B
BelFarfalla
Guest
'I think that these forums (CA and others) make me feel the same way at times. I just get tired of the lies and attacks.
- Status
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
The Gospels were translated long before Wycliff as were portions of the Old Testament. As such, I take issue that Wycliff was the first to translate the Bible. And from a purely historical point of view, Wycliff is part of the rebounding of Europe after the Black Death in which anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3’s of the population was killed in the pandemic. The feudal order was in disarray.
Heretofore, the only people who could read were the clergy, certain portions of the nobility, and certain portions of the up and coming mercantile or middle class. Literacy for the common folk loomed on the horizon. Here is England decimated by the Black Plague. Entire villages are abandoned. And Wycliff wants to translate the Bible into Middle English so that all might read. Right. The average English yeoman was illiterate. Sorry, not at this time, come back a 100 plus years later.
Our protestant brethren may view him as the morning star of the reformation but I believe he should be viewed within the context of the great shift in Europe which comes about as a result of the Black Plague. The Black Plague allowed the rise of the middle class.
Wycliff is a case of the cart before the horse.
S
SyCarl
Guest
I should have said that the Wyclif translation was the first translation of the whole Bible.
S
stephanut
Guest
What I’ve found on the net previously was that people started to translate the Bible from the Latin into English, and there was lots of opposition from the church. They were threatened and some possible murdered but the movement still continued. So eventually the church commissioned the Douay-Rheims. I’ve also read that during those times too people were not allowed to say the Our Father in english, and that those who did were burnt at the stake.
It’s on some website somewhere, but don’t ask me the sources. Heh. That would need much digging!! Anyone heard of such a thing?
And pardon me for saying this, but in my circle of friends and family (which I know isn’t supposed to represent Catholics as a whole) the Catholics do not seem to know the Bible, and are often the first to admit that they hardly read and know the Bible. This is very evident when someone cracks a joke about something in the Bible or when we stumble across a misquoting of a verse (which irks me terribly), and they don’t seem to realize what hit them!!
Then I’ve got one Catholic friend who knows the Bible inside out who uses his knowledge to slam Protestantism. I can see why he’s doing that, but needless to say, I don’t appreciate it.
It kinda seems odd to me that they don’t wanna pick up the Bible and just read it! I mean, that’s one book I can never get tired of reading!
Of course, bible reading isn’t everything, and these people are really wonderful believers to be around with, and I’m very grateful for their presence and encouragement.
But, I just wanted to find out a reason for this lack of…excitement in the Bible…Thanks…
It’s on some website somewhere, but don’t ask me the sources. Heh. That would need much digging!! Anyone heard of such a thing?
And pardon me for saying this, but in my circle of friends and family (which I know isn’t supposed to represent Catholics as a whole) the Catholics do not seem to know the Bible, and are often the first to admit that they hardly read and know the Bible. This is very evident when someone cracks a joke about something in the Bible or when we stumble across a misquoting of a verse (which irks me terribly), and they don’t seem to realize what hit them!!
Then I’ve got one Catholic friend who knows the Bible inside out who uses his knowledge to slam Protestantism. I can see why he’s doing that, but needless to say, I don’t appreciate it.
It kinda seems odd to me that they don’t wanna pick up the Bible and just read it! I mean, that’s one book I can never get tired of reading!
Of course, bible reading isn’t everything, and these people are really wonderful believers to be around with, and I’m very grateful for their presence and encouragement.
But, I just wanted to find out a reason for this lack of…excitement in the Bible…Thanks…
B
BelFarfalla
Guest
Its not hard to find things on the internet that tell all kinds of wild stories about things that Catholics did or supposedly still do. The Church rightfully objected to bad translations of the Bible. Did they kill people for this? It’s right up there with the cases of the Protestants who used to burn or execute people for praying in Latin.
If a person chooses to not independently read the bible it is their personal choice. The Bible is read in mass over a 3 year period. The priest gives a sermon based on the bible reading every Sunday. The bible is taught in Sunday school, there are bible reading/study groups in every parish. Catholic school teaches the bible. So all practicing catholic get the bible. IT is their own fault if they do not read ti on their own.
On the other hand I know many protestants who never crack the bible either. Perhaps the issue is that most people are lazy regardless of their denomination. Most would rather just have someone tell them. This is not a catholic only issue.
Make up your mind…
Isn’t this the entire point? I believe that all Christians should read the bible and study it. Yet some of the most profoundly Christian people I know never have. Don’t for get that there was no bible for a long time. After the existence of the Bible, most people could not even read. Does this mean that all those people for all of those centuries were not a good a Christian as bible reading protestants of today are? Of course not. Jesus never promised us a NT. Christians had the OT. Presumably it was all that was required. Jesus taught using word of mouth and the apostates did as well at first.
Why not ask both Catholics and Protestants who are not ‘excited’ about the bible why they are not. You will find few here are fall into that category.
M
MotherNoRest
Guest
Thank you, everyone! Keep any and all info coming. I also spoke to a gentleman who explained that followers of Wycliffe, called Lollards, were an especially heretical group and that their version of the Bible was one of the particular versions condemned. I need to research this more as well. I would love to find the statements by the pope(s) of the time which demonstrate that their condemnation of any particular Bible translation was due to error and heresy, not fear of the common man discovering the truth of the gospel and the fallacies of the Catholic Church!
M
mercygate
Guest
This isn’t one of the subjects I’m good at but you may well find that translations were condemned by local bishops and never made it up the food chain to the Pope. I believe this was the case with the Albigensian bible.
B
BelFarfalla
Guest
Hm, I’ve not seen a copy of the Albigensian Bible. I’ve seen other writings of theirs.
My bet is that their bible would have been banned. They believed in dualism… that all things physical were made by an evil god. And that all things spiritual were made by the good god. They believed that the God of the OT was an evil god because he made the earth, humans, animals, etc. Jesus was the good God… he never came in the flesh but was a spirit.
I know for a fact that this was a heresy. If written in a Bible it would have been condemned. They were basically polytheists.
M
MariaG
Guest
Yes. But those sources are also wrong. It takes some truth, and mixes it with speculation and prejudice to come to erroneous conclusions.
Here is an article you should read. It will address much of what you have read.
Tyndale’s Heresy
The Real Story of the ‘Father of the English Bible’
By Matthew A.C. Newsome
http://www.catholic.com/images/1x1trans.gif
It is good you see that your circle of friends don’t represent all Catholics, Just as the Catholics here in this forum, do not represent all Catholics.
But there are some generalities we can make to help you understand. There is a difference between Catholics and Protestants. Most Catholics tend to* listen* to scripture. They tend to know the spiritual message behind bible stories, but don’t always remember the specifics of the stories and rarely remember exactly where it is in the Bible.
For example: You might start talking about the parable of the seeds. As you start relaying the specific story, some Catholics may seem to be hearing it for the first time. After being done, you may even have to start telling them the meaning of it. At some point, they will probably say, “Oh, yeah, I remember Father talking about that last week…” And go on to explain what they understand.
For many, memorizing scripture verses seems odd.
So, when Protestants do it to Catholics, they “don’t know what hit them”, but it is not a “slam”? Seems as if you like it when it is the Catholic who does not know what hits them but percieve it as a slam when it is the Catholic who is using scripture?
Habit for one.
Just like some people pick up the bible and read, but can’t focus for more than 5 - 10 minutes at a time praying. Yet there are people who never pick up a bible and read it, but spend over a hour at a time in prayer with our Lord.
And here, you answer your own question
You need to differentiate lack of excitement about bible reading and lack of excitement about scriptural things. One does not have to read scripture. One can hear it. One can practice it. One can live it.
The biggest difference is that we do not believe that all Christ left us was a Bible and the Holy Spirit. We believe He left us a living, breathing, authoritative Church to go along with it. That is the biggest difference.
God Bless,
Maria
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Folks, I’ve got to tell you when it comes to these types of discussions of an apologetic nature your best recourse is a sound understanding of history. For example - Catholics couldn’t say the Our Father in English. Yet there are manuscripts from Anglo-Saxon England with the Our Father in old English. I went to Catholic grade school before Vatican II and I can assure you we didn’t run around reciting the Our Father in Latin in our morning prayers.
Ground yourselves in history. If you could see some of the books our protestant bretheren read as fact (e.g. Boettner’s Roman Catholicism) you would understand the need for such a grounding. Nine tenths of what they are fed is propaganda plain and simple.
Ground yourselves in history. If you could see some of the books our protestant bretheren read as fact (e.g. Boettner’s Roman Catholicism) you would understand the need for such a grounding. Nine tenths of what they are fed is propaganda plain and simple.
Z
Zooey
Guest
The main people objecting to the Bible being translated into English were the English royals! Sometimes they had reason, as in the case of deliberate mistranslations to support political upheavel. Sometimes they were just being
pills. (Henry the 8th, anyone?)
I think it is hard for many of us, to put our heads around the concept of the Bible being a weapon of political dissent. But such was the case…
Now, as to having Scriptures on the tip of your tongue, as it were: Catholics are not the only folks who don’t have the habit of regarding the chapter & verse citation as part of knowing the Bible. I grew up with a whole lot of the Bible in my head, but unlike, for example, my fundamentalist Baptist relatives, I was never taught to memorize the locale of the verse. (I believe that’s why we have concordances, etc…). I can’t tell you how hurt I was, when visiting their churches, to be told by a Sunday school teacher that “If you don’t know the exact place where the verse is found, you don’t know the Bible at all”.
As an adult, looking back, I have to wonder what on earth they thought people did, before the Bible **had **chapters & verses!!
pills. (Henry the 8th, anyone?)I think it is hard for many of us, to put our heads around the concept of the Bible being a weapon of political dissent. But such was the case…
Now, as to having Scriptures on the tip of your tongue, as it were: Catholics are not the only folks who don’t have the habit of regarding the chapter & verse citation as part of knowing the Bible. I grew up with a whole lot of the Bible in my head, but unlike, for example, my fundamentalist Baptist relatives, I was never taught to memorize the locale of the verse. (I believe that’s why we have concordances, etc…). I can’t tell you how hurt I was, when visiting their churches, to be told by a Sunday school teacher that
“If you don’t know the exact place where the verse is found, you don’t know the Bible at all”.As an adult, looking back, I have to wonder what on earth they thought people did, before the Bible **had **chapters & verses!!
M
mercygate
Guest
Right you are, Zooey. Nevertheless, whatever would we do without our Strong’s?The main people objecting to the Bible being translated into English were the English royals! Sometimes they had reason, as in the case of deliberate mistranslations to support political upheavel. Sometimes they were just being
I think it is hard for many of us, to put our heads around the concept of the Bible being a weapon of political dissent. But such was the case…
Now, as to having Scriptures on the tip of your tongue, as it were: Catholics are not the only folks who don’t have the habit of regarding the chapter & verse citation as part of knowing the Bible. I grew up with a whole lot of the Bible in my head, but unlike, for example, my fundamentalist Baptist relatives, I was never taught to memorize the locale of the verse. (I believe that’s why we have concordances, etc…). I can’t tell you how hurt I was, when visiting their churches, to be told by a Sunday school teacher that
As an adult, looking back, I have to wonder what on earth they thought people did, before the Bible **had **chapters & verses!!
J
joshua_b
Guest
I always find this funny, because I have found most Protestants don’t “know” the Bible as well as they (and everyone else) beleives they do. They often know memorized verses that they string together to “proove” their various theologies and doctrines, but many of these same people are the quickest to claim the “Hail Mary” is an unbiblical prayer, and slam the Catholic Liturgy as “unbiblical” as if they have never read the Gospel of Luke or the book of Malachi (at least Malachi 1, most Protestant preachers I know LOVE Malachi 3).I can’t tell you how hurt I was, when visiting their churches, to be told by a Sunday school teacher that
As an adult, looking back, I have to wonder what on earth they thought people did, before the Bible **had **chapters & verses!!
J
joshua_b
Guest
Don’t be silly Zooey. According to some of the more Fundamental of our bretheren in Christ, the Bible has always existed. Surely you know that the KJV was translated under St. James.As an adult, looking back, I have to wonder what on earth they thought people did, before the Bible **had **chapters & verses!!
M
mercygate
Guest
:doh2: How could we have forgotten THAT!
E
estesbob
Guest
Remeber that famous line from “Inherit the Wind” about the King James Bible". “If the Kings english was good enough for the Lord its good enough for me.”
M
MotherNoRest
Guest
In researching this, I came across the Synod which really did condemn the translations of Wyclif - the Synod of Oxford in 1408. A Protestant article stated the following in regards to this situation:
At the ecumenical Council of Constance, in 1415, Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury, as “that pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who invented a new translation of the scriptures in his mother tongue.” By the decree of the Council, more that 40 years after his death, Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift river.
Could this really have happened? How could a Catholic Council encourage the desecration of a body, which has always been considered a sin? Any comments on this?
At the ecumenical Council of Constance, in 1415, Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury, as “that pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who invented a new translation of the scriptures in his mother tongue.” By the decree of the Council, more that 40 years after his death, Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift river.
Could this really have happened? How could a Catholic Council encourage the desecration of a body, which has always been considered a sin? Any comments on this?
1
1ke
Guest
Yes, Wyclif’s writings were condemned as heretical and his body was disinterred from consecrated ground.
I do not know if they were reburied elsewhere or if his remains were burned. Such is the fate of heretics-- they are not to be buried on consecrated ground.
- Status