Replies

You wrote:

“Oh, relax. If what I brought didn’t include the quote you were referencing, then WHAT QUOTE are you talking about?”

The one that was posted. If you don’t even know what quote was in question, then why would you think even for a second that you were ready for this discussion. Go back and read the thread. Find the false, phony, made-up quote which was falsely ascribed to Trent.

“I have searched this thread, and saw no other thing from Persevero presented as a quote from “Trent”. You called it a lie. I PROVED OTHERWISE. Should I re-post and highlight that one sentence from the larger context portion, so that you may see it?”

False. It was a lie. There is no such quote from Trent. What you posted was not the quote originally passed off as being from Trent. I realize facts don’t matter to some people, but they do matter to me. The simple fact is that a phony, made up quote was falsely ascribed to Trent. Nothing you can post or highlight will change that fact. The original quote ascribed to Trent was a lie. Plain and simple.

The one that was posted. If you don’t even know what quote was in question, then why would you think even for a second that you were ready for this discussion. Go back and read the thread. Find the false, phony, made-up quote which was falsely ascribed to Trent.

This was the text from Persevero's post #38 WRT the Bible and Trent:

“The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: “That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary.” “

As Iscool as well as BlueDragon have shown, that EXACT phrase came from a document called "TEN RULES CONCERNING PROHIBITED BOOKS DRAWN UP BY THE FATHERS CHOSEN BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND APPROVED BY POPE PIUS". In the link from Fordham University, The Jesuit University of New York http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp, the phrase is found at rule IV and the rule reads:

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.

I don't think quibbling over a slight translation difference from what Persevero said and the rule should matter since it IS saying the same thing and it IS speaking about the translations of the Bible (Sacred Books) as well as other writings of those deemed "heretics". In Rule V, we read concerning the Bible:

Books which deal in the vernacular with the controversies between Catholics and heretics of our time may not be permitted indiscriminately, but the same is to be observed with regard to them what has been decreed concerning Bibles written in the vernacular.

The final paragraph of this document leaves no room for doubt as to what they were trying to do. It ends with:

Finally, all the faithful are commanded not to presume to read or possess any books contrary to the prescriptions of these rules or the prohibition of this list. And if anyone should read or possess books by heretics or writings by any author condemned and prohibited by reason of heresy or suspicion of false teaching, he incurs immediately the sentence of excommunication. He, on the other hand, who reads or possesses books prohibited under another name shall, besides incurring the guilt of mortal sin, be severely punished according to the judgment of the bishops.

It is no wonder people got the impression reading the Bible was a no-no.

As to this document and its connection to Trent, you simply need to go to the documents of the Council of Trent to read that there WERE "fathers" specifically chosen by the Council to develop such a list. In fact, that directive can be found under the Eighteenth Session http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct18.html:

It hath thought good, that Fathers specially chosen for this inquiry, should carefully consider what ought to be done in the matter of censures and of books, and also in due time report thereon to this holy Synod; to the end that It may more easily separate the various and strange doctrines, as cockle from the wheat of Christian truth, and may more conveniently deliberate and determine, in regard thereof, that which shall seem best adapted to remove scruples from the minds of very many, and to do away with various causes of complaint.

This should be adequate, more than adequate really, to show that the initial statement was NOT a lie, was NOT an anti-Catholic phony, false, made-up quote falsely ascribed to Trent and that you owe a few people apologies for accusing them of such. I won't hold my breathe, though.

Go back and read the thread. Find the false, phony, made-up quote which was falsely ascribed to Trent.

I already did that. Brought it, named the exact post, etc.

There is no such quote from Trent. What you posted was not the quote originally passed off as being from Trent

Ok. One more time. What was the quote, if not what I myself already went to all the effort to dig up from this thread?

First things first;
If there is some OTHer than what was presented in post # 38, on this thread, what was it, and where?