scriptures, lest it fall into the wrong hands? Why not destroy most (or all) extant Bibles, if the Church finds the Scriptures so unnecessary and dangerous? You're painting a very strange picture, friend, of a "nefarious Church" who "tries so mightily to hide the Scriptures, that She is willing even to invent a new alphabet in order to release and spread them"! Surely even you don't believe such nonsense, if you stop for a calm moment, and think about this!

In summary: your sweeping and grandiose claims of "the Catholic Church suppressing the vernacular translations of Scripture, for the purpose of hiding 'the truth' from its ignorant members [lest they be "enlightened" about the Church's nefarious history and designs, and become Protestant]", you allowed yourself to go far beyond any possible data that you have. Rule #1 in debating (or in any serious science/art), friend: do not outstrip your data.

Perhaps that might, at least, put your mind to rest on the "Paladin is trying to defame me with lies" worry? I meant (and did) nothing of the sort; though I did point out where your argument, as it stands, is in ruins. Do try again, and rebuild it from a solid foundation with reasonable claims, eh?