A Protestant Minister's Unusual Sermon on Reformation Sunday

You wrote:

“Given the number of folks burned for reading scriptures in their own tongue, I’m not surprised there is rejoicing at the Reformation...or better called, Restoration.”

Name ONE person, just one person, “burned for reading scriptures in their own tongue.”

The Lollards. Bunches of them.

Of course, the CHARGE was heresy, but the proof was that they knew scripture in English. And what greater heresy could the Medieval Church have, then following scripture instead of the Pope?

You wrote:

“The Lollards. Bunches of them.”

Nope. None. No Lollard was ever burned for reading the Bible in his own tongue.

“Of course, the CHARGE was heresy, but the proof was that they knew scripture in English.”

Everyone in England knew the scriptures in English. That’s the language in which it was read to them and explained to them at Mass and in open air preaching. Even the translators of the KJV admitted the Bible existed in English long before they came along.

“And what greater heresy could the Medieval Church have, then following scripture instead of the Pope?”

Following the pope IS scriptural as people knew even then. People who try to separate the Bible from the Church which wrote it are the ones in the wrong.

“Everyone in England knew the scriptures in English. That’s the language in which it was read to them and explained to them at Mass and in open air preaching.”

You might want to brush up on your history.

Thomas Arundel was the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England from 1399 on. In 1400, he pushed through the passage of “the De Heretico Comburendo statute in 1401, which recited in its preamble that it was directed against a certain new sect “who thought damnably of the sacraments and usurped the office of preaching.” (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia} It empowered the bishops to arrest, imprison, and examine offenders and to hand over to the secular authorities such as had relapsed or refused to abjure. The condemned were to be burnt “in an high place” before the people.” - Wiki

In 1408, he turned to scripture, pushing through the Constitutions of Oxford. “We therefor decree and ordain, that no man, hereafter, by his own authority translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue, by way of book, libel or treatise; and that no man can read any such book...”.

“By the constitutions of Oxford of 1408, it was illegal—on pain of death—to read the Scriptures in English without a bishop’s licence. To reinforce this, in April 1519 one woman and six men were burned to death at Coventry for teaching their children the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles Creed in English.” - Brian H Edwards

Of course, the Holy Catholic Church COULD have sponsored a translation, but it did not. Henry Knighton, an ecclesiastical chronicler of the time (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08670b.htm) wrote that Wycliffe’s work made scriptue “more open to the laity, and even women who were able to read, than formerly it had even been to the scholarly and most learned of the clergy...this precious gem of the clergy has been turned into the sport of the laity”. The first authorized English translation didn’t occur until the Great Bible in 1539...150 years after the Lollards started dying, and 2 years after Tyndale was strangled, then burnt for the heresy of claiming we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works.

The open air sermons of the 1300s and 1400s would include perhaps a sentence, and often less, of scripture translated from Latin - IF the preacher or priest knew enough Latin to do so - many did not. Those that did would cite part of a verse, and then preach their thoughts about it - a horrible style of preaching too often found in Protestant Churches to this day! However, having sat through many of them, I do so with my Bible in my lap, and I read the context...and sometimes corner the preacher afterward!

But the idea that “Everyone in England knew the scriptures in English” is simply false. Too many good men died giving us an English translation. And yes, there were some earlier than Wycliffe & his friends, but those were not distributed outside the Church.

“People who try to separate the Bible from the Church which wrote it are the ones in the wrong.”

The Church did not write the Old Testament, and the Apostles or close associates wrote the New.

And if we’re talking about the time of Wycliffe, who was the Pope? There were several at the time, leading Wycliffe to joke that ‘we knew the Pope had cloven feet, but now he has a cloven head to go with it’!

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

What is the work God requires of us? For Catholics who take John 6 too literally in parts, it is odd to see one section skipped:

“When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”

Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

While works are the fruit of a repentant heart, the repentant heart comes first. And that is, as Paul wrote, “by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

Not “we are saved by Grace through Faith and Works, not by Grace through Faith Alone”, but “saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works”.

You can’t get much clearer than that!

You wrote:

“You might want to brush up on your history.”

I have a PhD in Medieval History. Between the two of us I am the only one who knows what he’s talking about.

“Thomas Arundel was the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England from 1399 on. In 1400, he pushed through the passage of “the De Heretico Comburendo statute in 1401, which recited in its preamble that it was directed against a certain new sect “who thought damnably of the sacraments and usurped the office of preaching.” (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia} It empowered the bishops to arrest, imprison, and examine offenders and to hand over to the secular authorities such as had relapsed or refused to abjure. The condemned were to be burnt “in an high place” before the people.” - Wiki”

First, don’t rely on Wikipedia when you’re trying to prove a point. Second, nothing in that contradicted what I said.

“In 1408, he turned to scripture, pushing through the Constitutions of Oxford. “We therefor decree and ordain, that no man, hereafter, by his own authority translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue, by way of book, libel or treatise; and that no man can read any such book...”.”

Notice the ellipse? Always be suspicious when there’s an ellipse. Here’s the rest: “...now lately set forth in the time of John Wyckliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part of in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial.”

Notice: 1) The issue was the heresy of Wycliffe and the Lollards, and 2) all someone had to do was take their Middle English language translation to the bishop to be examined for heretical notes. If it did not possess those notes, then the person would be issued a writ declaring the Bible to be an examined and approved translation.

“By the constitutions of Oxford of 1408, it was illegal—on pain of death—to read the Scriptures in English without a bishop’s licence... - Brian H Edwards”

Edwards is clearly a moron. After all, the constitution laid out what the penalty was, and I quote, “greater excommunication” not death.

“Henry Knighton, an ecclesiastical chronicler of the time (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08670b.htm) wrote that Wycliffe’s work made scriptue “more open to the laity, and even women who were able to read, than formerly it had even been to the scholarly and most learned of the clergy...this precious gem of the clergy has been turned into the sport of the laity”.”

No, Henry Knighton never wrote that. His book ended in 1366. Someone else may have written that, but certainly not Knighton.

and again, an ellipse. Here’s what your ellipse does not show:

“And so the Gospel pearl is thrown before swine and trodden under foot and that which used to be so dear to both clergy and laity has become a joke, and this precious gem of the clergy has been turned into the sport of the laity, so that what used to be the highest gift of the clergy and the learned members of the Church has become common to the laity.”

Interesting how anti-Catholics never seem to use full quotes when talking about history isn’t it?

“The first authorized English translation didn’t occur until the Great Bible in 1539”

Authorized by whom exactly?

“...150 years after the Lollards started dying, and 2 years after Tyndale was strangled, then burnt for the heresy of claiming we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works.”

And notice Tyndale is admitted there to not have been executed for translating the Bible as so many Protestants falsely claim.

“The open air sermons of the 1300s and 1400s would include perhaps a sentence, and often less, of scripture translated from Latin - IF the preacher or priest knew enough Latin to do so - many did not.”

False. All the preachers who were well known in the 1300s and 1400s knew scripture, even if their knowledge of Latin was less than perfect and most of them knew Latin quite well. Also, in Mass the sermons tended to be shorter because of the length of the liturgy. I’ve noticed that Protestant preachers can speak for nearly an hour and not cover more than a few verses. That seems to be quite common among Protestants. Public preaching, what might be called “revivals” today were often accompanied by longer sermons and they discussed more than a “sentence” of scripture.

“Those that did would cite part of a verse, and then preach their thoughts about it - a horrible style of preaching too often found in Protestant Churches to this day!”

It’s not a horrible style of preaching. It is a simple style of preaching. Also, that was not what was commonly done at all.

“However, having sat through many of them, I do so with my Bible in my lap, and I read the context...and sometimes corner the preacher afterward!”

I’m sure you have.

“But the idea that “Everyone in England knew the scriptures in English” is simply false.”

No, it is not.

“Too many good men died giving us an English translation.”

None died giving us an English translation. Wycliffe didn’t die for his. Tyndale didn’t die for his. The DRV translators didn’t die for theirs. The KJV translators didn’t die for theirs.

“And yes, there were some earlier than Wycliffe & his friends, but those were not distributed outside the Church.”

Yes, actually they were - as the KJV translators suggest too.

You wrote:

“The Church did not write the Old Testament, and the Apostles or close associates wrote the New.”

No Christ-denying Jew attached the New Testament to the Old. It was only when Catholics composed the NT and attached it to the Old, naturally, that what we call the Bible came about.

“And if we’re talking about the time of Wycliffe, who was the Pope? There were several at the time, leading Wycliffe to joke that ‘we knew the Pope had cloven feet, but now he has a cloven head to go with it’!”

Who is the pope now? Benedict XVI. Yet there are more than a dozen other men claiming to be pope in the world today. We know who the pope is now, and we know who the pope was then. There were not three popes. There can’t be. There was only one at a time and we know exactly who they were and when they reigned as popes.

No, I don’t have PhD in History. I’m a retired Electronic Warfare Officer, not a historian. However, I find your hair-splitting to be a bit silly.

Part of our disagreement stems from this: were Lollards killed for heretical views, or reading the scriptures in English? Since the latter was evidence of the former, I find it to be a distinction without a difference. If someone who possessed a passage from scripture in English could be arrested and brought to trial, and then executed for knowing and repeating what was in scripture, then I find the idea that possessing and reading scripture in English wasn’t a death-defying act.

As for Wiki - argue facts, not names. I don’t have days to read all source material. If Wiki is in error, correct it & me. I realize the passage didn’t directly contradict your assertion, but used it as a lead up to what happened in 1408 and the 150 years that followed.

“Notice: 1) The issue was the heresy of Wycliffe and the Lollards, and 2) all someone had to do was take their Middle English language translation to the bishop to be examined for heretical notes. If it did not possess those notes, then the person would be issued a writ declaring the Bible to be an examined and approved translation.”

Fine. Did it ever happen? And what is YOUR source? Given that Wycliffe’s disciples and Tyndale both added comments, and their English translations were the only ones available in any number, what do you think happened?

“Edwards is clearly a moron. After all, the constitution laid out what the penalty was, and I quote, “greater excommunication” not death.”

Correct, in so far as it goes. And those who recanted were usually given leniency. From what I’ve read, with an EWO’s library, repeat offenders were burned. In a different book, Edwards expounded at greater length, but I don’t have endless time to type in quotes for pages. Sorry.

“No, Henry Knighton never wrote that. His book ended in 1366.”

The link I provided points out he ‘wrote’ 5 books - the first 3 plagiarized, and the last written by an anonymous person. So he is generally credited with 5 books, although in fact he wrote 1. I provided the link with deeper detail.

“Here’s what your ellipse does not show:”

Actually, I shortened the quote because it takes time to type, and I still don’t see how it changes my point in any way. Namely, the clergy did NOT want the laity to have access to scripture. Stuff your full quote where the sun doesn’t shine - the meaning is still there.

“And notice Tyndale is admitted there to not have been executed for translating the Bible as so many Protestants falsely claim.”

Correct. I spent several days reading about Tyndale, and I tried to be accurate. I would also point out that he was not pursued across the Continent by Thomas More and others for believing what is stated in Ephesians, but for translating it into English and publishing it. He was tried for heresy, but he was pursued for translating and publishing. Again, it is splitting hairs to say he died for heresy, since he would not have been pursued and had agents sent out after him if he had not translated and published.

“It’s not a horrible style of preaching. It is a simple style of preaching. Also, that was not what was commonly done at all.”

Please expand. I wrote what I’ve read. And it IS a horrible way to preach, since context has so much impact on meaning.

“None died giving us an English translation. Wycliffe didn’t die for his. Tyndale didn’t die for his. The DRV translators didn’t die for theirs. The KJV translators didn’t die for theirs.”

The DRV translators...

“The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which was heavily influencing England....Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible, however, employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable; and consequently this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay-Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was in fact a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible

OK, by 1600, one could translate scripture into English. No one denies that, and the King’s picked men who translated under his authority in 1604-7 were also not in danger. What a shock - the Catholic Church no longer ran England or influenced its laws, and suddenly it was OK to translate - even with a Catholic slant.

Wycliffe’s followers were not called “Bible Men” because they ignored scripture. They died for following the Bible, and teaching it and spreading it in English. Wycliffe was dug up and his bones burned - for heresies that are the words of scripture themselves. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Tyndale was tried as a heretic and killed, but he was pursued as a translator and publisher.

Split hairs all you want. It echoes the Church saying they had no blood on their hands, since they tried for heresy, and then turned the victim over to civil authorities for actual death. That might make their consciences feel better, but I doubt God or anyone with a conscience believes it.

The Catholic Church fought hard to prevent Germans and English from reading scripture in their own languages. It lost, thank GOD! - but it killed a lot of folks before admitting defeat!

“We know who the pope is now, and we know who the pope was then. There were not three popes. There can’t be.”

Hope you like Wiki...

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

“According to Broderick:

“Doubt still shrouds the validity of the 3 rival lines of pontiffs during the 4 decades subsequent to the still disputed papal election of 1378. This makes suspect the credentials of the cardinals created by the Roman, Avignon, and Pisan claimants to the Apostolic See. Unity was finally restored without a definitive solution to the question; for the Council of Constance succeeded in terminating the Western Schism, not by declaring which of the 3 claimants was the rightful one, but by eliminating all of them by forcing their abdication or deposition, and then setting up a novel arrangement for choosing a new pope acceptable to all sides. To this day the Church has never made any official, authoritative pronouncement about the papal lines of succession for this confusing period; nor has Martin V or any of his successors. Modern scholars are not agreed in their solutions; although they tend to favor the Roman line.”[1]”

Mr Rogers, you've been cornered quite handily by Vladimir, and you should at least have the good sense to admit it and stop trying to fight a losing battle on this. Vladimir mentioned that he is a trained historian (an expert on the very era you are making pronouncements about, no less) and, as you yourself admit, you have no expertise in this area. If Vladimir were to attempt to lecture you on the technicalities of electronic warfare (something he has no training in), you would be quiet within your rights to shut him down as a mere poseur if he attempted to bamboozle people with a mish-mash of technical-sounding quotes and jargon. Since you have the necessary training in electronics warfare, you would quickly be able to spot his imposture. This is precisely what he did to you. That much is clear. And that's why your coming back at Vladimir with another blast of pseudo-historical argumentation accomplishes nothing of value to your cause. You said, "I don't have days to read all source material. If Wiki is in error, correct it [and] me." As I see it, he already did.

Sir, I’ve been neither cornered nor beaten. The problem with Vladimir is he cares more for his church than his history.

The Catholic Church fought to keep scripture out of the hands of the laity. That isn’t something an honest person can debate. From the 1300s with Wycliffe until the late 1500s, the Catholic Church had 200 years in which to produce an English translation and put it in the hands of the people.

It did not. It called those who tried heretics, and whined that their translations were not good enough. Tyndale’s translation was attacked by More as being filled with errors - yet roughly 90% of the KJV New Testament comes from Tyndale, and More emphatically did NOT produce a competing New Testament - or even try. And the DRV, IF one believes Wikipedia, relied on the Tyndale-influenced (90+ %) KJV when rewritten to be more readable.

The Catholic Church COULD HAVE translated the scriptures into German, and distributed them, rather than let Luther’s translation corner the market - yet it did not. How long did it take Luther, by himself, to produce a New Testament? Roughly a year.

It is hair-splitting to say that Tyndale and others were not risking their lives in translating and publishing the Bible because the Catholic Church opposed their efforts.

If the problem had been errors in translation, then the Catholic Church certainly had the resources to correct the problems. If it was the cost of distribution prior to a printing press, then A) the Catholic Church had the resources, and B) the Catholic Church still failed to act AFTER the printing presses were churning out books by the hundred thousand. If it was literacy, then the Catholic Church not only failed to address that issue, but neglected another solution - distribute copies of the Bible to each church congregation, and teach at least one person to read it.

The widespread distribution of scripture is what gave the Reformation its strength. Wycliffe couldn’t do it, for there were not enough copies - nor could there be, while the Lollards were hunted down and given a choice of repent or die.

If Vladimir wants to discuss which books an ecclesiastical writer wrote or didn’t write (as per the link I provided), he can debate himself. The fact remains - the Catholic Church opposed distributing scripture, it refused to make and publish a translation, and it tried to kill those who did.

And when scripture was received by the masses, it proved dangerous to both Catholic Popes and Kings. It was with good cause that King James sided with the High Church Anglicans, saying, “No Bishop, No King!”

My point to you was that we should celebrate the Reformation - remember the start of this thread you posted - because until the Reformation, the laity couldn’t access scripture. After it, as Tyndale boasted, there were plowboys who knew more about what the scriptures said than did any of the Medieval Popes!

“While it is true we need grace for salvation, we are, in the end, judge by works, “”

I actually think I agree with you in this sense:

We are saved by grace.

We are lost due to our works.

So, if we go to heaven, it is because of God’s extraordinary mercy. If we go to hell, it is because of our hideous sinfulness.

Salvation by grace; damnation by works.

“That’s what we see despairingly. While there are many good people who call themselve Protestant, the bent of the idea that you can split over not liking your pastor, inevitably leads to JWs, Gene Robin etc.”

I agree that that is a weakness in the Protestant church. But I believe the inability to remove obviously messed up popes (and others) in the RC church is a weakness in the RC church.

By obviously corrupt popes please know I am not referring to any current pope. No insult is implied.

I think men who are obviously and continually corrupt in their church office must be removed.

You wrote:

“No, I don’t have PhD in History. I’m a retired Electronic Warfare Officer, not a historian. However, I find your hair-splitting to be a bit silly.”

I am not hair-splitting. Gaining historical knowledge is all about precision and accuracy.

“Part of our disagreement stems from this: were Lollards killed for heretical views, or reading the scriptures in English? Since the latter was evidence of the former, I find it to be a distinction without a difference.”

Having a Bible in the vernacular was never a heresy in itself. It was an issue of discipline when the Lollards came on the scene. Now, after the constitution was issued, and everyone knew what was in it, someone who secretly held on to such Bibles must have only done it because they were heretical notes in them and they themselves were heretics. They could be put on trial, but they still could not be put on trial for heresy in itself.

“If someone who possessed a passage from scripture in English could be arrested and brought to trial, and then executed for knowing and repeating what was in scripture, then I find the idea that possessing and reading scripture in English wasn’t a death-defying act.”

We know that English Catholics had Bibles and prayer books in the vernacular (prayer books with Middle English Bible passages and prayers taken from scriptures).

“As for Wiki - argue facts, not names. I don’t have days to read all source material. If Wiki is in error, correct it & me.”

I am correcting you. Will you change your views? I doubt it.

“I realize the passage didn’t directly contradict your assertion, but used it as a lead up to what happened in 1408 and the 150 years that followed.”

You were still wrong and you used sources that were edited to make them read differently than they actually did. There’s dishonesty involved here. Whoever you used as a source online for these quotes (you didn’t actually ever read any history books on this after all, right?) was essentially dishonest. You were duped and you apparently didn’t even know it until I pointed it out.

“Fine. Did it ever happen?”

Yep.

“And what is YOUR source?”

I wish I could remember where I read about the young woman who had exactly such a writ from her ordinary. I read about it years ago. There were such documents, we still have some. Amazing that they survived not just 600 years of history, but 5 centuries of Protestant attempts to rewrite history!

Now, here is what I can easily find, and from a reputable source: Archbishop Arundel, the very man who issued the constitution in question presided over the funeral of Queen Anne in 1392 (yes, I know, it’s before the constitution, but hold on):

“Also the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas of Arundel, that now is (runs the record), preached a sermon at Westminster, whereat there were many hundred people, at the burying of Queen Anne (on whose soul God have mercy), and in his commendation of her he said that it was more joy of her than of any woman that he knew. For notwithstanding that she was an alien born she had in English all the four Gospels, with the doctors upon them. And he said that she sent them unto him, and he said that they were good and true and commended her, in that she was so great a Lady and also an alien and would study such holy, such virtuous books.” http://books.google.com/books?pg=RA1-PA129&lpg=RA1-PA129&dq=arundel+bible+lady&sig=vsm—zAQ2H8qTJqrrWQWQMpZxIc&ei=b5DnSoqAL5O8sgOY8uWqBQ&ct=result&id=2hDQCAi3oGQC&ots=Lf3Xqldq5V#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Now, remember, Wycliffe was already dead. His Bible was already being circulated in a second edition by his heretical followers. Yet, here we have Arundel publicly proclaiming his admiration and respect for a woman who read the scriptures IN ENGLISH. Already we see a serious problem with the basis of your claims.

And then there’s this from St. Thomas More:

“For as much (he writes) as it is dangerous to translate the text of Scripture out of one tongue into another, as holy St. Jerome testifieth, for as much as in translation it is hard always to keep the same sentence (i.e., sense) whole. It is, I say, for these causes at a council holden at Oxenford provided upon great pain, that no man should from thenceforth translate into the English tongue, or any other language, of his own authority, by way of book, libellus or treatise, nor no man openly, or secretly, read any such book, etc., newly made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, etc., until such should be approved. And this is a law that so many so long have spoken of, and so few have in all this while sought to seek (or find out) whether they say the truth or no. For I trow that in this law you see nothing unreasonable. For it neither forbiddeth the translations to be read that were already well done of old before Wyclif’s days, nor damneth his because it was new, * but because it was naught; nor prohibiteth new to be made, but provideth that they shall not be read, if they be made amiss, till they be by good examination amended.” (same source as linked above, by the way).

And More would know since he was the Chancellor of England!

“Given that Wycliffe’s disciples and Tyndale both added comments, and their English translations were the only ones available in any number, what do you think happened?”

What’s that supposed to mean? What do I think happened? Here’s what I think happened: Satan tempted men of great pride to rebel against the Church and twist the scriptures to their liking. Some of those men we call Protestants.

“Correct, in so far as it goes. And those who recanted were usually given leniency. From what I’ve read, with an EWO’s library, repeat offenders were burned. In a different book, Edwards expounded at greater length, but I don’t have endless time to type in quotes for pages. Sorry.”

R-I-G-H-T.

“The link I provided points out he ‘wrote’ 5 books - the first 3 plagiarized, and the last written by an anonymous person. So he is generally credited with 5 books, although in fact he wrote 1. I provided the link with deeper detail.”

Still an error.

“Actually, I shortened the quote because it takes time to type, and I still don’t see how it changes my point in any way.”

It doesn’t change your point. It shows your point to be erroneous. Do you understand the difference between those two ideas? Or will you just say that’s hair-splitting?

“Namely, the clergy did NOT want the laity to have access to scripture.”

Which is completely false. If that were the case, then that’s what the constitution would have said. You have no evidence at all.

“Stuff your full quote where the sun doesn’t shine - the meaning is still there.”

Nope. What you claimed is not there in what you posted. That’s not hair-splitting either.

“Correct. I spent several days reading about Tyndale, and I tried to be accurate. I would also point out that he was not pursued across the Continent by Thomas More and others for believing what is stated in Ephesians, but for translating it into English and publishing it. He was tried for heresy, but he was pursued for translating and publishing. Again, it is splitting hairs to say he died for heresy, since he would not have been pursued and had agents sent out after him if he had not translated and published.”

Nope. He would have been pursued for pushing heresy - which he did in the notes of his translation. Pity too. He was a smart man, but allowed himself to be fooled by Satan.

“Please expand. I wrote what I’ve read. And it IS a horrible way to preach, since context has so much impact on meaning.”

It is not a horrible way to preach. It may not impress you, but that is hardly relevant. And again, that was not what commonly was done anyway.

“The DRV translators...”

Yes. Douay-Rheims Version.

“OK, by 1600, one could translate scripture into English.”

One could do it in 1400 too. And in 1500 too.

“No one denies that, and the King’s picked men who translated under his authority in 1604-7 were also not in danger.”

Actually they could have been if there had been a change of powers.

“What a shock - the Catholic Church no longer ran England or influenced its laws, and suddenly it was OK to translate - even with a Catholic slant.”

1) It was always OK to translated. 2) The Catholic Church never ran England.

“Wycliffe’s followers were not called “Bible Men” because they ignored scripture.”

They weren’t called Heretics because they were orthodox either. They were called Bible Men because they followed the Bible.

“They died for following the Bible, and teaching it and spreading it in English.”

Nope.

“Wycliffe was dug up and his bones burned - for heresies that are the words of scripture themselves.”

Nope. Show me where this is in the Bible: “7. That God ought to be obedient to the devil.”

You falsely claim his body was burned for this: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Show me where you see that here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1382wycliffe.html

“Tyndale was tried as a heretic and killed, but he was pursued as a translator and publisher.”

Heretic. Heretical notes.

“Split hairs all you want. It echoes the Church saying they had no blood on their hands, since they tried for heresy, and then turned the victim over to civil authorities for actual death.”

No, actually it doesn’t. Again, precision is not hair-splitting.

“That might make their consciences feel better, but I doubt God or anyone with a conscience believes it.”

Your doubts are not based on anything.

“The Catholic Church fought hard to prevent Germans and English from reading scripture in their own languages.”

No. There were 14 different editions PRINTED Bibles before Luther. And those were just the printed ones! That doesn’t include all the handmade mss.

Luther, as is well known to historians, but probably complete news to you, borrowed heavily from the previous Bible for his translation. Even Protestants admit these facts:

According to the latest investigations, fourteen printed editions of the whole Bible in the Middle High German dialect, and three in the Low German, have been identified. Panzer already knew fourteen; see his Gesch. der nürnbergischen Ausgaben der Bibel, Nürnberg, 1778, p. 74.

The first four, in large folio, appeared without date and place of publication, but were probably printed: 1, at Strassburg, by Heinrich Eggestein, about or before 1466 (the falsely so-called Mainzer Bibel of 1462); 2, at Strassburg, by Johann Mentelin, 1466 (?); 3, at Augsburg, by Jodocus Pflanzmann, or Tyner, 1470 (?); 4, at Nürnberg, by Sensenschmidt and Frissner, in 2 vols., 408 and 104 leaves, 1470-73 (?). The others are located, and from the seventh on also dated, viz.: 5, Augsburg, by Günther Zainer, 2 vols., probably between 1473-1475. 6, Augsburg, by the same, dated 1477 (Stevens says, 1475?). 7, The third Augsburg edition, by Günther Zainer, or Anton Sorg, 1477, 2 vols., 321 and 332 leaves, fol., printed in double columns; the first German Bible with a date. 8, The fourth Augsburg edition, by A. Sorg, 1480, folio. 9, Nürnberg, by Anton Koburger (also spelled Koberger), 1483. 10, Strassburg, by Johann Gruninger, 1485. 11 and 12, The fifth and sixth Augsburg editions, in small fol., by Hans Schönsperger, 1487 and 1490. 13, The seventh Augsburg edition, by Hans Otmar, 1507, small folio. 14, The eighth Augsburg edition, by Silvan Otmar, 1518, small folio.

The Low Dutch Bibles were printed: 1, at Cologne, in large folio, double columns, probably 1480. The unknown editor speaks of previous editions and his own improvements. Stevens (Nos. 653 and 654) mentions two copies of the O. T. in Dutch, printed at Delf, 1477, 2 vols. fol. 2, At Lübeck, 1491 (not 1494), 2 vols. fol. with large woodcuts. 3, At Halberstadt, 1522.

Comp. Kehrein (I.c.), Krafft (l.c., pp. 4, 5), and Henry Stevens, The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, London, 1878. Stevens gives the full titles with descriptions, pp. 45 sqq., nos. 620 sqq.

Several of these Bibles, including the Koburger and those of Cologne and Halberstadt, are in the possession of the Union Theol. Seminary, New York. I examined them. They are ornamented by woodcuts, beginning with a picture of God creating the world, and forming Eve from the rib of Adam in Paradise. Several of them have Jerome’s preface (De omnibus divinae historiae libris, Ep. ad Paulinum), the oldest with the remark: “Da hebet an die epistel des heiligen priesters sant Jeronimi zu Paulinum von allen gottlichen büchern der hystory. Das erst capitel.”

Dr. Krafft illustrates the dependence of Luther on the earlier version by several examples (pp. 13-18). The following is from the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5:21-27:—
http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html

“It lost, thank GOD! - but it killed a lot of folks before admitting defeat!”

No, you’ve lost...and you’re still lost.

You posted:

“Doubt still shrouds the validity of the 3 rival lines of pontiffs during the 4 decades subsequent to the still disputed papal election of 1378.”

Nope. Not among Catholics. And it is the Catholic Church who must be relied on as to who was pope. Thus, there is no issue here. Just as the USA decides who is president, the Church says who is pope. Period.

“Modern scholars are not agreed in their solutions; although they tend to favor the Roman line.”

The Church has always said it was the Roman obedience. End of story.

“There’s dishonesty involved here. Whoever you used as a source online for these quotes (you didn’t actually ever read any history books on this after all, right?) was essentially dishonest. You were duped and you apparently didn’t even know it until I pointed it out.”

Wrong as usual. Yes, I read history books. I took the parts of the quotes that I bothered to hand type in, but there was no intent to deceive, nor did you additional information change my point. Be careful about calling someone a liar.

“Now, after the constitution was issued, and everyone knew what was in it, someone who secretly held on to such Bibles must have only done it because they were heretical notes in them and they themselves were heretics.”

Or maybe they wanted to read God’s Word, which was NOT being published, distributed or tolerated in the hands of Catholic laity in 1300-1600 England. It was the Catholic Church that stopped up scripture, as evidenced by the fact that there were not thousands of English Catholic-approved Bibles published - or hundreds.

There WERE a handful of translations before Wycliffe. There were translations going back as far as Bede, but no distribution of them. Evidence of this is the fact that when Wycliffe & Tyndale started translating and publishing, the demand was HUGE - even though it was dangerous to the point of death.

Now, if the Catholic Church was making the Bible available in English, why were people willing to risk death to get a copy of Wycliffe’s and later Tyndale’s translations? For the notes? They could buy Tyndale’s books if they wanted his thoughts - it was scripture that they hungered for and did not get from the Catholic Church.

You cite More: “...For it neither forbiddeth the translations to be read that were already well done of old before Wyclif’s days, nor damneth his because it was new, * but because it was naught; nor prohibiteth new to be made, but provideth that they shall not be read, if they be made amiss, till they be by good examination amended.”

True, but what good is a translation with no distribution? And those translations had been made hundreds of years earlier...the language had changed.

Wiki has a good summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_Bible#Old_English_translations

An Anglo-Saxon translation from 700 AD wasn’t much help in 1375. Even Wycliffe’s translation was older and more difficult than Tyndales, just 150 years later:

“1 The bigynnyng of the gospel of Jhesu Crist, the sone of God.2 As it is writun in Ysaie, the prophete, Lo! Y sende myn aungel bifor thi face, that schal make thi weie redi bifor thee. 3 The vois of a crier in desert, Make ye redi the weie of the Lord, make ye hise paththis riyt. 4 Joon was in desert baptisynge, and prechynge the baptym of penaunce, in to remissioun of synnes. 5 And al the cuntre of Judee wente out to hym, and alle men of Jerusalem; and thei weren baptisid of hym in the flom Jordan, `and knoulechiden her synnes. 6 And Joon was clothid with heeris of camels, and a girdil of skyn was about hise leendis; and he ete hony soukis, and wilde hony, and prechide, 7 and seide, A stronger than Y schal come aftir me, and Y am not worthi to knele doun, and vnlace his schoone.”

http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/mar1.htm

You write: “It doesn’t change your point. It shows your point to be erroneous.”

Here is the original part I posted, to show “the Holy Catholic Church COULD have sponsored a translation, but it did not.”

“...wrote that Wycliffe’s work made scriptue [sic] “more open to the laity, and even women who were able to read, than formerly it had even been to the scholarly and most learned of the clergy...this precious gem of the clergy has been turned into the sport of the laity”.

You say that is refuted by the quote: ““And so the Gospel pearl is thrown before swine and trodden under foot and that which used to be so dear to both clergy and laity has become a joke, and this precious gem of the clergy has been turned into the sport of the laity, so that what used to be the highest gift of the clergy and the learned members of the Church has become common to the laity.”

You neglect the first part of my quote - that it made the scripture more accessible, and repeat the second part, which is that what had been “the highest gift of the clergy and the learned members of the Church” was now “common to the laity”.

Since it essentially REPEATS my point, it is NOT a refutation. It says what I said - that Wycliffe’s translation, awkward as it was, made it more accessible to the laity, and that the Church men didn’t like it, calling the common man “swine”!

You write: “He would have been pursued for pushing heresy...”

Actually, they had enough ‘heretics’ living in England, that they didn’t need to go to the Continent to pursue them. And since More wrote several pieces attacking Tyndale’s translation, and Tyndale responded vigorously, you idea that More was pursuing him for heretical notes seems a bit silly to me. In 1529 & 1532, More published books attacking Tyndale’s translation...but he was pursued overseas for heresy, while there were thousands well within reach?

Perhaps your love of church is influencing you analysis of history. Perhaps. I’ll let anyone reading our discussion decide for themselves!

You say one could translate scripture into English in 1400 or 1500...which is a half truth. You could, IF you could get church or state to approve of you effort. Since no approval was forthcoming, no translations were legal.

And yes, the Catholic Church had enormous influence over the secular governments. The idea of digging up Wycliffe’s bones and burning them came from Rome, not London. If you really have a PhD in Medieval History, and doubt the Church’s enormous influence in secular decisions, then your studies were, at the least, incomplete.

Wycliffe did not teach “God ought to be obedient to the devil.” That says more about the dishonesty of the Pope than a believable charge against Wycliffe.

Concerning Luther’s translation, you write: “No. There were 14 different editions PRINTED Bibles before Luther. And those were just the printed ones! That doesn’t include all the handmade mss.”

Correct. from your loved Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bible_translations#Pre-Lutheran_German_Bibles

And yet Luther’s sold...”The fact that the new Bible was printed in the vernacular allowed it to spread rapidly as it could be read by all. Hans Lufft, a renowned Bible printer in Wittenberg printed over one hundred thousand copies between 1534 and 1574 which went on to be read by millions.”

Odd, isn’t it. The Catholic Church with all its resources and influence couldn’t produce translations in German and English that sold, while heretics - one of whom was kept on the run - could sell them by the thousands, or hundred thousand. But as a Doctor of Medieval History, that doesn’t seem to interest you! Why?

Why is it that heretics could get scripture in the hands of the masses, while the Catholic Church could not? But I’m just a retired military officer - who am I to ask?

This is why I call your learned exposition hogwash...that the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and the Vicar of Christ, could not get scripture in the hands of the common people, although you seem to think they WANTED to, while the heretics did. It seems Luther and Tyndale did what the Vicar of Christ could not...and the Vicar’s follower vladimir998 can dance around, but not explain why heretics accomplished what the Vicar of Christ could not.

Unless, of course, the VofC didn’t really WANT the common folks to read scripture - an idea well attested to by history and common sense!

DING...DING...DING...DING

I declare the following the winner of this debate...

MRROGERS!!!!!!!!!

I really hope you read to the end. Your point about putting the Bible in the hands of people backfires on you terribly.

You wrote:

“Or maybe they wanted to read God’s Word, which was NOT being published, distributed or tolerated in the hands of Catholic laity in 1300-1600 England.”

But I’ve already shown that it was published, distributed and tolerated in the hands of Catholics.

“There WERE a handful of translations before Wycliffe. There were translations going back as far as Bede, but no distribution of them.”

If they existed, they were distributed. That’s why we know about them! What you probably mean is that they were not mass produced by a singular source - which is true. They were instead produced all over the country.

“Evidence of this is the fact that when Wycliffe & Tyndale started translating and publishing, the demand was HUGE - even though it was dangerous to the point of death.”

Nope. The demand was huge because books were expensive and literacy was just becoming common. Also, Wycliffe never “published” anything as did Tyndale. Wycliffe lived before printing.

“Now, if the Catholic Church was making the Bible available in English, why were people willing to risk death to get a copy of Wycliffe’s and later Tyndale’s translations?”

Your point is false. It is not the job of the Church to PUBLISH any book. It is the job of the Church to preach. And it did and does. Luther was not a church, but a man. Tyndale was not a church but a man. Wycliffe was not a Church, but a man. Even King James was not a church, but a man. Most Protestant Bibles have been produced by individuals and groups, not churches. You expect the Catholic Church to have done something that not even most protestant sects can really claim. Why the hypocrisy on your part?

“For the notes? They could buy Tyndale’s books if they wanted his thoughts - it was scripture that they hungered for and did not get from the Catholic Church.”

Irrelevant. Tyndale’s notes got him into trouble. A translation itself was not the issue.

“True, but what good is a translation with no distribution?”

Bible were distributed. More knew this.

” And those translations had been made hundreds of years earlier...the language had changed.”

No. Some were much more recent. And yes, the language kept on changing.

“An Anglo-Saxon translation from 700 AD wasn’t much help in 1375.”

That’s why they read translations from 1375. They were abundant. More and the KJV translators admitted this.

“Even Wycliffe’s translation was older and more difficult than Tyndales, just 150 years later:”

Yes, and people made translations in between.

“You neglect the first part of my quote - that it made the scripture more accessible, and repeat the second part, which is that what had been “the highest gift of the clergy and the learned members of the Church” was now “common to the laity”.”

I neglected NOTHING. You posted half a quote. That’s not honest. Also, the author was not agreeing with your sentiments.

“Since it essentially REPEATS my point, it is NOT a refutation.”

Yes, it is.

“It says what I said - that Wycliffe’s translation, awkward as it was, made it more accessible to the laity, and that the Church men didn’t like it, calling the common man “swine”!”

That’s not what the quote said. It was not that he was saying the commoners were swine because of their commonness, but that they would take the scriptures and twist them because they didn’t know what they meant. Protestants do it all the time.

“Actually, they had enough ‘heretics’ living in England, that they didn’t need to go to the Continent to pursue them.”

They pursued them all.

“And since More wrote several pieces attacking Tyndale’s translation, and Tyndale responded vigorously, you idea that More was pursuing him for heretical notes seems a bit silly to me. In 1529 & 1532, More published books attacking Tyndale’s translation...but he was pursued overseas for heresy, while there were thousands well within reach?”

They were pursued as well. Also, his translation was viewed as unsound and heretical in the notes. The fact that it was a translation was not a problem. The fact that it was considered filled with errors, deceptions, lying notes and produced by a known heretic - yeah, that was a problem.

“Perhaps your love of church is influencing you analysis of history.”

The exact opposite actually. My analysis of history increases my love for the Church.

“Perhaps. I’ll let anyone reading our discussion decide for themselves!”

And will you point out to them your errors?

“You say one could translate scripture into English in 1400 or 1500...which is a half truth. You could, IF you could get church or state to approve of you effort. Since no approval was forthcoming, no translations were legal.”

All translations were LEGAL if the bishop approved them and historians know there were approved translations. You’re just as wrong here as you were on the German translations.

“And yes, the Catholic Church had enormous influence over the secular governments.”

Influence, even enormous influence, is a far cray from “running” a country. Once again we see an anti-Catholic change his story! Gee, who didn’t see that one coming?

“The idea of digging up Wycliffe’s bones and burning them came from Rome, not London.”

No, it came from Constance first. Only a decade later did it come from Rome. And who said otherwise?

“If you really have a PhD in Medieval History, and doubt the Church’s enormous influence in secular decisions, then your studies were, at the least, incomplete.”

And if you’re claiming now you said only “influence” rather than “running” a country then what’s incomplete with you?: Here are your words: “What a shock - the Catholic Church no longer ran England or influenced its laws, and suddenly it was OK to translate - even with a Catholic slant.”

“Wycliffe did not teach “God ought to be obedient to the devil.” That says more about the dishonesty of the Pope than a believable charge against Wycliffe.”

It wasn’t the pope who drew up the list. And I never claimed he taught that doctrine in so many words. But the simple fact is that Wycliffe was a heretic even by Protestant standards. His heresy of dominion (not to be confused with the modern Protestant issue of “dominion”) is heretical even among Protestants. You’ve probably never heard of it.

“Correct.”

I’m so glad to see you admitted one of your most glaring errors. This means - for many years - you believed an OUTRIGHT ERROR OR LIE and now you’ve been set free. You now realize that the lying propaganda of Protestants was exactly that. Here are your words again: “The Catholic Church fought hard to prevent Germans and English from reading scripture in their own languages.”

This cannot be emphasized enough: for years, perhaps decades, you walked around believing an outright lie. You even spread it on the internet. You participated, albeit unwittingly, in spreading an absolute lie. You were serving the father of lies and did not even know enough to know that you were doing it until your error was corrected here today.

“And yet Luther’s sold...”The fact that the new Bible was printed in the vernacular allowed it to spread rapidly as it could be read by all.”

They all sold - all Bible translations sold. All books, of every kind, sold. They still do. Even Pelosi’s horrible book has sold some copies. And, of course, people wanted to buy a copy of the Bible because it was so dear to them and they had been taught it since birth throughout the Middle Ages and then after the German Catholic Gutenberg invented moveable type printing, he printed his first book - the BIBLE.

“Hans Lufft, a renowned Bible printer in Wittenberg printed over one hundred thousand copies between 1534 and 1574 which went on to be read by millions.”

I’m sure. Every printer who could print books, sold them. Is this news to you? Is it news to you that people bought books, especially the Bible? Have you been to a Borders lately?

“Odd, isn’t it. The Catholic Church with all its resources and influence couldn’t produce translations in German and English that sold, while heretics - one of whom was kept on the run - could sell them by the thousands, or hundred thousand.”

Couldn’t? Who says that? The Church’s job is to preach, not to print. Christ sent the Church to preach and baptize, not to publish books. I’m all for the Church publishing Bibles, but I would rather the Church carry out her primary duty first. There are lay people - like Gutenberg then - who can publish Bibles.

“But as a Doctor of Medieval History, that doesn’t seem to interest you! Why?”

Because I have a proper understanding of why Christ established the Church. You seem to think Thomas Nelson is the Church. I do not confuse the Church with a printing house. You apparently have made the two synonymous in your mind.

“Why is it that heretics could get scripture in the hands of the masses, while the Catholic Church could not?”

Again, what do you mean ‘could’? Where did Christ tell the Church to publish books? He told the Church to preach and baptize.

“But I’m just a retired military officer - who am I to ask?”

Apparently someone who doesn’t know. At least that’s what your posts bear out.

“This is why I call your learned exposition hogwash...that the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and the Vicar of Christ, could not get scripture in the hands of the common people, although you seem to think they WANTED to, while the heretics did.”

Do the Jehovah’s Witnesses come to your door? How about the Mormons? They make tremendous efforts at evangelizing. They give away free Bibles too. Does that mean that they are some how CLOSER to God or the truth because they give away free Bible? THEY’RE FREE. You must love that! Free Bibles for whoever asks! Oh, wait. The JWs have that little habit of denying Christ’s divinity in their Bible, but you must not mind that because they give away FREE BIBLES and little magazines. That shows that they must care more than other religious groups that don’t go door to door giving free stuff away, right? After all, at the end of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus told the Church to go to the ends of the earth and give away free Bibles, right?

“It seems Luther and Tyndale did what the Vicar of Christ could not...”

Again, what do you mean “could”? Show me how he “could” not. Can you? You’ll fail at that won’t you? And again, the Mormons must be even more holy and perfect than Luther or Tyndale - according to your reckoning - because they gave away free Bibles while Tyndale and Luther actually sold them!

“and the Vicar’s follower vladimir998 can dance around, but not explain why heretics accomplished what the Vicar of Christ could not.’

There’s nothing to explain - heretics, who serve evil, often use good things to fool people. JWs and Mormons deny the Trinty and yet they probably do more Bible give-aways than your sect, right? It’s actually kind of funny. You think that I have a problem explaining that when I have no problem at all. You’re in a sect. So are they. They do more to put Bibles in the hands of people than you do. I have nothing to explain. You have to ask yourself, why those who deny Christ, deny the Trinity do more to put the Bible in the hands of people FOR FREE than you and your sect does. You’re the one with a lot of explaining to do.

When you come up with an answer as to how Christ-denying sects do more than you do with the Bible let me know.

“Unless, of course, the VofC didn’t really WANT the common folks to read scripture - an idea well attested to by history and common sense!”

No, not attested to at all. And, using your logic, the JWs and Mormons must wnat people to have and believe the Bible even more than you do because they do so much more than your sect to get it into the hands of people, right?

Hilarious. Anti-Catholics are so intent on spewing their venom they can’t see how they set traps for themselves.

(snicker) A video message from the people who you must believe are holier than you are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkpOAJw_3Io