Posted on 01/29/2010 4:41:16 PM PST by NYer
Did Martin Luther save the bible from the Roman Catholic Church? Was John Wycliff the first to translate the Bible into the English language in 1382 so the regular-Joe could read the Bible too?
Many people answer yes to these questions. The same people also commonly accuse the Catholic Church of things like “hiding the Bible from the people.” And not letting the laity read the Bible for themselves in fear that the people would learn how wickedly warped and un-biblical the teachings of the Catholic Church truly were. So, naturally, for these reasons the Catholic Church kept Bibles locked up, hard to find and in languages nobody could understand.
This absolutely ridiculous, academically inept, historically false and blatantly ignorant point of view oozes with irony. Here are just a few reasons why:
1) Throughout much of Church history, if you could read, you could read Latin. The Church translated the Bible into Latin in the first few centuries of its inception so that all who could read would be able to do so.
2) The Church distributed the Bible in every country it was in and in the common language of the people from the 7th down to the 14th century and beyond.
3) “626 editions of the Bible, in which 198 were in the language of the laity, had issued from the press, with the sanction and at the instance of the Church, in the countries where she reigned supreme, before the first Protestant version of the scriptures was sent forth into the world.” (Where We Got The Bible)
4) There were 27 versions of the Bible in the German language before Martin Luther’s version came out.
5) It was almost solely in those countries which have remained most Catholic that popular versions of the Bible had been published; while it was precisely Protestant countries (like England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway) that no bible existed when they embraced Protestantism (Dublin Review - Oct 1837). So there is no evidence that access to a Bible in the vernacular caused people to become more protestant. If anything, it made them become more Catholic. It was the spread of such “traditions of men” as private Judgment and Sola Scriptura which caused the spread of Protestantism and further division within the Body of Christ.
The reasons many people still didn’t have access to a Bible was not because of the Catholic Church (The Catholic Church supported access to it). One of the main reasons was the high cost and labor to produce and/or obtain one. That changed drastically with the printing press, of course.
So why then did the Catholic Church reject and forbid the use of protestant “bibles” such as the one published by John Wycliff? It was not because they were in English or another vernacular. It was not because they were being made available to the laity. It was because they were corrupt versions of the Bible. They were bad translations. And were often being used to spread false doctrine. It’s that simple.
If the Catholic Church had wanted to destroy or alter the Bible, it could have done so at just about any time in its long history. The Catholic Church is the reason we even have the Bible today. It is the institution that protected and preserved it. It would have been easy for those in the Church to destroy original documents and come up with something else if they didn’t like what the Bible taught. But they didn’t do that because of their love for Scripture and genuine desire to share it with the entire world.
If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read a Bible, thank the Catholic Church.
All of this talk makes me want to buy an indulgence.
How absolutely Medieval.
SSSHHHH!!! or they’ll hear you BipolarBob and you will be summoned to an inquisition.
Sometimes Medieval is good.
That’s true.
Should I pray to a saint or God? WWJD?
Should BipolarBob post to himself? WWBBD?
**If you can read a Bible, thank the Catholic Church.**
AMEN!
Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve
Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible
Wycliffe’s teaching came to Bohemia through Anna, wife of the English king Richard II. A Bohemian princess, her presence in England induced students from the University of Prague to study at Oxford where they were influenced by Wycliffe’s writings. Jerome of Prague, one of Wycliffe’s greatest supporters in Bohemia, is frequently credited with disseminating the controversial ideas in Bohemia.
In the first decade of the 15th century, Jan Huss, a reformist Bohemian priest, began to preach the ideas of Wycliffe as they related to church wealth and adherence to scripture. Huss did not accept Wycliffe’s views on the sacraments, particularly his rejection of transubstantiation. As medieval scholars Tierney and Painter comment, “…Huss was a preacher and reformer rather than a theologian and scholar.”
Huss is most often identified with Martin Luther through his opposition to the selling of ecclesiastical indulgences. His attack on the practice reached a height in 1412, resulting in his condemnation and excommunication. Although given a “safe conduct” to the Council of Constance in 1415 by the Holy Roman Emperor-elect Sigismund, he was burned at the stake during the conference.
The “Hussites,” though suppressed, would eventually grow into the Moravian Church, a Pietist group of Protestant evangelical believers most well known for migrating to the English colonies of North America. These “Moravian Christians” established enclaves in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, notably at Old Salem in Winston-Salem.
**and the text used by Catholics now - the Challoner revision **
Huh?
By posting to myself I avoid direct confrontation and the risk of ex-communication.
A Primer on Indulgences
INDULGENCES and Why they Remain Vital to us Today (Catholic Caucus)
Indulgences - and Why they Remain Vital to us Today [Catholic Caucus]
[What Every Catholic Needs to Know about] Gaining Indulgences [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Probably true. Was there universal education back then? Could Everyone read? Or was education something that only the 'elites' could afford?
The Catholic Church, to put a good spin on it, didn’t want commoners reading scripture apart from ‘sacred tradition’. The problem wasn’t lack of desire from people, nor lack of ability, but fear of what scripture might do if read apart from the Catholic Church.
Again, I would have to agree with you. Just ask any one of these folks who firmly believed in their own personal interpretation of Scripture:
Simonians of Acts 8, Cerintheians. Judaizers, Circumcisers of Acts 15:1, Nicolaitans of Rev.2:6, Nazareans or "Jewish-Christians", Docetists, Gnostics, Neo-Gnostics, Agnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites, Montanists, Monarchians, Tritheists, Modalists, Basidilians, Carpocratians Tertullianists, Origenists, Manicheans, Millenarians, Novatians, Donatists, Arians, Macedonians, Appollinarists, Jovinians, Vigilantians Pelagians, Semipelagians, Nestorians, Predestinarians, Monophysites, Paulicians, Monothelites (like Monophysites of the Fifth Century), Iconoclasts, Adoptionists, Petrobrosians, Henricians, Waldenses, Albiguenses, Fraticelli, Flagellants, Lollards of John Wycliffe, Hussites, Moravians, "Church of the Brotherhood", United Brethren Lutherans, Zwinglians, Church of England, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Episcopalians, Mennonites, Presbyterians, Puritans, Congregationalists, Huguenots, Reformed Dutch, Unitarians, Socinians, ad infinitum, ad nauseum and etc.
Really the Roman Catholic Church has had her arms full of heretics trying to attack her and her authority ever since the Pentecost, but rebellion against authority does not have its source in the Divine and ergo, you get what you get.
You wrote:
“As medieval scholars Tierney and Painter comment, “…Huss was a preacher and reformer rather than a theologian and scholar.””
Ah, yes...Tierney and Painter = Freshman level Medieval history textbook. It’s a classic.
“His attack on the practice reached a height in 1412, resulting in his condemnation and excommunication.”
No. No one could be excommunicated simply for preaching against the sale of indulgences since the sale of indulgences was banned by the Church. Hus was excommunicated in 1410 for disobeying his archbishop. A sentence of excommunication was issued in 1411.
“Although given a “safe conduct” to the Council of Constance in 1415 by the Holy Roman Emperor-elect Sigismund, he was burned at the stake during the conference.”
Yes, he was. But don’t you think you should admit that you didn’t write that?
From elsewhere:
“Huss is most often identified with Martin Luther through his opposition to the selling of ecclesiastical indulgences. His attack on the practice reached a height in 1412, resulting in his condemnation and excommunication. Although given a “safe conduct” to the Council of Constance in 1415 by the Holy Roman Emperor-elect Sigismund, he was burned at the stake during the conference.”
John Wycliffe and the English Catholic Church: Lollard Influences on the Ministry of Jan Huss in Bohemia http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:JjgzMybZOwIJ:latemiddleages.suite101.com/article.cfm/john_wycliffe_and_the_english_catholic_church+Although+given+a+%E2%80%9Csafe+conduct%E2%80%9D+to+the+Council+of+Constance+in+1415+by+the+Holy&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#ixzz0e3rh2qkR
“The “Hussites,” though suppressed, would eventually grow into the Moravian Church, a Pietist group of Protestant evangelical believers most well known for migrating to the English colonies of North America. These “Moravian Christians” established enclaves in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, notably at Old Salem in Winston-Salem.”
And that too is lifted from elsewhere.
The thread seems to be an open one. You can post to others.
If indeed the Pope has been permitted the power to forgive sins, why has he been denied the power to cause the lame to walk and the deaf to heal? Let him leave the Vatican and go forth to the hospitals and amongst the people and heal and do marvelous acts that more people might believe. What say ye?
RSV. Thank you, Ignatius Press, for a fine, large print, solid-paper, RSV.
Princess Agnes of Bohemia was one of the first non-Italian Franciscan sisters. She refused to marry her father’s choice, and instead became the head of a “Poor Ladies” foundation in Bohemia. Some of the most interesting documents of the time are the letters exchanged between St. Clare of Assisi and Agnes of Bohemia.
The Moravians had a substantial impact in North Carolina as well as in other parts of frontier America. They were among the first evangelists of the American Indians in the Appalachians and westward.
I think you need to read over something.
In the original post there was this:
“2) The Church distributed the Bible in every country it was in and in the common language of the people from the 7th down to the 14th century and beyond.
You wrote:
“Not true. In England, for example, some translations were made, but they were for the elite, not the commoners.”
Whoa! Commoners are PEOPLE. Common language is what they speak. The opening post said “common language of the people” while you used a DIFFERENT WORD AND IDEA = “commoners”.
Some commoners could read. Some could not. But just about everyone in England after 1300 knew the common tongue. Before that that was not the case. The elite often spoke a different language (and it wasn’t Latin either although many of them knew that language). Wealthy, well educated people in late medieval England often knew several languages. They spoke either Old/Middle English or Norman French at home. In Church matters they spoke Latin. In common law courts they used a highly developed dialect of French particular to the courts. We get words some of our legal terms like voir dire from that Anglo-Norman dialect.
The Catholic Church, to put a good spin on it, didn’t want commoners reading scripture apart from ‘sacred tradition’. The problem wasn’t lack of desire from people, nor lack of ability, but fear of what scripture might do if read apart from the Catholic Church.”
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.