Did the Church kill people with non-Latin Bibles?

[thetazlord]

Like I said in my above post, that wasn’t the Church - that was the Holy Roman Empire.

Same thing. What made the Roman Empire “Holy” was that it was headed by the Catholic church. Same with John Hus - both of them opposed the authority of the teachings of the Catholic church. The church & the state were one. That’s what got them executed. John Hus specifically spoke out against the authority of the pope. That’s one of the nails in his coffin that got him executed. Let’s not forget about John Wycliff whose bones got dug up & burned post-humorously.

 

[thetazlord]

It was killing him, but it wasn’t the Church that did it. It is my understanding that the Church’s Canon Law at the time forbade priests from either recommending execution for heretics or being present at their execution.

Same thing:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12747796&postcount=21

 

[smead2942]

Same thing. What made the Roman Empire “Holy” was that it was headed by the Catholic church. Same with John Hus - both of them opposed the authority of the teachings of the Catholic church. The church & the state were one. That’s what got them executed. John Hus specifically spoke out against the authority of the pope. That’s one of the nails in his coffin that got him executed. Let’s not forget about John Wycliff whose bones got dug up & burned post-humorously.

That is not correct. At one point, the Holy Roman Empire was indeed a Catholic state, but it fell apart during the reformation. Most people assume that because it was called the Holy “Roman” Empire, the “Roman” Catholic Church must have owned it. This is simply not the case. In fact, the Emperor allowed each prince to decide whether he and his subjects would be Catholic or Protestant.

The Church did not condone the various inquisitions that took place throughout Europe, and certainly did not endorse the execution of reformers.

 

[Chatter163]

To the OP, I would gently remind that this is a Catholic forum. Non-Catholics are welcome to come and ask sincere questions, with an eye toward better understanding the Catholic faith. However, coming in here, and assuming a critical tone, with an eye toward arguing, is not. You’re on delicate ground here.

 

[thetazlord]

That is not correct. At one point, the Holy Roman Empire was indeed a Catholic state, but it fell apart during the reformation. Most people assume that because it was called the Holy “Roman” Empire, the “Roman” Catholic Church must have owned it. This is simply not the case. In fact, the Emperor allowed each prince to decide whether he and his subjects would be Catholic or Protestant.

The Church did not condone the various inquisitions that took place throughout Europe, and certainly did not endorse the execution of reformers.

But during the time of the Inquisitions, the Church still had the power to excommunicate a bishop or any other government officials who committed these atrocities, who - obviously - weren’t Protestant when they committed them. All I’m attempting to do is address the OP - “Did the Church kill people with non-Latin Bibles?” They didn’t kill them because they had non-Latin Bibles, but if a person was not excommunicated from the Church, they “were” a part of it. And since the Church was aware of them, & did nothing about it, is it fair to say that during these times they were just as responsible as those who committed them? Just saying.

 

[Della]

But during the time of the Inquisitions, the Church still had the power to excommunicate a bishop or any other government officials who committed these atrocities, who - obviously - weren’t Protestant when they committed them. All I’m attempting to do is address the OP - “Did the Church kill people with non-Latin Bibles?” They didn’t kill them because they had non-Latin Bibles, but if a person was not excommunicated from the Church, they “were” a part of it. And since the Church was aware of them, & did nothing about it, is it fair to say that during these times they were just as responsible as those who committed them? Just saying.

And the Protestant clergy likewise. If all we want is to sling mud, there’s plenty to go around. Dredging up old , complex history to try to destroy the credibility of anyone’s faith community is a dirty trick and as low-handed as they come, prepetrated by those bent on destroying present day people’s faith, such as the OP cited. There’s no need to make an issue out of sins done long past by anyone on any side of the issue. I suggest that no one of good conscience ought to be engaged in doing so. Don’t you agree?

 

[smead2942]

But during the time of the Inquisitions, the Church still had the power to excommunicate a bishop or any other government officials who committed these atrocities, who - obviously - weren’t Protestant when they committed them. All I’m attempting to do is address the OP - “Did the Church kill people with non-Latin Bibles?” They didn’t kill them because they had non-Latin Bibles, but if a person was not excommunicated from the Church, they “were” a part of it. And since the Church was aware of them, & did nothing about it, is it fair to say that during these times they were just as responsible as those who committed them? Just saying.

Again-- it was not the Church who did the executing, nor did she endorse the actions of Spain or the Holy Roman Empire. For example, while there was no killing involved, it was Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who presided over Luther’s trial at the Diet of Worms.

“For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.”

The Holy Roman Empire went on the offensive against the Protestant Reformation. There were atrocities that occurred on both sides, but the Church did not condone them. Could your provide some examples of bishops who did?

 

[1ke]

Same thing. What made the Roman Empire “Holy” was that it was headed by the Catholic church.

This is not an accurate statement. The Emperor was not a cleric. The Emperor was a secular ruler, an elected monarch. He was crowned by the Pope until the 1400s. Basically, he was the ruler of Germany, part of present day Italy. Ties also with parts of the low countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, etc), and of course also had family ties to Spain. The various houses of rulers intermarried, obviously. And, the Pope no longer crowned the Emperor by the time of the Reformation, nor had any part in the office.

Charles V, HRE at the time in question, had a vast domain spread from Spain to Austria (and of course the New World). He had a lot of politics and wars to deal with. He was unwilling to have religious dissent and anarchy fomenting in his vast, spread out lands. So, yes, he was swift and decisive in dealing with those conducting seditious acts.

Same with John Hus - both of them opposed the authority of the teachings of the Catholic church. The church & the state were one.

The Church and the state were certainly not one. Not anything close to one at that time in history. We cannot talk about a state, either, not in the modern sense. The territory of Charles V was vast, but he was at war with many other houses during that time, and certainly was not about to tolerate unrest in his kingdom. So, yes, he dealt with those fomenting religious heresy.

He was not in any way under the “command” of the Pope. In fact, the other way around-- it was Charles V who pressed the Pope to convent the council at Trent.

 

[thetazlord]

And the Protestant clergy likewise. If all we want is to sling mud, there’s plenty to go around. Dredging up old , complex history to try to destroy the credibility of anyone’s faith community is a dirty trick and as low-handed as they come, prepetrated by those bent on destroying present day people’s faith, such as the OP cited. There’s no need to make an issue out of sins done long past by anyone on any side of the issue. I suggest that no one of good conscience ought to be engaged in doing so. Don’t you agree?

No doubt about Protestant clergy from the past doing the same thing. I don’t think you’ll find an honest Protestant who will disagree with you on that point. The issue is that many Catholics on this forum - and elsewhere - are denying that the responsibility of Catholics, who were part of the Catholic church of doing these horrific acts, & the church doing nothing about it. That is what is alarming.

 

[thetazlord]

Again-- it was not the Church who did the executing, nor did she endorse the actions of Spain or the Holy Roman Empire. For example, while there was no killing involved, it was Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who presided over Luther’s trial at the Diet of Worms.

“For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.”

The Holy Roman Empire went on the offensive against the Protestant Reformation. There were atrocities that occurred on both sides, but the Church did not condone them. Could your provide some examples of bishops who did?

All this quote states is that they forbade people from following the doctrines of Luther. It doesn’t say anything about the Catholic church not condoning the actions of Catholic government officials who burned people alive at the stake for speaking out against the Catholic church & the authority of the pope, like John Hus & William Tyndale. The only reason Luther was spared, was because he was placed under house arrest by a sympathizing Catholic. Otherwise, he would have been executed too. The evidence is that the Catholic church had the power to prevent this, since the State & the Church were one, but they did nothing about it - the sin of omission.

 

[thetazlord]

This is not an accurate statement. The Emperor was not a cleric. The Emperor was a secular ruler, an elected monarch. He was crowned by the Pope until the 1400s. Basically, he was the ruler of Germany, part of present day Italy. Ties also with parts of the low countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, etc), and of course also had family ties to Spain. The various houses of rulers intermarried, obviously. And, the Pope no longer crowned the Emperor by the time of the Reformation, nor had any part in the office.

The Church and the state were certainly not one. Not anything close to one at that time in history. We cannot talk about a state, either, not in the modern sense. The territory of Charles V was vast, but he was at war with many other houses during that time, and certainly was not about to tolerate unrest in his kingdom. So, yes, he dealt with those fomenting religious heresy.

He was not in any way under the “command” of the Pope. In fact, the other way around-- it was Charles V who pressed the Pope to convent the council at Trent.

By “the State & the Church were one,” I’m referring to the fact that if someone spoke out against the authority of the Church or the pope, like Luther, Tyndale, or Hus, they were either imprisoned, placed under house arrest, or executed by the State which was Catholic at the time. This didn’t happen when the State was Protestant - they didn’t murder Catholics who spoke out against the pope or the Catholic church - only when it was Catholic. The thing you have to ask yourself was what was the reason they were executed? Why were they burned at the stake?

 

[Della]

By “the State & the Church were one,” I’m referring to the fact that if someone spoke out against the authority of the Church or the pope, like Luther, Tyndale, or Hus, they were either imprisoned, placed under house arrest, or executed by the State which was Catholic at the time. This didn’t happen when the State was Protestant - they didn’t murder Catholics who spoke out against the pope or the Catholic church - only when it was Catholic. The thing you have to ask yourself was what was the reason they were executed? Why were they burned at the stake?

Of course Protestant governments aren’t going to execute people for opposing the Church which the Protestants had rejected. And the Protestant governments executed people in horrific ways too–at the instigation of Protestant clergy. I’m afraid you are so concentrated on what the Church supposedly did–that she should get ALL the blame—that you really can’t see the forest for the trees.

Governments, then as now, will act if they feel threatened no matter who they feel is threatening their way of life. Churchmen don’t always act as they should, either–no matter whose church they represent. To focus on the Catholic Church alone and keep insisting Catholics that must bear the brunt of all the wrongdoing is one-sided and simply not the case. Pope John Paul II apologized for such wrongdoing, but that’s not good enough for some people. Why keep on dredging up old hurts? History is what it is. Let’s admit that mistakes, grave mistakes, were made on all sides and move on.

 

[JRKH]

No doubt about Protestant clergy from the past doing the same thing. I don’t think you’ll find an honest Protestant who will disagree with you on that point. The issue is that many Catholics on this forum - and elsewhere - are denying that the responsibility of Catholics, who were part of the Catholic church of doing these horrific acts, & the church doing nothing about it. That is what is alarming.

I too find some of the defenses offered to be rather weak in this regard. Yet, I will say that many times the effort is less an attempt to deny responsibility so much as it is an attempt to place things into proper historical and political perspective.
Also - I think that there is often a “defensive” stance assumed by Catholics on this issue since it is a charge leveled by some - and I emphasize some - protestants in a rather aggressive manner

As you say, honest Protestants will not deny that Protestants were doing the same thing. Honest Catholics will do likewise.

The most important thing for those on both sides is to try to educate those who are still spreading the more inaccurate and accusatory versions of history. The ones that really serve no useful purpose.

Peace
James

 

[Kaninchen]

So, in the Middle Ages, literate people could just pop down to their local Church and read the bible in English, German, Polish whatever?

Or was it that there were approved vernacular translations but it was a case of one or two in some Abbey library somewhere?

and later Elizabeth I, it was illegal to be Catholic in England - and it remained illegal for quite some time.

Hadn’t the issue of “Regnans in Excelsis” more or less ensured that Catholics would be viewed as traitors always likely to be involved in rebellion and foreign plots?

 

[Mintaka]

Whenever things were hunky-dory, anybody who felt like it could translate the Bible into the local vernacular, and a lot of people did. However, prior to the invention of the printing press, or to be more accurate, prior to the invention of the “scribe book factories” in university towns, it was pretty expensive to make a book. (Although the price kept dropping, and the invention of the Latin and vernacular knightly romances created a big book audience. Also, as reading became more useful for businesspeople and more local grammar schools came into being, there started to be a middle-class book market.)

So initially, the people who had vernacular books of the Bible were usually (1) rich, powerful, devout, educated laypeople or (2) monks and nuns, because they had a volume discount and could trade copies with other monasteries, as well as making money off making books for other people.

Before that, however, it was even easier to go to church and hear a homily, because it was common practice for Father to translate the readings into the vernacular at the start of his homily. If you were in a country that could still understand Latin, he would often still paraphrase it into “normal language.”

And Father didn’t have to work very hard to translate the readings, because the lectionary or Bible sitting out in the parish usually had vernacular equivalents written between the lines, often on top of every word. I don’t know why people don’t know about this, but linguistics scholars use these vernacular glosses all the time to study what was going on with European languages. If you got fancy, you glossed it in vernacular verse, even!

 

[Church_Militant]

Oh yeah…the Protestants are just all kind of lily white when it comes to violence against us Catholics.

And we all know that there as never a reason that my Irish ancestors might have to design and use the Paidrin Beag in order to practice our faith nor does Protestant persecution of us Catholics continue to this day Orange Order playing the Famine Song at St Patrick’s .

And then again we all know that here in the states there has never been prejudice and mistreatment of us or else there was no reason that many of us Irish/American Catholics joined the Saint Patrick’s Battalion and we Catholics have never suffered violence at the hands of the Know Nothings.

And of course St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher might well rise up to speak to the issue.

The point is that this is just a few examples of the kindness of Protestants towards us Catholics even to this day… And we never did kill anyone for a non-Latin Bible…IOW a vernacular translation, because the church already had a lot of good vernacular translations long before Luther and others came along…the issue wasn’t the language but the heretical and anti-Catholic notes they contained. You’d know all this if you had really done your homework…like reading Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church.

Finally, I have to wonder why it is that some of you n-Cs come here to CAF, which is the internet home for so many of us Catholics and want to preach against what we believe…so many of you seem to have no other mission which is odd since this is not about spreading the Gospel, which should be a Christian’s first priority after personal holiness.

 

[Mintaka]

Okay, hold up.

You think the Holy Roman Empire and the Pope were at one?

Hahahahaha!

Seriously, folks, there is a HUUUUUGE chunk of European history that is all about “The Holy Roman Emperor tries to beat up on the Pope. The Holy Roman Emperor tries to get control of who is Pope. The Holy Roman Empire and France fight each other, and they both try to use the Pope as a chess pawn. The Holy Roman Empire tries to take over the Papal States. The Swiss Guards die defending the Pope from the Empire’s soldiers.” And so on.

Like the old saying goes, “Not holy, not Roman, not an empire.” You’d be better off thinking of it as “large chunks of Europe country.” Basically bits of today’s Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, etc., but different bits at different times.

The whole point of most of European medieval history, in pretty much every country, is that the Church and the State were not at all one. The only way that happened was if the king got total control of everybody who was appointed bishop and abbot and abbess, and none of the bishops and abbots and abbesses dared give him backtalk, and then he somehow managed to engineer the papal election. But even then, the whole point of the matter was that the priorities of a churchman (even a really toadying, king-loving one) were not the priorities of the king.

In many cases, the Reformation was a really great excuse for getting rid of churchmen and church-trained bureaucrats who didn’t agree with a king or prince. If you could get rid of a lot of noblemen at the same time for not going along with the king’s new religion, the king could centralize everything and grab all the money.

Of course, the next stage was the Enlightenment, when kings decided it was even more convenient not to believe in God at all, and thus things got even more centralized.

This led to backlashes deciding that countries had no need for kings, either…

But yes, it’s a relatively modern idea that the church should abjectly serve the state, and it was invented by kings who wanted anything but the medieval system. You could argue that it somewhat derives from the ancient Roman system, where pagan priests received tax writeoffs and important ones were appointed by the Republic and Empire, because keeping the gods happy was part of public safety and defense.

 

[JustaServant]

This didn’t happen when the State was Protestant - they didn’t murder Catholics who spoke out against the pope or the Catholic church - only when it was Catholic.

Um…Ireland?

 

[Della]

So, in the Middle Ages, literate people could just pop down to their local Church and read the bible in English, German, Polish whatever.

No one here has made any such claim. Iliteracy was the norm in the Middle Ages. People learned Scripture from listening to sermons/homilies or by viewing art at their churches (which was spectacular, unlike our modern, stripped down parishes, but I digress). The only claim we’ve made is that the Bible was translated into vernaculars long before Martin Luther or Tyndale did. The reason their translations were banned is because they were poor translations skewed to support Protestant theology. Whole books/parts of books were omitted and words deliberately mistranslated/left out/added. The Church quite rightly warned the faithful about this and banned those translations from being read at Mass or in the Divine Office.

Or was it that there were approved vernacular translations but it was a case of one or two in some Abbey library somewhere?

Yes, and they were extremely expensive because each copy had to be hand written before the printing press became the normal means of making copies of any documents. Poor people coulldn’t afford them. Men in monasteries/abbeys dedicated their lives to making copies, which was a long, laborious endeavor.

 

[1ke]

This didn’t happen when the State was Protestant - they didn’t murder Catholics who spoke out against the pope or the Catholic church - only when it was Catholic.

Right! instead they executed Catholics for being Catholic and fellow Protestants for not adhering to their particular form of Protestantism.

Big improvement.