“Which means you were wrong. Embarrassingly wrong.”
Yes, I erred. The Catholic Church spent hundreds of years suppressing vernacular translations, and Trent came in the middle. So sorry...
After all, they had banned them in England in 1408, nearly 150 years before Trent. My bad. Forgive me. The Catholic Church did much worse than what I suggested when I said Sorbonne was following Trent. Trent followed Sorbonne, and it also followed, as both of us know, 200 years of suppression. In discussing ONE SENTENCE I wrote, I got suckered in to suggesting trent began the suppression. Yet we both know it had gone on for hundreds of years prior...
Of course, TECHNICALLY vernacular translations were allowed. All one needed was permission - which was never given to commoners. So there were a few copies of Wycliffe’s translation signed off individually, yet others were punished for having excerpts of the same translation. It wasn’t the translation, per se, that was objected to, but commoners owning them and reading them.
As both Oxford in 1408 and Trent in the mid-1500s said, INDIVIDUALS could get permission, on a case by case basis. If you had enough money & power, and were firmly enough caught in the Catholic Church, you could own and use a vernacular translation - but the common man could not - for the reasons Schaff listed.
If someone was impressed when Bill Clinton parsed the meaning of “is”, they will be impressed with the argument that the Catholic Church allowed vernacular translations - provided almost no one ever got to touch, see or read one.
Contrast that with Tyndale, who was refused permission to translate by the Catholic Church, but who went ahead and did so. His goal WAS to allow commoners to read the scriptures, and he rejected the arguments by the Catholic Church that common men were not allowed to read the Word of God.
Boast, if you will, that the Catholic Church PERMITTED a few hundred to read the Word of God, while Martin Luther and Tyndale ensured that MILLIONS could do so. The difference, of course, is that Luther and Tyndale understood what access to the Word of God meant - a rejection of the deceitful theology the Catholic Church was built on.
No priests in the New Testament. No Purgatory. No indulgences. No transubstantiation. No Bishops. No Pope. No temporal power. The foundation of the Catholic Church - what makes it the Roman Catholic Church - doesn’t exist in scripture, and indeed is contradicted directly by it.
No priests, offering a sacrifice by the authority of Bishops and the Pope. Without that, there IS no Catholic Church. And that is why Luther and Tyndale WANTED people to read the scriptures for themselves, and the Catholic Church fought to prevent it.
“Yes, I erred.”
You certainly did. I did not.
“The Catholic Church spent hundreds of years suppressing vernacular translations, and Trent came in the middle. So sorry...”
The Catholic Church spent zero years suppressing vernacular translations in themselves and Trent didn’t do it either.
“After all, they had banned them in England in 1408,”
Who is “they”?
“nearly 150 years before Trent. My bad. Forgive me.”
Only if you show real repentance. Look it up in the Douay Rheims.
“The Catholic Church did much worse than what I suggested when I said Sorbonne was following Trent.”
No. You made an error – an embarrassing one. The Catholic Church did not.
“Trent followed Sorbonne, and it also followed, as both of us know, 200 years of suppression.”
Not by the Catholic Church and not in regard to vernacular translations in themselves. As the Protestant scholar Alister McGrath, wrote in 1987: there was “no universal or absolute prohibition of the translation of scriptures into the vernacular was ever issued by a medieval pope or council, nor was any similar prohibition directed against the use of such translations by the clergy or laity.” (Alister E. McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, page 124).
“In discussing ONE SENTENCE I wrote, I got suckered in to suggesting trent began the suppression.”
Oh, so Obamacare is a failure because of Republicans rather than because it was just a bad idea? No one here was suckered into anything. You posted the error. No one forced you to make it. Also, you did not “suggest” that Trent began the “suppression”. Here is EXACTLY what you wrote: “but as an example of the measures Catholics, operating in accordance with the Council of Trent, took to suppress vernacular translations - and WHY they did so.”
“Operating in accordance with” is not a suggestion of something. You are flatly stating it happened when it was, in fact, physically impossible.
“Yet we both know it had gone on for hundreds of years prior...”
Ah, mind reading. Not allowed by the mods here. And, also, I do not know what you are claiming.
“Of course, TECHNICALLY vernacular translations were allowed. All one needed was permission - which was never given to commoners.”
Sure it was. As stated by Miriam Usher Chrisman in Conflicting Visions of Reform: German Lay Propaganda Pamphlets, 1519-1530, page 4: “The German Bible, first printed in 1466, went through 14 editions before1518 and was often listed in the inventories taken at the death of ordinary men and women.” She goes on to mention: “The overwhelming preponderance of scriptural quotation among the artisans confirms the existence of a strongly established Bible culture at the artisan level well before the Reformation.” (page 11) Now, granted, she was speaking of Germany and not England, but Wycliffe was in England and not Germany. Clearly people had access to Bibles.
“So there were a few copies of Wycliffe’s translation signed off individually, yet others were punished for having excerpts of the same translation. It wasn’t the translation, per se, that was objected to, but commoners owning them and reading them.”
No. As noted in Scripture Studies decades ago, Kenyon, in his early editions of Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (page 206) not that “There is no doubt that the Lollards (as Wycliffe’s followers were called) were persecuted, but it does not appear that the possession, use or manufacture of an English version of the Bible, was one of the charges specially urged against them. The subject is not raised in the extant list of articles upon which the suspected were to be questioned. One is glad that it should be so, that the leaders of the English Church should not have been hostile to an English Bible...” He changed that in later editions. I don’t claim to know why. Did he discover proof to the contrary? I don’t know. Anyway, my point is that it seems that there isn’t even unanimity on the idea that the Lollards were persecuted for possessing an English Bible. Why should I then assume “commoners owning [Bibles] and reading them” was “objected to”?
“As both Oxford in 1408 and Trent in the mid-1500s said, INDIVIDUALS could get permission, on a case by case basis.”
And, again, I have to point out to you that Trent said nothing of the kind. Your own source made that abundantly clear. This is the second time I believe I have pointed that out to you.
“ If you had enough money & power, and were firmly enough caught in the Catholic Church, you could own and use a vernacular translation - but the common man could not - for the reasons Schaff listed.”
False. As stated by Miriam Usher Chrisman in Conflicting Visions of Reform: German Lay Propaganda Pamphlets, 1519-1530, page 4: “The German Bible, first printed in 1466, went through 14 editions before1518 and was often listed in the inventories taken at the death of ordinary men and women.” She goes on to mention: “The overwhelming preponderance of scriptural quotation among the artisans confirms the existence of a strongly established Bible culture at the artisan level well before the Reformation.” (page 11)
See that? Ordinary men and women. ORDINARY. Understand?
“If someone was impressed when Bill Clinton parsed the meaning of “is”, they will be impressed with the argument that the Catholic Church allowed vernacular translations - provided almost no one ever got to touch, see or read one.”
ORDINARY men and women: “The German Bible. . . was often listed in the inventories taken at the death of ordinary men and women.” OFTEN. See that?
“Contrast that with Tyndale, who was refused permission to translate by the Catholic Church, but who went ahead and did so.”
If Tyndale was refused permission it was because he was already considered a heretic - and rightly so – by at least one bishop. Why would a bishop grant permission to a man accused of heresy to translate the Bible for the faithful?
“His goal WAS to allow commoners to read the scriptures, and he rejected the arguments by the Catholic Church that common men were not allowed to read the Word of God.”
I don’t think his real goal was to “allow commoners to read the scriptures” since that was already happening. I think his goal was to push his own Lutheran like heresy. After all, he decided he was going to do whatever he wanted. That is not a man interested in the common man, but a man interested in his own designs.
“Boast, if you will, that the Catholic Church PERMITTED a few hundred to read the Word of God,”
I never said that, nor boasted that. If you’re going to say I boasted about something don’t you think you should get your facts straight – unless you simply don’t care about the facts.
“while Martin Luther and Tyndale ensured that MILLIONS could do so.”
Except that Martin Luther didn’t do that because he never published a complete translation and delegated books which disagreed with him to an unpaginated appendix. Tyndale too never finished the whole Bible so he didn’t ensure “that MILLIONS could” read the Bible either. Those are the facts, but I doubt any anti-Catholic would care.
“The difference, of course, is that Luther and Tyndale understood what access to the Word of God meant - a rejection of the deceitful theology the Catholic Church was built on.”
Luther actually seemed to conclude that his own work to ensure “access” to the Bible helped create chaos.
“No priests in the New Testament. No Purgatory. No indulgences. No transubstantiation. No Bishops. No Pope. No temporal power. The foundation of the Catholic Church - what makes it the Roman Catholic Church - doesn’t exist in scripture, and indeed is contradicted directly by it.”
Actually no. You are as wrong there as you are on so many things.
“No priests, offering a sacrifice by the authority of Bishops and the Pope. Without that, there IS no Catholic Church. And that is why Luther and Tyndale WANTED people to read the scriptures for themselves, and the Catholic Church fought to prevent it.”
Nope. And you still can’t prove what you claimed.