Not facts. I notice that none of your claims are linked?? I’m guessing that your “source” can be found from amongst the likes of:
really, really old about the umpteenth time somebody tries to push it.:yawn:
Not an authorized version, but a translation which may contain errors.
And it contained errors. The Church was responsible to prevent errors from being taught.
The Catholic Church was never against reading an authorized version, with guidance of the Church.
Ask the person why he believes this. It might just be his/her misconception. I, personally, am the proud guardian of our family’s bible. It’s an 1860 Catholic bible. This has been a cherished possession of my family for generations. As already shown, there’s many distortions when it comes to the history of the Church and the Bible.
Oh what a treasure to have.:bowdown2: :bible1: You probably have all the important information about your ancestors written down in there too.
As mangled as some of the Catholic teachings are that they say they believed…just imagine the mess they’d’'ve made of the Word of God. Not facts. I notice that none of your claims are linked?? I’m guessing that your “source” can be found from amongst the likes of:
*]Jack Chick.
*]Lorraine Boettner.
*]Alexander Hislip.
All of whom are notorious purveyors of “historical” fiction.
Sheesh. This stuff gets
Tyndale and Wycliff?
Of course, anyone familiar with the history of the Catholic Church, which for 2,000 years has been preserving and protecting the Word of God, recognizes how ludicrous this is. It was is only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available. All Christians everywhere owe it a great debt for that. God hardly needed the Catholic churches help in preserving His Word. He obviously used the early church to copy and spread His word.
The entire new testament could be found in the quotes of the ECF’s well before 700 AD, not to mention the Alexandrian manuscripts.
Wycliffe used Jerome’s Latin vulgate, show me the errors.
Tyndale used Erasmus’s Greek translation, errors please?
Was burning at the stake the biblical means of confronting error?
Umm, then they would have to explain why all those Catholic bibles were printed before Vatican II. Go on ebay and you’ll find lots of 'em. Somebody printed them, and somebody bought them!
Indeed, this is a problem that Protestants must admit to. Even disregarding the Catholic Church, look at all the “bible-believing” beliefs out there, from the Eastern Orthodox through all the mainstream and “exotic” Protestant belief systems right on through those “bible-believing” groups that deny such fundamentals of the faith as the true nature of Christ and the true nature of the Trinity. Yes, they all point to the bible as the source of their beliefs. Every heresy (even what Protestants would consider heresy) appeals to the bible for proof.
Kaycee, you must admit that any time something is translated from one language to another, something is lost. The more translations, the more the original intent is lost.
Not only were there poor translations, but most people did not read, and most were uneducated. They did not have the exegetical training to understand and interpret the text. When you look at what has occurred in the Protestant denominations, you can clearly see why the Church was trying to protect the ignorant from the fragmentation they knew would result by erroneous understanding. By the time Leo XIII encouraged it, there were better translatins, better education, and more educated priests to help the laity.
I am sorry that you had this experience. I would never say that such things did not happen but it may comfort you to know that that was not a universal practice prior to VII. My guess is that this might have been a particular parish/pastor with some control issues. Priests are people too.The responses here are quit interesting. I went to 11 years of Catholic school prior to Vatican II. We were told NEVER to read the bible unless a priest was present to guide us. We were also told that every house must have a bible under the pain of sin. As I grew older and put all this into perspective I realized that it was a control thing by the church. They were trying to protect us from interpreting the bible in the wrong way. The times were different prior to Vatican II. In school I was taught nothing but guilt and fear of God. There was never any mention of love. I was also taught that one NEVER should question anything a priest says. Remember this was an era when a women were considered dirty and vulgar for giving birth to a baby. The only way she could re-enter the church was to go through a ritual called “Being Churched”. The priest meet her at the back of the church and forgave her sin of childbirth. I remember this well for my mother sat and cried because she could not go to Sunday mass until she was churched. So back to the bible. I applaud Vatican II for it brought God’s word closer to the full meaning that Christ intended.
You silly goose! They WERE all Catholics! The protestants did not come along for 1400 years!!!
Do you think the Eastern churches were Lutheran, or Anglican?
