Posted on 04/16/2012 2:13:08 AM PDT by GonzoII
There are some things in them (Epistles of St. Paul) hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2 Peter 3:16
Ever since the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century, the Catholic Church has been accused of ignoring, opposing, hiding and even destroying the Bible in order to keep it from the people. Allegedly, copies of the Bible were chained to the walls of churches during the Middle Ages so that people could not take them home to read. Supposedly the Church during the Middle Ages also refused to translate the Bible into the various tongues of the common people, the vernacular languages, in order to further hinder personal Bible reading. Furthermore it is claimed that the Church even went as far as to burn vernacular Bibles.
When examining these charges against the Church, we must consider several points. First if the Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, why did her monks work diligently through the centuries making copies of it? Before the printing press (before 1450), copies of the Bible were hand written with beauty and painstaking accuracy. One reason for Bibles being chained to the walls of churches is because each copy was precious both spiritually and materially. It took a monk about a year to hand copy the entire Bible, so Bibles were scarce. The chain kept it safe from loss or theft, so all the people of the church community (parish) could better benefit from it.
Secondly concerning the vernacular, we must remember that in the 5th century when St. Jerome translated the Bible from the original languages into Latin, Latin was the language of the people. This Bible is commonly called the Vulgate, the common version. Even after a thousand years, Latin still remained the universal language in Europe.
Translating the Bible into the vernacular languages during the Middle Ages was simply impractical. Most vernacular languages at that time did not have an alphabet, so they could not be put into written form. Also only a few people could read. The few educated persons, who could read, could also read Latin. This situation did not create a great demand for a vernacular Bible nor promote a popular devotion to personal Bible reading.
Even though impractical, there are examples of the Church promoting the vernacular. One example is the mission of Sts. Cyril and Methodius to the Slavic people in Moravia during the 9th century. They are both famous for introducing the Slavonic liturgy. In their work St. Cyril had to develop an alphabet for the Old Slavonic language. (It became the precursor of the Russian "cyrillic" alphabet.) In 885 St. Methodius translated the entire Bible into this language. Despite strong political opposition from the Germans, Pope Hadrian II after careful investigation confirmed St. Methodius as archbishop of Moravia and endorsed their Slavonic liturgy. (St. Cyril had already died.) Several later popes continued to uphold their work against attacks; however, Pope Stephen VI recalled the liturgy after being deceived by the German opposition. [1]
In 7th century Britain, before English was even a language, Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, paraphrased most of the Bible into the common tongue. During the early 8th century, St. Bede the Venerable also translated parts of the Bible into the language of the common British people. On his death bed in 735, he translated the Gospel of St. John. Also in this period, Bishop Eadhelm, Guthlac and Bishop Egbert worked on Saxon Bibles. During the 9th and 10th centuries, King Alfred the Great and Archbishop Aelfric worked on Anglo-Saxon (Old English) translations. After the Norman conquest of 1066, a need for an Anglo-Norman Bible arose, so the Church produced several translations, e.g. Salus Animae (1250). In 1408 the provincial council of Oxford made it clear that vernacular translations could receive approval from the Church. In 1582 the famous Douay-Rheims New Testament translation was completed, while the Old Testament was finished in 1609. Ironically the Douay-Rheims New Testament influenced the King James Bible. [2,3]
After the 14th century when English finally became the popular language of England, vernacular Bibles were used as vehicles for heretical propaganda. John Wycliffe, a dissentient priest, translated the Bible into English. Unfortunately his secretary, John Purvey, included a heretical prologue, as noted by St. Thomas More. Later William Tyndale translated the Bible into English complete with prologue and footnotes condemning Church doctrines and teachings. [2] St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects." [4] As food for thought, if the Wycliffe or Tyndale Bibles were so good, why do Protestants today not use them as they do the King James Bible?
One action that Catholic Christians pursued to stop this propaganda was to burn these books. Does this action make the Church anti-Bible? No. If it did, then the Protestants of this period were also anti-Bible. John Calvin, the main Protestant Reformer, in 1522, had as many copies as could be found of the Servetus Bible burned, since Calvin did not approve of it. Later Calvin had Michael Servetus himself burned at the stake for being a Unitarian. [5] In those days it was common practice on both sides to burn unapproved books. Finally it is one matter to destroy the real thing and another to destroy a counterfeit.
The Church did not oppose faithful vernacular translations but heretical additions and distortions to the Bible. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ's Gospel. As St. Peter in his Epistle (in the Bible) warns us, the ignorant and unstable can distort the Scriptures to their own destruction [2 Peter 3:16; see front panel].
Should good Christian parents allow their children to read a Bible with anti-Christian propaganda or profanity in the footnotes? I certainly would not. Finally if the Catholic Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, she had ample opportunity to do so for 1500 years.
REFERENCES
[1] Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom (Christendom College Press, 1987) pp. 359,371,385.
[2] The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice-Hall, 1968) Vol. II, pp. 586-588.
[3] Henry G. Graham, Where We Got The Bible (TAN Books, 1977) p. 99.
[4] Ibid., pp. 128,130.
[5] Ibid., p. 129.
NIHIL OBSTAT:
Reverend M. James Divis, S.T.L.
Censor Librorum
IMPRIMATUR:
Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D.
Bishop of Lincoln
February 11, 1993
The NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR are official declarations that a book or a pamphlet is free from doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed.
__________________________________
A Catholic Response, Inc.
P.O. Box 84272
Lincoln, NE 68501-4272
__________________________________
Return to Main Page
Vul"gar (?), a. [L. vulgaris, from vulgus the multitude, the common people; of uncertain origin: cf. F. vulgaire. Cf. Divulge.]
1. Of or pertaining to the mass, or multitude, of people; common; general; ordinary; public; hence, in general use; vernacular.
Vul"gate (?), n. [NL. vulgata, from L. vulgatus usual, common, p. p. of vulgare to make general, or common, fr. vulgus the multitude: cf. F. vulgate. See Vulgar, a.] An ancient Latin version of the Scripture, and the only version which the Roman Church admits to be authentic; -- so called from its common use in the Latin Church.
&hand; The Vulgate was made by Jerome at the close of the 4th century. The Old Testament he translated mostly from the Hebrew and Chaldaic, and the New Testament he revised from an older Latin version. The Douay version, so called, is an English translation from the Vulgate. See Douay Bible.
Not defending the actions of the Church, but through most of the Middle Ages there was little or no literature of any type in the vernacular languages.
The first vernacular language to really develop a literature was Italian with the Divine Comedy starting around 1300.
Prior to this the educated studied in Latin and were thus able to communicate with each other anywhere in Europe. The situation was similar in many respected to that in China, where the literate are able to communicate in the written language even when their “dialects” are as different as Swedish and Sicilian.
At least 85% of the KJV is straight verbatium from the Tyndale bible. In fact the KJV has been called the 4th revision of the Tyndale bible. And John Tyndale was burned at the stake for creating his translation.
Good article. Of course, anything Warren Carroll touched was usually like that. ;) I was taught that, with regard to disposal of heretical materials, the ideal method was to burn them, to save others from being misled into error.
A laughable attempt to rewrite history as the handwashing continues.
You wrote:
“Not defending the actions of the Church, but through most of the Middle Ages there was little or no literature of any type in the vernacular languages.”
That’s what people said for decades - but it really doesn’t hold water. Anglo-Saxons and Norsemen had a written literature before Dante.
Point out an error then. Can you?
Not very much of it. Hardly anybody could read, in any language. About the only people who could were clerics.
In fact, for a very long time in English common law the ability to read was considered proof you were a member of the clergy and able to plead “benefit of clergy” and eligible to have one’s sentence significantly reduced for many crimes.
You wrote:
“In fact, for a very long time in English common law the ability to read was considered proof you were a member of the clergy and able to plead “benefit of clergy” and eligible to have one’s sentence significantly reduced for many crimes.”
(sigh) Because the samples people were given to read in court were always in one of two languages: legal Latin or Anglo-Norman French. No one read those languages without intense educations and no one at all read the latter without studying law. Remember, it was a court room. They used legal readings. After 1066 the language in court proceedings was a version of French. That continued into the 15th century. How many Englishmen could read that? A university graduate from England in the year 1500 commonly could read English, French (the Norman dialect), Latin, and often some Greek.
We still have remnants of that lanuguage in our court system (e.g. voir dire).
French was still the first language of the English kings until Henry IV who died in the early 15th century. His son, Henry V, was the first king to take a coronation oath in English. Famously he was also the first to write in English.
In 1582 the famous Douay-Rheims New Testament translation was completed, while the Old Testament was finished in 1609. Ironically the Douay-Rheims New Testament influenced the King James Bible. [2,3]
FROM THE TRANSLATOR TO THE READER (KJV) origial preface.
http://avbtab.org/av/avPre.htm
• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet {Douai-Rheims}) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
• 2 As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
• 6 The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.
***In 7th century Britain, before English was even a language, Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, paraphrased most of the Bible into the common tongue.****
§ 9 [The translating of the Scripture into the vulgar tongues.]
• 1 Now though the Church were thus furnished with Greek and Latin translations, even before the faith of CHRIST was generally embraced in the Empire: [S.Hieronym. Marcell, Zosim.] (for the learned know that even in S.Hierome’s time the Consul of Rome and his wife were both Ethnicks, and about the same time the greatest part of the Senate also) yet for all that the godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin, (as the good lepers [2King.7:9] were not content to fare well themselves, but acquainted their neighbours with the store that God had sent, that they also might provide for themselves) but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion hear CHRIST speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only, but also by the written word translated.
• 2 If any doubt hereof, he may be satisfied by examples enough, if enough will serve the turn.
• 3 First, S.Hierome [S.Hieron. præf. in 4. Evangel.] saith, Multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata, docet falsa esse quæ addita sunt, etc., i.e. The Scripture being translated before in the languages of many nations, doth shew that those things that were added (by Lucian or Hesychius) are false.
• 4 The same Hierome elsewhere [S.Hieron. Sophronio.] affirmeth that he, the time was, had set forth the translation of the Seventy, suæ linguæ hominibus, i.e. for his countrymen of Dalmatia.
• 5 Which words not only Erasmus doth understand to purport, that S.Hierome translated the Scripture into the Dalmatian tongue, but also Sixtus Senensis, [Six. Sen. lib. 4. Alphon à Castro lib. 1. ca. 23.] and Alphonsus à Castro, (that we speak of no more) men not to be excepted against by them of Rome, do ingenuously confess as much.
• 6 So S.Chrysostome, [S.Chrysost. in Johan. cap. 1. hom. 1.] that lived in S.Hierome’s time, giveth evidence with him: The doctrine of S.John (saith he) did not in such sort (as the philosophers did) vanish away: but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and infinite other nations, being barbarous people, translated it into their (mother) tongue, and have learned to be (true) philosophers, he meaneth Christians.
• 7 To this may be added Theodorit, [Theodor. 5. Therapeut.] as next unto him both for antiquity, and for learning.
• 8 His words be these, Every country that is under the sun is full of these words (of the Apostles and Prophets) and the Hebrew tongue (he meaneth the Scriptures in the Hebrew tongue) is turned not only into the language of the Grecians, but also of the Romans, and Egyptians, and Persians, and Indians, and Armenians, and Scythians, and Sautomatians, and briefly into all the languages that any nation useth. So he.
• 9 In like manner, [P.Diacon. li. 12. Isidor, in Chron. Goth. Sozom. li. 6. cap. 37.] Ulpilas is reported by Paulus Diaconus and Isidor (and before them by Sozomen) to have translated the Scriptures into the Gothic tongue:
• 10 John Bishop of Seville by Vasseus, to have turned them into Arabic about the year of our Lord 717: [Vaseus in Chron. Hispan.]
• 11 Beda by Cistertiensis, to have turned a great part of them into Saxon:
• 12 Efnard by Trithemius, to have abridged the French Psalter, as Beda had done the Hebrew, about the year 800:
• 13 King Alured by the said Cistertiensis, to have turned the Psalter into Saxon: [Polydor. Virg. 5 histor. Anglorum testatur idem de Aluredo nostro.]
• 14 Methodius by Aventinus [Aventin. lib. 4.](printed at Ingolstad) [B. Rhenan. rerum German. lib.2.] to have turned the Scriptures into [Circa annum 900.] Sclavonian:
• 15 Valdo, Bishop of Frising, by Beatus Rhenanus, to have caused about that time the Gospels to be translated into Dutch rhythm, yet extant in the library of Corbinian:
• 16 Valdus, by divers, to have turned them himself, or to have gotten them turned, into French about the year 1160:
• 17 Charles, the fifth of that name, surnamed The wise, to have caused them to be turned into French, about 200 years after Valdus’s time, of which translation there be many copies yet extant, as witnesseth Beroaldus. [Beroald.]
• 18 Much about that time, even in our King Richard the Second’s days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen with divers, translated, as it is very probable, in that age.
• 19 So the Syrian translation of the New Testament is in most learned men’s libraries, of Widminstadius’s setting forth; and the Psalter in Arabic is with many, of Augustinus Nebiensis’s setting forth.
• 20 So Postel affirmeth, that in his travel he saw the Gospels in the Ethiopian tongue; and Ambrose Thesius allegeth the Psalter of the Indians, which he testifieth to have been set forth by Potken in Syrian characters.
• 21 So that to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England, or by the Lord Radevil [Thuan.] in Polonie, or by the Lord Ungnadius in the Emperor’s dominion, but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation; no doubt because it was esteemed most profitable to cause faith to grow in men’s hearts the sooner, and to make them to be able to say with the words of the Psalm, As we have heard, so we have seen. [Ps.48:8]
***The Church did not oppose faithful vernacular translations but heretical additions and distortions to the Bible. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture.***
http://avbtab.org/av/avPre.htm
• 11 The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?
• 12 Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and the most learned men to confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God.
• 13 And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics, forsooth, were the authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so.
• 14 We are sure Tertullian [Tertul. de præscript. contra hæreses.] was of another mind: Expersonis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Do we try men’s faith by their persons? we should try their persons by their faith.
• 15 Also S.Augustine was of another mind: for he, lighting upon certain rules made by Tychonius, a Donatist, for the better understanding of the Word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so far forth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seen in S.Augustine’s third book De Doctrinâ Christianâ. [S.August. 3. de doct. Christ. cap. 30.]
• 16 To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much more from burning) the translation of Aquila, a proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined them together with the Hebrew original, and the translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.
• 17 But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.
“The Church did not oppose faithful vernacular translations but heretical additions and distortions to the Bible. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ's Gospel. As St. Peter in his Epistle (in the Bible) warns us, the ignorant and unstable can distort the Scriptures to their own destruction [2 Peter 3:16; see front panel].”
By what words or command of Christ were any, ANY of his disciples authorized to persecute, murder, or suppress by violence any group? The Waldensians being an example.
To argue that someone else also burned “heretics” and their books and that this somehow makes the murder less so is to argue for self condemnation as being no more Christian then those the Catholic church called heretics.
And what can be said of those justify and defend such actions?
You wrote:
“By what words or command of Christ were any, ANY of his disciples authorized to persecute, murder, or suppress by violence any group? The Waldensians being an example.”
No, you’re wrong as usual. The Church did not murder anyone, ever. Every society has the inherant right to keep the peace. The Waldensians disrupted the social order by splitting families and even violently attacking those who disagreed with them. In the 13th century, for instance, in Kematen, in the Traunkreis, Waldensians murdered the parish priest. What’s the proper punishment for murder?
I guess you’ve never read Susanna K. Treesh’s article called “The Waldensian Recourse to Violence” in Church History, 1986, Vol. 55, Issue 03, pp 294-306???? No, apparently not.
“To argue that someone else also burned “heretics” and their books and that this somehow makes the murder less so is to argue for self condemnation as being no more Christian then those the Catholic church called heretics.”
First, it wasn’t murder. Second, the Church didn’t do it. Third, suppressing violent groups who are tearing society apart is not wrong.
“And what can be said of those justify and defend such actions?”
No justification is necessary. It is moral to suppress violent heretics. Period.
Like I said, can you point out any errors? So far, you’ve failed to do so. I knew it would go this way. It always does.
“By what words or command of Christ were any, ANY of his disciples authorized to persecute, murder, or suppress by violence any group? The Waldensians being an example.”
You say I'm wrong. If so then show me, show us all!, those “words or command of Christ”.
You wrote:
“You say I’m wrong. If so then show me, show us all!, those “words or command of Christ”.”
Your question was wrong in its premise. That’s why I pointed out that society’s suppress violent groups like the Waldensians.
You dodged my simple question: “Point out an error then. Can you?” Why did you fail? Your claim was, “A laughable attempt to rewrite history as the handwashing continues.” So, where is your evidence of rewriting of history or “handwashing”? Got any?
“The Church never murdered anyone, ever.”
And the Pharisees never did either, they simply had the secular authorities do their dirty work. Or as Saul did, stand by to hold the cloaks of those doing so.
Calling for the “extermination”, read murder, of those labeled “heretics” by the Catholic church is a violation of the integrity of the Scriptures and Gospel of Christ.
“So, where is your evidence of rewriting of history or “handwashing”? Got any?”
Going on to the hand washing....Simply read your own comments.
Overturning or upsetting the “social order”???
Remember who made a similar charge? I do.
Breaking up families? Isn't that Jesus said would happen as a result of his message being preached?
That basin must need some fresh water by now.
You wrote:
“My question was was no “dodge” and quite correct in its premise, that premise being no command or word of Christ authorized his disciples to suppress, persecute or murder anyone.”
I asked you for an error from the article. You provided none. Not one. Thus, you’re wrong in any case. Second, your premise is still wrong because you are conflating two different ideas as if your understanding of things was actual reality.
“And certainly not calls for “extermination” of and seizure of land of those deemed “heretical” by the Catholic church as well as punishment for those not acting on this order with sufficient alacrity.”
Those deemed as heretics BY THE STATE risked punishment BY THE STATE as well as the Church. That was the well known, long established, legally defined way of things and those who embraced heresy knew it.
“(Fourth Lateran Council 1215, Canon Three). Sounds like a Muslim “fatwa” or whatever it is they call it.”
No, it sounds like a society that believed in law and order dealing with people who were violent and subversive - and that’s exactly what was going on.
“And the Pharisees never did either, they simply had the secular authorities do their dirty work.”
No, the Pharisees actually tried to murder Jesus - but it was not His time yet. Matthew 12:14. You apparently are as unfamiliar with scripture as you seem to be with history.
“Or as Saul did, stand by to hold the cloaks of those doing so.”
Saul was participating in evil. Suppressing violent heretics was not evil.
“Calling for the “extermination”, read murder, of those labeled “heretics” by the Catholic church is a violation of the integrity of the Scriptures and Gospel of Christ.”
Extermination in Latin meant to throw the heretics out of the region (ex - term = out of bounds). Any Cassell’s Latin dictionary will define extermino as “to drive beyond the boundaries; hence lit[eral meaning], to drive out, expel, banish . . . transf[erred meaning] to put aside, remove.” It does not list “kill,” “exterminate,” as we would say today. But why let knowledge get in the way of an anti-Catholic bigot’s ignorance, right?
“Going on to the hand washing....Simply read your own comments.”
Truth, not handwashing. Those of us who actually post the truth rather than falsehoods - like what you posted - don’t need handwashing.
“Overturning or upsetting the “social order”??? Remember who made a similar charge? I do.”
Not a similar charge. Jesus is God. Heretics are not. Jewish denial of Christ was not holy. Christianity is.
“Breaking up families? Isn’t that Jesus said would happen as a result of his message being preached?”
Jesus is truth. Heresy isn’t.
“That basin must need some fresh water by now.”
You’re the only one handwashing. Remember, now, so far you have failed to note even ONE - not even ONE - error in the article, and you now have shown you don’t understand your own sources (i.e. the Fourth Lateran Council). Keep going. You represent anti-Catholicism so well.
If only your saying made it so....but it doesn’t.
No, it is.
Again, you failed to point out even one error in the article. That’s just a fact. You were also wrong about the word “exterminate”. That too is a fact. Your failure is a fact.
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.