From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once wrote: “There are not over a hundred people in the United State who hate the Roman Catholic Church; there are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.”

I was one of those who hated because of what I wrongly believed about the Catholic Church. The reason I had these beliefs was due to being told what to believe about the Catholic Church from those who were told what to believe about the Catholic Church. No one was willing to find out what the bottom line was concerning the Catholic Church. Everything said about the Church was taken as truth while it seemed no one was delving into what the truth really was.

What about these Catholics? They worshipped Mary. They had a religion but not a relationship with Jesus Christ. They said they believed in God but really their belief couldn’t be the same, could it? The Bible says in James 2:19 KJV “Thou believest that there is one God; Thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble”.

So do Catholics have a belief such as the devils? When most Catholics are asked if they have been “born again” or “have accepted Christ as their Savior”, their main response is “I believe in God” or “I am a good person”, or “I’m Catholic”. Also, they have all these rituals, Saints, Statues and what about the Pope is he really standing in for God? Another big item, are they cannibals when they eat the bread and drink the wine during communion? Why do they leave Jesus on the cross, don’t they realize Jesus has risen from the dead?

“Maybe I should read more on the subject, but up until both of you corrected me I had heard only this version:”

Oh, here we go with all the usual myths, half-truths and cliches:

“To a 15th century farmer, the Bible was just a big book full of unreadable words and made-up rules.”

Completely false. The Bible existed in vernacular translations - partial or full - just about everywhere in Europe (including in England). Also, “To a 15th century farmer, the Bible” was the Word of God. Even to those who could not read it in any language it was never “just a big book full of ... made-up rules.” They knew EXACTLY what the Bible was, they knew Bible stories - even when they were illiterate farmers from the 15th century.

“This was because priests in those times insisted on the Bible being in Latin.”

That’s a mischaracterization to say the least. Priests were, of course, the leading Bible translators of the day. Some of these priests were heretics, some were not. If a priest, somewhere, insisted on the Bible being in Latin it was for the same reason as to why my Latin Mass saying pastor would expect the Bible to be in Latin - that’s all they knew and it was considered very reliable and it was used in all other known theological works produced over the previous millennium or so.

“They said the Bible was a holy book, and shouldn’t be allowed to be read by any old sinful peasant.”

And how many peasants could read? Seriously, I have no doubt that some clergymen did think it would be a disaster if EVERYONE started interpreting the Bible any new way they felt like. Wasn’t that proved to be a realized fear by the Protestant Revolution? I have heard Protestants, including Protestant ministers, openly express concern over just anyone interpreting the Bible precisely because they know it will lead to more confusion. Are they wrong on that? No, they’re right. It does lead to more confusion.

“Really, they wanted it to be in a language only they could understand so they could make up a bunch of silly laws to suit themselves,”

Well, there are two problems there: 1) not only priests knew Latin. Anyone who was decently educated knew some Latin. That was true in the Western world until less than a century ago. When a Russian ship visited California in the 19th century the Russian doctor used Latin to converse with a Franciscan friar. I used it to talk to a Dominican friar in Italy in 2001. I didn’t speak Italian. He didn’t speak Latin, but had studied it in seminary when he was young so he understood it. I spoke in Latin. He answered in Italian. It worked. He gave me and some friends a private tour of a Church in Florence because he enjoyed our attempts to converse with one another. Latin even makes it into cowboy movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gSj1G4Vf0w

2) the “so they could make up a bunch of silly laws to suit themselves” idea is utter rot. How - if people are MAKING IT UP - are they going to get other people who read Latin to agree with it? Religious orders often had running doctrinal disputes with other orders for CENTURIES. Monks - who knew Latin - often disagreed with one another, wrote books opposing other monks’ ideas. Seriously, what you’re suggesting is a logical impossibility. People debated theology all the time and the idea that someone could just “could make up a bunch of silly laws to suit themselves” by having the Bible in Latin just can’t work.

“then get away with it by saying “It says so in the Bible.””

Except that never happened - certainly not the way you’re suggesting. If you look around here, you’ll run into Protestants who can only read the Bible in English and will claim bizarre, stupid, non-biblical doctrines all the time. When you confront them, they’ll say “It’s in the Bible” and then post verses that in no way say what they claim. So, clearly, “keeping” the Bible in Latin is not a pre-requisite to making “up a bunch of silly laws”. Protestants do it and they do it with vernacular Bibles.

“They thought no-one would ever know different, and no-one would ever try and reveal the truth.”

Again, that’s a logical impossibility. When I was a grad student (I have a PhD in medieval history) I remember numerous talks with the medieval history PhD student in the office next door to mine. We had the same professors. He used to regale me with wonderfully funny stories of Franciscans battling Dominicans, bishops, popes, Church councils, etc. over doctrinal issues and practices. The idea that “no-one would ever know different” is a logical impossibility.

“And no-one did, until Tyndale came along......”

Yeah, again, that’s a logical impossibility. Even within the paranoid delusions which usually accompany these “no Bibles in the vernacular” myths that doesn’t make sense. Not only were many biblical books in the vernacular, and there were non-priests who could read Latin as well as the vernacular, but there were even other translators like John Wycliffe, who died in about 1386 - a full century before Tyndale was born.

“etc....I can go on.”

Thanks for proving my point - even when you’re wrong, you’re still doing it. By the way, the fact that you just undercut your own argument and the fact that you keep proving I am right, that is irony.

“While the word Bible may not be in the Bible, the word Scripture is in there.”

Bible isn’t. Thanks for proving me right again. Oh, the irony.

“The word Trinity may not be in the Bible, but one can see the Trinity in operation through the Bible.”

Oh, the irony.

“Yep, those public schools can be rough, but then again so can catholic schools.”

But apparently people learn in the Catholic schools. Government school grads apparently can’t even spell Catholic when they use it as a proper noun.

No irony there. Just another example of the obvious.

Why do we need born again? We have the living, breathing Christ in the Holy Eucharist. No more is needed.

How about because Jesus said so!!!!! Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Why do we need a Eucharist when we already have Christ within us???

And we have God’s one holy, apostolic and Catholic Church. The Church of saints, martyrs, and stigmatists, and the Church that through Petrine authority assembled the definitive books on the Bible through infallible interpretation.

There is no Petrine authority...It's a fable...

Why do we need anyone else’s interpretation?

That's part of the fable...We don't need anyone's interpretation...All we have to do is study and believe what we read...

>“While the word Bible may not be in the Bible, the word Scripture is in there.”>

Bible isn’t. Thanks for proving me right again. Oh, the irony.

Ok.....soooo Bible is not a specific word in the Bible. This proves what exactly?

Bible: the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.

So what should we call it then???

It's always amazing to me that catholics, who claim to have given us this book you don't, for some reason, like to refer to as the Bible, seem to go out of their way to ignore or somehow put the Word down.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

btw....that's from that book you don't like to call the Bible because that word isn't in the book you don't like to call Bible, that you claim catholics "gave" to everyone, yet for some reason back in the day didn't want folks to read.

Ya'll make my head hurt.

As always Vladimir...it's been real. I'm done for tonight.

Before the Bible, there was the Church. Catholics don’t need “born gain” nonsensical stuff. We have the Holy Eucharist.

John 3:1-18 And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Nicodemus answered, and said to him: How can these things be done? Jesus answered, and said to him: Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony. If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things? And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It should be interesting watching Catholics tell Jesus to His face that they don't need that *born again nonsensical stuff* after HE told us we did.

You can't say you weren't warned.

“Ok.....soooo Bible is not a specific word in the Bible. This proves what exactly?”

Oh, the irony. You made a point and then don’t understand when it backfires on you?

“So what should we call it then???”

Should anyone take that as a serious question?

“It’s always amazing to me that catholics, who claim to have given us this book you don’t, for some reason, like to refer to as the Bible, seem to go out of their way to ignore or somehow put the Word down.”

It’s always amazing to me that Protestant anti-Catholics, who always claim they know the truth resort to making things up out of thin air. No one here said he doesn’t “like to refer to [the Bible] as the Bible”. To even suggest that someone did is RIDICULOUS. And you just did it anyway.
And then you make the bizarre - and completely FALSE claim that someone, ANYONE, here is “go[ing] out of their way to ignore or somehow put the Word down.” Why are you making things up that no one has done? Why? I seriously doubt I’ll get an answer, of course.

“btw....that’s from that book you don’t like to call the Bible because that word isn’t in the book you don’t like to call Bible,...”

WHERE DID ANYONE IN THIS THREAD SAY THE FOLLOWING: That he (anyone at all) doesn’t like to call the Bible the “Bible”????

Post the post number where anyone said that. There is no such post is there? So why are you claiming that someone is saying that when no one has? Is it morally right to making things up like that? Shouldn’t you apologize for outright making things up out of thin air that no one here has said?

“that you claim catholics “gave” to everyone, yet for some reason back in the day didn’t want folks to read.”

I’m not claiming that Catholics “didn’t want folks to read” the Bible. You apparently are.

“Ya’ll make my head hurt.”

“Empty heads can’t hurt.” Edgar Bergen’s Mortimer Snerd.

“As always Vladimir...it’s been real. I’m done for tonight.”

No, a long time ago.

Where are you getting your information from? Care to specify exactly where and when Catholics were forbidden from reading the Bible for themselves?

Catholics prohibited from owning Scripture

COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.

The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon:

“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.” (-D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.