Catholic Church against Bible Reading?

[AlphaOmega]

This just in …

Since there has been an attempt to defend the death penalty for heresy, as well as several attempts to misrepresent the widespread murder of Christians by the Church of Rome as a minor issue of civil authority, I feel that it would be good to take a reality check on the subject. This really is at the core of our discussion, as I will explain later.
The following list is a very tiny fraction of the Christians martyred for their faith by the Church of Rome. It covers only a period of 50 years of the Reformation, from 1511 to 1560, in the United Kingdom alone; it includes only those who were executed solely for their confession of faith and no other crime, and is by no means exhaustive. It is not revisionist history, but is taken directly from John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, which was published in 1563. John Foxe knew first hand many of those murdered, was an eyewitness to many executions, and was personally acquainted with many more eyewitnesses.
One important fact to note as you review these names is that they were almost exclusively tried and sentenced for heresy, not by civil authorities, but by bishops, cardinals, synods or church councils, contrary to popular belief…

**see list on this link ** xanga.com/Echoes_of_Aberdeen/386405681/item.html?nextdate=last&direction=n#viewcomments

…It is also important to note that these crimes were defended, sometimes even directly plotted, at the highest levels of the Church of Rome. These were not the over-zealous actions of civil authorities. The Spanish Inquisition was established, staffed and operated entirely by the Dominican, Franciscan, and in some cases, the Jesuit orders. They did not answer to the civil authorities of Spain and operated entirely independent of all control outside of the Vatican. While Catholic historians are quick to point out that the Inquisition sadists never executed anyone themselves (which is highly suspect), they nevertheless were responsible for passing sentence on their victims and the civil authorities merely carried out the execution.
In the case of the Roman Inquisition, established in 1231, Pope Innocent IV personally authorized the use of torture for extracting information or confessions from heretics in 1252.
According to Funk & Wagnall’s Encyclopedia, the Waldenses in France and Italy were first approved by Pope Alexander III, then anathematized by Pope Lucius III and again by Innocent III, and suffered vicious persecution as a result. Pope Innocent VIII personally organized a crusade against them which revolted the civilized world. A review of the actions carried out at the behest of this sick individual who occupied the supposed chair of Peter reveals a rap sheet worthy of Hitler or Stalin, not the spiritual leader of the Church established by Jesus Christ. Pope Alexander VI finally stopped the persecution.** I have to wonder: which of these popes was guided by the Holy Spirit in reaching their “infallible” conclusions on the heretical nature of the Waldensian beliefs? **
As I said before, this is only a ripple on the sea of blood that has been shed by the Church of Rome throughout its history. Anyone who undertakes to defend the claim of this monster to being the only true and infallible church of Jesus Christ has some serious explaining to do.”

 

[NotWorthy]

If you wish to look through some previous forums on Foxe, feel free to. They provide some links to other sites.

Notworthy

 

[Ignatius]

stanley123:

However, wasn’t William Tyndale strangled and burned at the stake in 1536 for translating the Bible ?

There were, in fact, many translations of large parts of the Bible centuries before him. Toward the end of the 600’s, the Venerable Bede began a translation of Scripture into Old English, the common tongue of Brittan. Aldhelm (640-709 AD) likewise translated large portions of other scriptures. In the 11th Century, Abbot Ælfric translated much of the Old Testament. Another translation was probably that of Richard Rolle, who translated portions of the New Testament.
Also, it should be noted that the vast majority of the Faithful could not read and, hence, heard the Gospel proclaimed to them in the Liturgy. When a man cannot read any writing it really does not matter to him whether books are in current written language or not, and the majority of the people could read nothing at all.

The objection to Tyndale’s translations was because of his purposeful mistranslations had been introduced to the works in order to promote his heretical views. He was accused, by the State, not the Church, of evil purpose in corrupting and changing the words and sense of Scripture. His translations also included unbiblical notes and commentaries promoting heretical doctrines

You should do a little homework before posting.

By the way, he was put to death by sin the Netherlands, a protestant country, for the same heresies.

Since Tyndale’s translation was not the first, how does your accusation make any sense?

 

[Ignatius]

SPOKENWORD:

Ignaitus:

In answer to your last question, yes the readings in the U.S. are generally from the American Standard Version and some from the NIV.

Sorry,I don,t believe you answered my last question. Are you saying they are reading from an actual bible?

I believe that my quote above (i.e. In answer to your last question, yes the readings in the U.S. are generally from the American Standard Version and some from the NIV.") answers your question.
Let me give you a specific example, this is the exact reading from last sundays Mass.
Matthew 25:31-46

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37"Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40"The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44"They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45"He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

If you have been told that the Gospel is not proclaimed in the Catholic Church, then you have been lied to.

May the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[Digitonomy]

Ignatius:

In answer to your last question, yes the readings in the U.S. are generally from the American Standard Version and some from the NIV.

The question asked was about the Catholic Church.

Masses for English-speakers in the US and the Philippines generally use the New American Bible. In Canada, the New Revised Standard Version is used. In Australia, Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, and South Africa, the Jerusalem Bible is used. In India, both the Jerusalem Bible and the Revised Standard Version are used. (source)

Neither the American Standard Version (long the preferred translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) nor the New International Version (preferred by many evangelicals) are likely to be used in any Catholic mass.

 

[Digitonomy]

A couple of clarifications should be applied here: Wycliffe was apparently the first to translate the entire Bible into English. Tyndale was the first to translate any of the Bible into modern English. This according to Encyclopædia Britannica.

 

[Sir_Knight]

SPOKENWORD:

You said the complete bible is there. Are you sure of your statement? God Bless

If you take three years worth of church readings, you WILL have the COMPLETE bible present. You will also have a lot of repeats as well.

AlphaOmega:

So Tyndale was burned at the stake by the
Anglican Church, and not by the Catholic Church? Why are there so many false accusation on the Catholic Church?

Because the Catholic faith is the ONLY Christian Church which can rightfully claim to have been started by the Son of God – thus having supernatural origins and being the only church which contains ALL of the sacred truths taught by Christ. Because of that, it is hated and attempts are made to discredit it. Did not Jesus sayd in Matthew 10:25 … If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

stanley123:

But does the Church agree with the punishment of burning at the stake for an inaccurate translation of the Bible?

The Anglican Church which has no ties to the Catholic Church.

 

[Peace_Seeker_1]

Wow, these are very good explanations You all must look into history a LOT! (And that’s a good thing!)

So, in summary, punishment for Bible translations was made for unauthorized heretical versions.

Seems pretty simple to me!

Peace

 

[itsjustdave1988]

AlphaOmega,

See here…

**The Bible kept from ordinary Catholics? - **View

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Digitonomy:

A couple of clarifications should be applied here: Wycliffe was apparently the first to translate the entire Bible into English. Tyndale was the first to translate any of the Bible into modern English. This according to Encyclopædia Britannica.

I think many fail to appreciate the pious work of those that came before them.

Bishop Aldhelm of Sherbourne translated the Psalms into Old English around 709. Venerable Bede, a monk at Jarrow, translated a portion of the Gospel of John. Even on the day of his death (AD 735) the saint was still busy in his attempt. **By 900 AD all of the Gospels and most of the Old Testament had been translated into Old English.
**
From the 11th to the 14th Centuries, French or the Anglo-Norman dialect took over as the written language among academic circles, while English was confined to the lower classes (most of which could not read). The Bible renderings during the twelfth, thirteenth, and early fourteenth centuries were in French, whether they were made in England or brought over from France. **Before the middle of the fourteenth century the entire Old Testament and a great part of the New Testament had been translated into the Anglo-Norman dialect of the period .
**
As to English work, we may note two transcripts of the West-Saxon Gospels during the course of the eleventh century and some copies of the same Gospels into the Kentish dialect made in the twelfth century. The thirteenth century is an absolute blank as far as our knowledge of its English Bible study is concerned. The English which emerged about the middle and during the second half of the fourteenth century was practically a new language, so that both the Old English versions which might have remained, and the French versions hitherto in use, failed to fulfil their purpose. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Versions of the Bible)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

SPOKENWORD:

But I dont see the word Bible. Sacred Scripture,Devine Scripture,Word of God in catholicism can be read outside the bible. Does the Rcc use an actual bible in its sevices? I personally never saw one read from one. God Bless

What the??? Are you kidding? What do you think the big book is that the priest holds up in the air when the congregation sings Alleluia? What do you think he is reading from after he says: A reading from the Gospel according to Luke???

Personally, I think your being purposefully obtuse or simply not paying any attention. Our Lectionary is nothing but readings from the Holy Bible. The Gospel reading come from… you guessed it… one of the four Gospels.

You can examine the content of our Scripture readings here: usccb.org/nab/index.htm

Many Protestants have lectionaries which read from the same Scripture passages on Sunday as do Catholics. Not every passage from Scripture is read. Yet, since the Catholic Mass is celebrated everyday, it is obvious that our Daily Mass Scripture readings are more plentiful than just the Sunday services of Protestant lectionaries.

See more here:

Index of Scripture passages to Lectionaries
textweek.com/scripture.htm

In the above reference, Roman = Roman Catholic Church Lectionary.

RCL = Revised Common Lectionary, which is a multi-denominational lectionary.

 

[stanley123]

Ignatius:

The objection to Tyndale’s translations was because of his purposeful mistranslations had been introduced to the works in order to promote his heretical views.

Is there is list somewhere of the mistranslations that you are talking about here? What specific passage was mistranslated that caused Mr. Tyndale to be burned alive at the stake in public?
Still, rather than burning a person alive at the stake for mistranslating a passage of the Bible, my personal opinion is that it woule be preferable to engage that person in some sort of discourse and to bring out for discussion the passage in question. I regard this policy of burning people alive in public for a mistranslated Bible passage, as somewhat extreme. For example, consider the punishment that is given today to a clergyman who ruins the life of a young boy. Basically, there is no punishment at all, just a reprimand of some sort.

 

[Tom]

stanley123:

Is there is list somewhere of the mistranslations that you are talking about here? What specific passage was mistranslated that caused Mr. Tyndale to be burned alive at the stake in public?

You’ll have to ask a Protestant why the Protestants and king of England did this.

 

[Tom]

stanley123:

Still, rather than burning a person alive at the stake for mistranslating a passage of the Bible, my personal opinion is that it woule be preferable to engage that person in some sort of discourse and to bring out for discussion the passage in question. I regard this policy of burning people alive in public for a mistranslated Bible passage, as somewhat extreme. For example, consider the punishment that is given today to a clergyman who ruins the life of a young boy. Basically, there is no punishment at all, just a reprimand of some sort.

Are you saying leading a person into hell and away from God and heaven are inconsequential? If the “mistranslation” were to lead a person away from the Church that our Lord and savour, Jesus the Christ established and into eternal damnation public burning would be too lenient. Or isn’t heaven and hell important to you? Is there any worse sin? Seems Scripture has something to say about it doesn’t it?
DRBrg:

Matthew 10,28 And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

As for sexual misconduct, aside from it having absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread, you do realize that there is LESS sexual misconduct within the Catholic Church than in general society, although we would accept absolutely zero, why do you mention only clergy?

 

[Digitonomy]

stanley123:

What specific passage was mistranslated that caused Mr. Tyndale to be burned alive at the stake in public?

Tyndale was not burned alive at the stake. He was strangled to death first, then burned at the stake. Your focus on the method of punishment, and its pros and cons, might be a good topic for a thread, but in my opinion is diversionary here.

 

[Digitonomy]

vern humphrey:

Tyndale was burned by the English government, which had a strong opposition to bibles in English since the Peasant Rebellion of 1382.

It’s my understanding that it was Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, defender of the faith, that was in power in Flanders at the time rather than the English government…

While Charles V. pursued a diplomatic approach toward the Lutheran reformation within the Empire, in the territories he ruled outright he was uncompromising and ordered the persecution of protestants.(source)

 

[Ignatius]

Digitonomy:

The question asked was about the Catholic Church.

Masses for English-speakers in the US and the Philippines generally use the New American Bible. In Canada, the New Revised Standard Version is used. In Australia, Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, and South Africa, the Jerusalem Bible is used. In India, both the Jerusalem Bible and the Revised Standard Version are used. (source)

Neither the American Standard Version (long the preferred translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) nor the New International Version (preferred by many evangelicals) are likely to be used in any Catholic mass.

Sorry, I ment ASB and RSV respectively. Thank you for the correction.

Yours in Christ

 

[Ignatius]

stanley123:

Ignatius:
There were, in fact, many translations of large parts of the Bible centuries before him. Toward the end of the 600’s, the Venerable Bede began a translation of Scripture into Old English, the common tongue of Brittan. Aldhelm (640-709 AD) likewise translated large portions of other scriptures. In the 11th Century, Abbot Ælfric translated much of the Old Testament. Another translation was probably that of Richard Rolle, who translated portions of the New Testament.
Also, it should be noted that the vast majority of the Faithful could not read and, hence, heard the Gospel proclaimed to them in the Liturgy. When a man cannot read any writing it really does not matter to him whether books are in current written language or not, and the majority of the people could read nothing at all.

The objection to Tyndale’s translations was because of his purposeful mistranslations had been introduced to the works in order to promote his heretical views. He was accused, by the State, not the Church, of evil purpose in corrupting and changing the words and sense of Scripture. His translations also included unbiblical notes and commentaries promoting heretical doctrines

You should do a little homework before posting.

Since Tyndale’s translation was not the first, how does your accusation make any sense?

Ignatius:
I believe that my quote above answers your question.
Let me give you a specific example, this is the reading from last sundays Mass.
Matthew 25:31-46
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37"Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40"The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
. . . . .

45"He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

If you have been told that the Gospel is not proclaimed in the Catholic Church, then you have been lied to.

Is there is list somewhere of the mistranslations that you are talking about here?

It is a matter of public record. For any one who cared to learn the truth, it takes virtually no effort to do the research with widely available modern research tools.

What specific passage was mistranslated that caused Mr. Tyndale to be burned alive at the stake in public?

You will have to ask the Protestant secular authorities who made those decisions.

BTW, you still haven’t answered my question in my first post.

To Wit: “Since Tyndale’s translation was not the first, how does your accusation make any sense?”

Yours in Christ.

 

[Digitonomy]

Ignatius:

Sorry, I ment ASB and RSV respectively. Thank you for the correction. Yours in Christ

The NAB is usually the version used in the US. I am unaware of an ASB, although there is the NASB, which is apparently an update of the ASV which I mentioned earlier.

Ignatius:

You will have to ask the Protestant secular authorities who made those decisions.

BTW, you still haven’t answered my question in my first post.

To Wit: “Since Tyndale’s translation was not the first, how does your accusation make any sense?” Yours in Christ. Leaving aside the open question of how much influence the English authorities had in a foreign Catholic realm in 1536… stanley123’s question is a good one, because Tyndale was forced to flee Catholic England to the continent in order to finish his work on the New Testament.

Furthermore, although it doesn’t have much bearing either way on stanley123’s contention, Tyndale was the first to translate the Bible into modern English.

 

[DianJo]

stanley123:

Still, rather than burning a person alive at the stake for mistranslating a passage of the Bible, my personal opinion is that it woule be preferable to engage that person in some sort of discourse and to bring out for discussion the passage in question. I regard this policy of burning people alive in public for a mistranslated Bible passage, as somewhat extreme. For example, consider the punishment that is given today to a clergyman who ruins the life of a young boy. Basically, there is no punishment at all, just a reprimand of some sort.

It seems as though you might need to study general history of that time a little more.

Heresy was a crime against the STATE and was punishable by death. Heresy meant there was unrest in the kingdom and should be stopped at all costs - kinda like Passover time in Jerusalem. The Romans were charged with stopping ANY insurrection - by death!

You cannot deal with those times with 21st century logic. Yes, it’s extreme to us now but in the Dark and Middle Ages - that’s the way things were.Your comment about starting a dialogue sounds great - and it’s something I wish would’ve happened with Martin Luther - but it didn’t and both sides can shoulder blame.
It does no good to stew over these things now. You are using events of 400 - 1000 years ago to try to convince yourself that the Church is bad and the Church is wrong - frankly, you need a better argument.

Both Catholics and Protestants can share blame for these kinds of events - all sides are guilty. Let’s move on - look at the teachings of the Church and not the failings of people. The teachings of Christ are still true today and that’s were you should be putting your efforts - not in slinging mud.