Catholic Church against Bible Reading?

[vern_humphrey]

runner554:

Our parish priest told us his concern about us reading the bible on our own. There are at times confusing passages that can have multiple interpretations. I have noticed throughout this forum that people have a habit of using scripture, taken out of context, to promote their own idea of what is the truth.

That’s called Protestantism.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Bible study is like any other form of study – you need a knowledgeable guide to make heads or tails of it. How on earth could any person, reading a translation of a document written thousands of years ago – in a language that is dead – hope to understand it simply by the words on the page?

 

[stanley123]

Sherlock:

Why don’t you go to the Church of England website, and pester them with questions? Why are you here asking Catholics to defend the actions of others?

Because what I am reading in the history books is a bit different from what you say it is. For example, Henry VIII wrote the book: “Assertio septem sacramentorum adversus Martinum Lutherum” as a defense of the Catholic faith against Martin Luther and was rewarded with the title of “Defender of the Faith,” by His Holiness Pope Leo X. By that title is meant, defender of the Catholic faith. And according to one encyclopedia, the Church of England cnosidered itself to be alligned with the Catholic faith from the fourth century up until several years after Henry VIII. In fact, the Church of England was still thoroughly Catholic after Henry VIII during the reign of Mary. “Three centuries passed before the phrase the Anglican communion could be used with meaning.” That is according to the E. Brittannica, three centuries after Henry VIII.
And according to another reference, it was the Catholic Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of London who siezed copies of the Tyndale translation and had them burned at St. Paul’s Cross. And according to Will Durant, the Reformation, it was the king, king henry VIII, (still in good graces with the Pope), who in 1530 forbade the “reading or circulation of the Bible in English until an authoritative translation could be made.” See:
Will Durant, “The Reformation,” the story of civilisation volume vi, page 533.

 

[vern_humphrey]

stanley123:

Because what I am reading in the history books is a bit different from what you say it is. For example, Henry VIII wrote the book: “Assertio septem sacramentorum adversus Martinum Lutherum” as a defense of the Catholic faith against Martin Luther and was rewarded with the title of “Defender of the Faith,” by His Holiness Pope Leo X. By that title is meant, defender of the Catholic faith. And according to one encyclopedia, the Church of England cnosidered itself to be alligned with the Catholic faith from the fourth century up until several years after Henry VIII. In fact, the Church of England was still thoroughly Catholic after Henry VIII during the reign of Mary. “Three centuries passed before the phrase the Anglican communion could be used with meaning.” That is according to the E. Brittannica, three centuries after Henry VIII.
And according to another reference, it was the Catholic Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of London who siezed copies of the Tyndale translation and had them burned at St. Paul’s Cross. And according to Will Durant, the Reformation, it was the king, king henry VIII, (still in good graces with the Pope), who in 1530 forbade the “reading or circulation of the Bible in English until an authoritative translation could be made.” See:
Will Durant, “The Reformation,” the story of civilisation volume vi, page 533.

(My emphasis)

Reading the Bible in English was considered seditious in England, because of the use of the Wycliffe Bible for political purposes during and after the Peasant Rebellion of 1382. Henry’s caveat (“until an authoritative translation could be made”) was a political statement – the English government intended to control any translations into English.

There was no general prohibition in the Church against reading the bible in the vernacular – although the Church did (and still does) considers Saint Jerome’s Vulgate translation the standard.

Had Tyndale translated the Bible into Spanish, French or any other European language, he would have had no problems. The objections to the vernacular are English and political, not Catholic and religious.

 

[Sherlock]

stanley123:

. And according to one encyclopedia, the Church of England cnosidered itself to be alligned with the Catholic faith from the fourth century up until several years after Henry VIII. In fact, the Church of England was still thoroughly Catholic after Henry VIII during the reign of Mary. “Three centuries passed before the phrase the Anglican communion could be used with meaning.” That is according to the E. Brittannica, three centuries after Henry VIII…

This doesn’t square with the actual historical events of that period, as the many Catholic martyrs show. I would suggest an interesting book, “The Stripping of the Altars” by historian Eamon Duffy, also his “The Voices of Morebath”. These books are based on a close examinations of records and other evidence, and presents a very different story than this encyclopedia entry. Funny, some friends of mine just got back from a trip to England, and they saw many “priest holes” where Catholic priests were forced to hide—gee, according to your information, they shouldn’t have bothered! The current historical studies tend to strip the facade off of the comfortable history (written by Protestants) of that period.

stanley123:

. And according to another reference, it was the Catholic Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of London who siezed copies of the Tyndale translation and had them burned at St. Paul’s Cross…

Good for him. Since your objection was to Tyndale’s death, why should this bother you? What does one man’s expression of outrage have to do with that?

stanley123:

. And according to Will Durant, the Reformation, it was the king, king henry VIII, (still in good graces with the Pope), who in 1530 forbade the “reading or circulation of the Bible in English until an authoritative translation could be made.” See:
Will Durant, “The Reformation,” the story of civilisation volume vi, page 533.

So your problem is with Henry VIII.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Thomas More had a problem with Henry VIII too. Henry VIII was a defender of his throne. He was anti-protestant when Protestantism appeared to threaten his sovereignty, and was anti-Catholic when Catholicism appeared to threaten his soverereignty.

Accusing Catholicism for the crimes of Henry VIII is a lot like accusing Islam for the crimes of Saddam Hussein.

 

[stanley123]

“it was the Catholic Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of London who siezed copies of the Tyndale translation and had them burned at St. Paul’s Cross…”

Sherlock:

… why should this bother you?

Because the original question was whether the Catholic Church was against Bible reading. I was making an attempt to stay on the topic by giving an illustration from history of what one Catholic Bishop did.

 

[mercygate]

“it was the Catholic Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of London who siezed copies of the Tyndale translation and had them burned at St. Paul’s Cross…”
Because the original question was whether the Catholic Church was against Bible reading. I was making an attempt to stay on the topic by giving an illustration from history of what one Catholic Bishop did.

To say that the Church prohibits the reading of a heretical “bible” is not to say that the Church prohibits the reading of an accurate one.

And even where Bible reading is encouraged, it is also true that the Scriptures represent a complicated collection of documents, compiled over many centuries, containing various literary genres, directed at various audiences and the Bible does not “interpret itself” – notwithstanding a widespread fantasy that a prayer to the Holy Spirit will reveal to any individual reader all of the truth(s) contained within it.

Suppression of heresy and the reading of Scripture are two different issues.

 

[Sherlock]

stanley123:

Because the original question was whether the Catholic Church was against Bible reading. I was making an attempt to stay on the topic by giving an illustration from history of what one Catholic Bishop did.

But your illustration doesn’t say diddly-squat about the Catholic Church’s position about Bible reading. It says something about a particular bishop’s actions regarding a particular translation. Why don’t you try to stay on topic just a wee bit harder?

 

[stanley123]

itsjustdave1988:

Accusing Catholicism for the crimes of Henry VIII is a lot like accusing Islam for the crimes of Saddam Hussein.

Do you place all of the blame for the hostility against Bible translations on the shoulders of the Catholic Defender of the Faith, Henry VIII?

 

[Sherlock]

stanley123:

Do you place all of the blame for the hostility against Bible translations on the shoulders of the Catholic Defender of the Faith, Henry VIII?

My, you’ve expanded the scope of the hostility! Now, it’s not just Tyndale’s, but you’ve broadened the subject by using the all-encompassing “Bible translations”. So—you’re saying that ALL Bible translations were regarded with hostility?

(Edited personal remarks)

 

[stanley123]

Sherlock:

Now, it’s not just Tyndale’s, but you’ve broadened the subject by using the all-encompassing “Bible translations”.

Well, getting back then to Mr. Tyndale’s translation, (or mistranslation), there is the question of how to translate 1 Corinthians chapter 13:1-13. You probably know that the Rheims Douay Version has agape translated as charity:

“1 If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; 5 Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. 12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know I part; but then I shall know even as I am known. 13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity. “

However, Mr. Tyndale, as far as I know was the first to translate agape in English in this passage of 1Cor 13:1-13 as love. And you can check the translation yourself at:
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/1co.txt
Anyway, if you would now look at the New American Bible for Catholics, you would find that they also translate agape as “love” and not charity. Now did Paul mean here charity or love? What is the subtle difference between the two terms? Is it preferable to use the translation of Mr. Tyndale here, as is now done by the New American Bible for Catholics? Or should Catholics stick with the Douay Rheims translation as charity?
In any event, I would have liked to have seen an open discussion of this point, rather than having Mr. Tyndale strangled and burned at the stake.

 

[NotWorthy]

stanley123:

In any event, I would have liked to have seen an open discussion of this point, rather than having Mr. Tyndale strangled and burned at the stake.

In our Church, I believe, charity is love.

Notworthy

 

[stanley123]

NotWorthy:

In our Church, I believe, charity is love.

Notworthy

Right, they are synonyms. But there is a subtle shade of emphasis between the two, in that charity emphasiizes good works. Did Paul mean here, charity or love? Well, perhaps it is a bit too subtle for this group.

 

[mercygate]

stanley123:

Right, they are synonyms. But there is a subtle shade of emphasis between the two, in that charity emphasiizes good works. Did Paul mean here, charity or love? Well, perhaps it is a bit too subtle for this group.

Would you care to rephrase that?

 

[johnshelby]

stanley123:

Which facts would you say were a bit off kilter?
According to the references I have looked at, Mr. Tyndale did translate the Bible, and his translation and footnotes were not appreciated by some of the Catholic clergy, and he was subsequently burned at the stake.
In response, one poster has a series of laughing circles rolling back and forth, but to the friends and supporters of Mr. Tyndale, this was not a laughing matter. Also, I would suspect that this procedure of burning people alive in public at the stake was both extremely painful and humiliating.

Mr. Tyndale was killed for his heretical beliefs… by the Church of
England… not the Roman Catholic Church…

it was agents of Henry VIII who captured and imprisioned
Tyndale in Vilvoorden, Belgium, Oct. 6, 1536…

the Roman Church has had some bad things done in the past…
just as all churchs have…

this was one was done by the Anglican church…

 

[mercygate]

stanley123:

Right, they are synonyms. But there is a subtle shade of emphasis between the two, in that charity emphasiizes good works. Did Paul mean here, charity or love? Well, perhaps it is a bit too subtle for this group.

Well, the translators found the word “charity” acceptable for the King James Bible.

 

[NotWorthy]

stanley123:

Right, they are synonyms. But there is a subtle shade of emphasis between the two, in that charity emphasiizes good works. Did Paul mean here, charity or love? Well, perhaps it is a bit too subtle for this group.

Ahhhhhh, the sweet smell of sarcasm. I love it!!!

Jesus’ only commandment was that we were to “love one another, as I have loved you”. If you want to see Jesus’ take on Good Works, start at Matthew and go all the way through John. Doesn’t Jesus’ love emphasize Good Works, then?

God Bless,

Notworthy

 

[stanley123]

mercygate:

Well, the translators found the word “charity” acceptable for the King James Bible.

Right. The translators for the KJ Bible did not like Mr. Tyndale’s translation of agape as love. But notice, that the New American Bible for Catholics uses Mr. Tyndale’s translation of agape as love.

 

[mercygate]

stanley123:

Right. The translators for the KJ Bible did not like Mr. Tyndale’s translation of agape as love. But notice, that the New American Bible for Catholics uses Mr. Tyndale’s translation of agape as love.

Since “agape” has no direct English equivalent, I would not presume that they imitated Tyndale in rendering the word as “love.”

 

[stanley123]

NotWorthy:

Jesus’ only commandment was that we were to “love one another, as I have loved you”. If you want to see Jesus’ take on Good Works, start at Matthew and go all the way through John. Doesn’t Jesus’ love emphasize Good Works, then?

Yes. However, the question was about 1Cor 13:1-13, and what Paul meant. For example, if you go to Levitcus ch19 v 18, perhaps what is meant here is charity? But what would you say that Paul means by agape in 1Cor13? Was Tyndale correct in being the first to translate this as love? Already, Mercygate has noted that the KJ version uses the word charity here. Anyway, it looks like some of the clergy did not like Mr. Tyndale’s translation at that point in time. But I would say that he has been vindicated on this point since the Catholic version of the New American Bible uses the translation of Mr. Tyndale here.