How do I answer this one?

[Lost_Again]

I have been slowly working my way back to the Catholic faith but as the members of my present church try and talk me out of it, I find myself in a battle to defend my decision. Lately the tactic has been “Why would you want to return to a church that persecuted people for reading the bible in their own language”?

I have done my own research and it would “appear” that this might be true. What I would like to know is if this is TRUE or not? Did the church enact laws and formally prosecute and persecute people for owning a bible?

EXAMPLES I HAVE FOUND:

During the period when the Roman Catholic Church was in power, she did everything she could to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people. It was illegal to translate the Bible into the common languages, even though most people could not read the official Catholic Bible because it was in Latin, a language known only to the highly educated.

(1) In the year 1215 Pope Innocent III issued a law commanding “that they shall be seized for trial and penalties, WHO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE SACRED VOLUMES, or who hold secret conventicles, or who assume the office of preaching without the authority of their superiors; against whom process shall be commenced, without any permission of appeal” (J.P. Callender, Illustrations of Popery, 1838, p. 387). Innocent “declared that as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death, so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 723).

(2) The Council of Toulouse (1229) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE (Allix, Ecclesiastical History, II, p. 213). This council ordered that the bishops should appoint in each parish “one priest and two or three laics, who should engage upon oath to make a rigorous search after all heretics and their abettors, and for this purpose should visit every house from the garret to the cellar, together with all subterraneous places where they might conceal themselves” (Thomas M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, 1856, p. 82). They also searched for the illegal Bibles.

(3) The Council of Tarragona (1234) “ORDERED ALL VERNACULAR VERSIONS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE BISHOP TO BE BURNED” (Paris Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 1929, 162).

(4) In 1483 the infamous Inquisitor General Thomas Torquemada began his reign of terror as head of the Spanish Inquisition; King Ferdinand and his queen “PROHIBITED ALL, UNDER THE SEVEREST PAINS, FROM TRANSLATING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES, OR FROM USING IT WHEN TRANSLATED BY OTHERS” (M’Crie, p. 192). For more than three centuries the Bible in the common tongue was a forbidden book in Spain and multitudes of copies perished in the flames, together with those who cherished them.

(5) In England, too, laws were passed by the Catholic authorities against vernacular Bibles. The Constitutions of Thomas Arundel, issued in 1408 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, made this brash demand: “WE THEREFORE DECREE AND ORDAIN THAT NO MAN SHALL, HEREAFTER, BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY, TRANSLATE ANY TEXT OF THE SCRIPTURE INTO ENGLISH, OR ANY OTHER TONGUE, by way of a book, libel, or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wyckliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part of in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial” (John Eadie, The English Bible, vol. 1, 1876, p. 89). Consider Arundel’s estimation of the man who gave the English speaking people their first Bible: “This pestilential and most wretched John Wycliffe of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Anti-Christ, who while he lived, walking in the vanity of his mind … crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue” (Fountain, John Wycliffe, p. 45).

(6) Pope Leo X (1513-1521), who railed against Luther’s efforts to follow the biblical precept of faith alone and Scripture alone, called the fifth Lateran Council (1513-1517), which charged that no books should be printed except those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. “THEREFORE FOREVER THEREAFTER NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PRINT ANY BOOK OR WRITING WITHOUT A PREVIOUS EXAMINATION, TO BE TESTIFIED BY MANUAL SUBSCRIPTION, BY THE PAPAL VICAR AND MASTER OF THE SACRED PALACE IN ROME, and in other cities and dioceses by the Inquisition, and the bishop or an expert appointed by him. FOR NEGLECT OF THIS THE PUNISHMENT WAS EXCOMMUNICATION, THE LOSS OF THE EDITION, WHICH WAS TO BE BURNED, a fine of 100 ducats to the fabric of St. Peters, and suspension from business for a year” (Henry Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages).

(7) These restrictions were repeated by the Council of Trent in 1546, which placed translations of the Bible, such as the German, Spanish, and English, on its list of prohibited books and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Catholic bishop or inquisitor.

Following is a quote from Trent: “…IT SHALL NOT BE LAWFUL FOR ANYONE TO PRINT OR TO HAVE PRINTED ANY BOOKS WHATSOEVER DEALING WITH SACRED DOCTRINAL MATTERS WITHOUT THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR, OR IN THE FUTURE TO SELL THEM, OR EVEN TO HAVE THEM IN POSSESSION, UNLESS THEY HAVE FIRST BEEN EXAMINED AND APPROVED BY THE ORDINARY, UNDER PENALTY OF ANATHEMA AND FINE prescribed by the last Council of the Lateran” (Fourth session, April 8, 1546, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Translated by H.J. Schroeder, pp. 17-19).

 

[chessmane4e5]

For me, I see the damage that has been done by multiple translations of the bible. There is now so much confusion because one bible says this but another says that. I like knowing that when I read a Catholic bible, it says what the Magisterium via the Holy Spirit wants it to say. Remind the people that are trying to talk you out of this conversion that it was Luther that added the Word “alone” to the bible he had translated in German and he also wanted books removed from the bible, namely James.

The same goes for interpreting the bible. I trust the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit. I have heard the fallible interpretations of the bible by individual men. I like that information you have presented, but what you should do (and what I am going to do) is to research the historical context of those dates and events. Why these events happened is crucial to understanding what was done. I am sure everything was done in response to events that were threatening the faith.

Also remember that the Church, through man, has made mistakes. But I do not believe that is a reason to reject the One True Church that Christ founded on Peter and told him that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Men have sinned, of that there can be no doubt, but the Church is still the one that Christ founded, and the Holy Spirit protects His church from making any theological errors. What other church can claim that?

 

[OchsFam]

These restrictions are true. The reasons for the restrictions are what have been distorted over time.

I pose this question to you. If someone who had only had two semesters of Greek attempted to translate the Bible, would you believe their Bible worthy of reading? Now, add into this that the person in question also is a staunch anti-Catholic and so in their translation added inaccurate footnotes and purposefuly translated some words to reflect more of their theology than the what the actual Greek reads. If you were the sole defender of the written Word of God, would you allow people to own this version of the Bible?

Keep in mind that there are versions of the Bible in the vernacular available that the Church has approved and so no new translations would have been needed. Notice the wording used in many of these restrictions, it becomes evident that this is the case.

The twist from the protestant side has been that the Church did this so that the laity could not see the lies put forth by the Church. The problem with this claim is this:

1. The restrictions are actually put forth to prevent the lies being purpatrated by the translators who have no right or ability to put out a translation of the Bible. Wycliff is a good example of this.
2. The Bible was already available in most languages before these restrictions were put forth.
3. Regardless of the translation availability, most people could not have afforded a Bible until the invention of the printing press. Also, most people who could read in their language could also read Latin.
4. In Trent, the restriction on the German Bible was due to Luther’s adding to and removing from what is the actual scripture.
5. The Church is the sole protector of God’s written Word. If they restrict its usage, it is their right and obligation if there is harm to be found in other translations.
6. If the Church truly wanted the Bible to not be available to the people, it wouldn’t be available as they could have destroyed it centuries ago. Not to mention that we would not have any translations available today and Catholics would be instructed to not read it themselves which is not the case.

I recommend reading this book.

Simply think this through and you will realize that the Church did what it needed to do in order to protect God’s Word from corruption. It is only because of the Roman Catholic Church that protestants have a reliable Bible to read today. So to answer your quesiton, just ask them what they would do (assuming they had the ability) if they saw people releasing copies of the Bible with errors that threaten the readers eternal life?

God Bless.

Edit: It looks like the book is also avialable here for free.

 

[buffalo]

The Church has no interest in having Catholics read the Bible as protestants do. Could you imagine all the error without the guidance of the Magisterium? The Catechisms and good Priestly instruction that combine Scripture, Tradition ans the Magisterium are far better in presenting complete Catholicism.

 

[DOShea]

The very first response I have for you is why is it that when this question comes up it always seems to pivot on decrees centuries old that were given in particular circumstances and in response to particular problems rather than walking down to Barnes & Noble and looking around for yourself?

To answer what you have brought up, it would do you well to not only learn what was banned, but WHY. In the particular circumstances you bring up, there were people out there doing translations that were defective, meaning they were leaving out or adding in things to Scripture that should not have been. It is the exact same complaint many in the reformed faiths have today with the NIV translations, where many verses simply are not there because of the choices made in selecting source documents. They view these bibles as incomplete, as defective, and they make no bones about letting you know why. Why is this valid for them to do today, but somehow INvalid for the Catholic Church to have done centuries ago for the exact same reasons?

During the period when the Roman Catholic Church was in power, she did everything she could to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people. It was illegal to translate the Bible into the common languages, even though most people could not read the official Catholic Bible because it was in Latin, a language known only to the highly educated.

This is false the way you present it. It was not illegal to translate the Bible into common languages, as a web search of bible history will easily show you if you look. The bible was translated into Italian in 1471, for example. The problem with translating it into English was that these translations had to have approval of the crown, and during the middle ages that was like using a windsock as a standard. Even reformers who authored bible translations were found to be faulty in their work and their work subsequently banned and/or burned, and it wasn’t the Catholic Church doing that.

What the Catholic Church was concerned about is having faulty or heretical translations published and spread around. Recall this is a time when it was not common for people to be able to read, and the cost of books was very expensive even for a period after the press was invented. Bibles were sometimes chained to pulpits or stored under lock and key - not to keep people from reading them, but to keep people from stealing them. One estimate I read (sorry, I don’t know the exact source) stated it would cost something on the order of $100,000-$150,000 in today’s equivalent currency to replace a church’s copy of the bible. Would your church today be able to spring for new one of those if someone swiped your only copy? How many times would they do that before locking it up or chaining it, do you suppose?

It seems a farce to make the claim that the CC “didn’t want people reading the Scriptures” when most couldn’t and it’s being read aloud at every single Mass. Talk about hiding it in plain sight!

Finally, let me ask you this… suppose I, as a Catholic with no knowledge whatsoever of your church or its beliefs, decided to publish a book on what I think it is, and publish it as “The Official ______ Book of the _____ faith/church.” Would your pastor or community have something to say about that, particularly if what I wrote was either not true or not presented in a fair light - “spun” in other words? My guess is he would have something to say, and probably after the first one of your congregation read it, there would be a lot of talk of how heretical it was, don’t buy it, and lots of letters protesting it. And they would be justified in doing that, don’t you think, since I would not be presenting the truth of what YOU believe, but only what I think you believe?

You can find an element of that in every case you cited from history. The concern was that different people looking at the same book, if not equipped with some basic guidance and principles to work with, would come up with erroneous and heretical doctrine. It was not that the Church didn’t want people to have it, but they didn’t want them to have it alone and leave it up to the individual to discern its meaning all on their own. If they tried, it would surely lead to thousands of different sects each with their own beliefs based on the same book, each claiming to be right. Where can that be seen today?

 

[Fidelis]

Almost without exception the citations you have provided are from Protestant writers from largely polemical works. Perhaps you should widen your references to include Catholic writers to get a more balanced view. I’d start with Henry Graham’s “Where We Got The Bible” available from Catholic Answers.

As for the direct quotes from Cathoics you cited, I have no problem with them and you shouldn’t either if you take them in their historical context and apply a little common sense (and if they’re not placed in ALL CAPS TO MAKE THEM LOOK MORE “HORRIFYING”).

The quotes in question are addressing the fact that at that time there were a lot of inaccurate and heretical Bible translations and books floating around that were misleading ordinary believers --Wycliffes translation being a prime example (do you see *anybody *using it these days?). These were not just impartial translations or innocently legitimate alternate interpretations – they were badly translated Bibles with heretical and polemic footnotes by unqualified persons with religious and political agendas. The leaders of the Church at the time, being responsible for the welfare of many innocent and impressionable souls, would have been stupid, lazy and derelict in their duties to not condemn these.

 

[peary1]

Answer, Part 1

I have been slowly working my way back to the Catholic faith but as the members of my present church try and talk me out of it, I find myself in a battle to defend my decision. Lately the tactic has been “Why would you want to return to a church that persecuted people for reading the bible in their own language”?

Obviously, your so-called friends are quite ignorant. The vast majority of people at that time were illiterate - they could neither read nor write. Tell them to go read their history books.

I have done my own research and it would “appear” that this might be true. What I would like to know is if this is TRUE or not? Did the church enact laws and formally prosecute and persecute people for owning a bible?

**If the scriptures were not sanctioned by the Church, they were unlawful. Remember, the so-called reformers were making very shoddy and biased translations into the vernacular that alarmed many theologians and bishops. **
EXAMPLES I HAVE FOUND:

During the period when the Roman Catholic Church was in power, she did everything she could to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people. It was illegal to translate the Bible into the common languages, even though most people could not read the official Catholic Bible because it was in Latin, a language known only to the highly educated.

Read my=last quote. Also, don’t you think the Church had and HAS the right to protect people from bad and weak translations of Scripture? The Church was working on translations of its own, but so-called reformers went ahead and did their own thing without permission.

(1) In the year 1215 Pope Innocent III issued a law commanding “that they shall be seized for trial and penalties, WHO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE SACRED VOLUMES, or who hold secret conventicles, or who assume the office of preaching without the authority of their superiors; against whom process shall be commenced, without any permission of appeal” (J.P. Callender, Illustrations of Popery, 1838, p. 387). Innocent “declared that as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death, so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 723).

I cannot find any source other than the ones you quote with those mandates from the pope. Given the conditions at the time with heretical sects like the Albigensenians, and Germanic noble adventurers ruling a large part of Italy, Innocent eventually became a powerful figure both in the Church and in the secular world himself, and he probably issued a Church law with regard to the illigitimate translation of Scripture. As the pope is the supreme pastor of the Church, why would it be wrong for him to insist on protecting the translation of Scripture that was shoddy, weak, biased, and just plain wrong?

(2) The Council of Toulouse (1229) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE (Allix, Ecclesiastical History, II, p. 213). This council ordered that the bishops should appoint in each parish “one priest and two or three laics, who should engage upon oath to make a rigorous search after all heretics and their abettors, and for this purpose should visit every house from the garret to the cellar, together with all subterraneous places where they might conceal themselves” (Thomas M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, 1856, p. 82). They also searched for the illegal Bibles.

**The Albigensians, again, were the root cause of the major heretical problems in southern France. The Council of Toulouse was called specifically to deal with this problem. If the quote that you posted above was from the Council, it was directed to the Albigens themselves. **

(3) The Council of Tarragona (1234) “ORDERED ALL VERNACULAR VERSIONS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE BISHOP TO BE BURNED” (Paris Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 1929, 162).

In 1242, a provincial council was convoked at Tarragona to regulate the procedure of the Inquisition and canonical penances. In 1312 a provincial council was assembled in the Corpus Christi Chapel of the cathedral cloister, to pass sentence on the Templars, whom it declared innocent. I do not know of any Spanish vernacular versions of the Bible that were copied and distributred at this time against Church wishes. But most dioceses in Europe at the time had similar orders.

 

[peary1]

Answer, Part 2

(4) In 1483 the infamous Inquisitor General Thomas Torquemada began his reign of terror as head of the Spanish Inquisition; King Ferdinand and his queen “PROHIBITED ALL, UNDER THE SEVEREST PAINS, FROM TRANSLATING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES, OR FROM USING IT WHEN TRANSLATED BY OTHERS” (M’Crie, p. 192). For more than three centuries the Bible in the common tongue was a forbidden book in Spain and multitudes of copies perished in the flames, together with those who cherished them.

See my previous comment.

(5) In England, too, laws were passed by the Catholic authorities against vernacular Bibles. The Constitutions of Thomas Arundel, issued in 1408 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, made this brash demand: “WE THEREFORE DECREE AND ORDAIN THAT NO MAN SHALL, HEREAFTER, BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY, TRANSLATE ANY TEXT OF THE SCRIPTURE INTO ENGLISH, OR ANY OTHER TONGUE, by way of a book, libel, or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wyckliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part of in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial” (John Eadie, The English Bible, vol. 1, 1876, p. 89). Consider Arundel’s estimation of the man who gave the English speaking people their first Bible: “This pestilential and most wretched John Wycliffe of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Anti-Christ, who while he lived, walking in the vanity of his mind … crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue” (Fountain, John Wycliffe, p. 45).

Most of the illegitimate translations of the Bible were in the languages of English and German. Wycliffe was a protestant reformer who translated Scripture into English. But his translation took great liberties, particularly when he added or subtracted passages to suit his own theological leanings. He actually died by mob rule - they burned him!

(6) Pope Leo X (1513-1521), who railed against Luther’s efforts to follow the biblical precept of faith alone and Scripture alone, called the fifth Lateran Council (1513-1517), which charged that no books should be printed except those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. “THEREFORE FOREVER THEREAFTER NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PRINT ANY BOOK OR WRITING WITHOUT A PREVIOUS EXAMINATION, TO BE TESTIFIED BY MANUAL SUBSCRIPTION, BY THE PAPAL VICAR AND MASTER OF THE SACRED PALACE IN ROME, and in other cities and dioceses by the Inquisition, and the bishop or an expert appointed by him. FOR NEGLECT OF THIS THE PUNISHMENT WAS EXCOMMUNICATION, THE LOSS OF THE EDITION, WHICH WAS TO BE BURNED, a fine of 100 ducats to the fabric of St. Peters, and suspension from business for a year” (Henry Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages).

**Big deal. **

(7) These restrictions were repeated by the Council of Trent in 1546, which placed translations of the Bible, such as the German, Spanish, and English, on its list of prohibited books and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Catholic bishop or inquisitor.

The Church has every right to protect Her own Scriptures from being debased with nonauthoritative translations.

Following is a quote from Trent: “…IT SHALL NOT BE LAWFUL FOR ANYONE TO PRINT OR TO HAVE PRINTED ANY BOOKS WHATSOEVER DEALING WITH SACRED DOCTRINAL MATTERS WITHOUT THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR, OR IN THE FUTURE TO SELL THEM, OR EVEN TO HAVE THEM IN POSSESSION, UNLESS THEY HAVE FIRST BEEN EXAMINED AND APPROVED BY THE ORDINARY, UNDER PENALTY OF ANATHEMA AND FINE prescribed by the last Council of the Lateran” (Fourth session, April 8, 1546, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Translated by H.J. Schroeder, pp. 17-19).

I agree.

 

[beeliner]

Lost, all of the replies have been good ones. Let me put it a bit more succinctly:

Before the development of mechanical printing, any Bible available to the general public was almost certainly bogus. Any Catholic scholar wishing to study scripture could do so with a priest or monk, and every Mass included readings from scripture as today.

When mechanical printing became available, authorized Catholic editions were among the first to “hit the stands”. In English, the Douay NT was available to all while the Protestant KJV was still in preparation.

Your quotes need to be put into the proper historical context.

 

[Lancer]

How do you answer it…the simple answer:…you don’t answer it! It’s a Red herring par excellence!

The fundamental reason for these (types of) attacks on the Catholic Church…are becasue Protestant’s fundamentally can’t accept the Church’s Authority on matters of faith and morals…any authority claiming Divine truth in all matters of faith and morals…infallible authority in all matters of faith and morals…well, that is just a bit too much for Protestants to accept. Simply put…they mangle their interpretations of the New Testament in matters of the Church and in matters of authority.
Hence…for 1000+ years…only one Catholic Church…then the Greek and Easter Orthodox Christians breakaway…so for 1500+ years…only two Christian Churches…then Martin Luther breaks away…so ~450+ years later…there are now @33,000+ denominations…and they still can’t accept Chruch authority…so the number continues to grow!

Why?..because then, the Primacy of Conscience (personally formed by “self”)…would be subordinated to the Primacy of Truth (the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth and the Church’s Magisterium)…which must used to form your Catholic conscience in all matters of faith and morals…because your conscience can’t be formed in opposition to the Magisterium’s teachings (faith and morals). You still must absolutely follow your conscience as a Catholic…but to be a Catholic you must have already give full assent of your intellect and full assent of your will to the Chruch in matters of faith and morals…and form your conscience based on the Church’s teachings…again, a bit much for the Protestant (and sadly for many Catholic also!).

It ain’t easy for anyone…and it definitely takes some real spiritual “heavy lifting” for most all Catholics…on at least one or possibly several faith and morals matters/issues…but by the grace of the Holy Spirit and by a desire to grow in personal humility…the Holy Spirit can make it happen!

Three scripture quotes…for your consideration:

Matthew 18:15-18 (New King James Version)
Dealing with a Sinning Brother
**
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that * ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’*a] 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it tothe church. But if he refuses even to hear the church,** let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
John 14:6 (New King James Version)

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Luke 10:16 (New King James Version) **
Jesus Sends the Seventy-Two 16 He who hears you hears Me**, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

Three Catechism of the Catholic Chruch (CCC) quotes…for your consideration:

**891 **“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

**2039 **Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord. At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

Pax Christi

 

[MarcoPolo]

During the period when the Roman Catholic Church was in power, she did everything she could to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people. It was illegal to translate the Bible into the common languages

I am familiar more with the Wycliffe incident. However, let me dispel this notion that the Catholic Church forbade translations into the vernacular. The reality is the Catholic Church forbade shoddy translations into the vernacular.

There were other translations into old English or the old Saxon vernacular prior to Wycliffe, including ones encouraged by the Pope.

Associated content. (see Pope Gregory reference here from 894 A.D.)
Jstor archives.
Rev. Graham.
Wiki (I admit to be sure to cross-check Wiki sources!)
Nationmaster Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia.com
University of Toronto
Etc…

Wycliffe was resisted by the Catholic Church for using his translation to teach false doctrine, not because the Church opposed vernacular translations. Disagree with the Church on this or not, one cannot fairly say the Church opposed translating the Bible into other languages, including English.

 

[wmscott]

Hi lost, as a convert I know how you feel. You say that you are in a battle to defend my decision; it is a shame that your church does not see Catholics as Christians. So if returning to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that is the Pillar of Truth has put you in a battle, who do you think is doing battle with you? On the surface, it seems to be your church community; however, there may be another working through them to prevent you from returning to the body of Christ. Can you guess to whom I am alluding to? Think about it. Who fights the hardest when one is trying to grow closer to Christ?

As you are making your decision you may want to start attending Mass, pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit, and then make the decision that is right for you, not your church community. Good luck on either choice. I will say a prayer for you. Peace of Christ be with You.

 

[rep140]

The Old Testament was composed mostly in Hebrew; the New Testament in Greek. If someone wants to truly know what the bible said then you would have to know Hebrew/Greek otherwise you are at the mercy of the translator. Look in any English dictionary and you will find multiple meanings for the same word.

St. Jerome translated the bible into Latin so we are at the mercy of his translation. Your Protestant friends’ idea of having anyone translate translates to chaos. Is there no concept of an absolute truth? I agree with an above poster that the problem comes down to whether or not you accept absolute truth and authority. The Protestant concept of individualizing the bible allows everyone to create their own moral standard. I, for one,
don’t feel qualified.

 

[beeliner]

St. Jerome translated the bible into Latin so we are at the mercy of his translation.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

Most modern translations are from the original languages (though not, of course, from the original autographs, nor did Jerome have them).

Several modern translations are also the product of interdenominational scholarship, so that sectarian bias is minimized. Two excellent translations, the Good News Translation, formerly known as the Good News Bible and the Anchor Bible, originally published by Doubleday and now owned by Yale University, are among the best examples of this, and both, as far as I know, fully approved for Catholics.

 

[jericho777]

The Church also controlled access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn’t until some people figured a way around the road block and published the work. Now us plain stupid folks can read it too.

People were killed for reading the word of God. That’s something to remember. How can you people defend and justify this haneous action. People in the OT were allowed to read and know sacred scripture. This is the word from God to his people.

There was a time not to long ago that this type of forum would landed you in some religious hot water. I’m surprised they let this thing stay up now. You can not defend the Churches action and still want to use this forum because this forum is exactly what the Church was trying to protect itself from. Remember only clergy have the training and authority from the Church to read and discuss scripture. So you all are banned from this forum from this day forth.

 

[rep140]

The Church also controlled access to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

From where do you get this? I live in Buffalo and went to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibition in Toronto and have a DVD of a summary presented by the Israeli offices who have the Scrolls, hardly a Vatican puppet. One of the persons on the DVD says that there have been all sorts of stories about Vatican intervention in the study of the Scrolls. He said that he has been working with the Scrolls for 30 years and never heard a word from The Vatican. He said that conspiracy theories like this are good for selling books, but this one is not true.

 

[rep140]

The Church also controlled access to the Dead Sea Scrolls

BTW, also because I live in Buffalo I am aware that the Jordanian govenrnment wants the Canadians to give them the Scrolls after the exhibition because they came from grounds Israel took in one of the wars. PULEEZE, tell me how The Vatican is involved in this at all.

 

[jericho777]

The Church also controlled access to the Dead Sea Scrolls

BTW, also because I live in Buffalo I am aware that the Jordanian govenrnment wants the Canadians to give them the Scrolls after the exhibition because they came from grounds Israel took in one of the wars. PULEEZE, tell me how The Vatican is involved in this at all.

The church had possesion and controlled access to them. I was just on timemagazine.com These are a couple of links but there are a lot more. This was brought about by scholars wanting to do reasearch but were denied access by the church. They have had stories on The History Channel, Learning and Discovery etc Check it out.

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958357,00.html
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152413,00.html

 

[peary1]

The Church also controlled access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn’t until some people figured a way around the road block and published the work. Now us plain stupid folks can read it too.

**Are you kidding me? Since when? Where do you get your sources - a Jack Chick comic book? What a supid and ignorant post on your part. All of the manuscripts were initially placed under the oversight of a committee of scholars appointed by the Jordanian Department of Antiquities. This responsibility was assumed by the Israel Antiquities Authority after 1967.

Most of the longer, more complete scrolls were published soon after their discovery. The majority of the scrolls, however, consists of tiny, brittle fragments, which were published at a pace considered by many to be excessively slow. Even more unsettling for some was the fact that access to the unpublished documents was severely limited to the editorial committee. This editorial committee had absolutely no connection to the Catholic Church whatsoever. In fact, the Catholic Church never** had control over the Dead Sea Scrolls because they were found in ISRAEL, not the Vatican!

In November of 1991 facsimiles and photos of the fragmented scrolls were published by the Biblical Archaeological Society in a nonofficial edition; a computer reconstruction, based on a concordance, was announced; the Huntington Library pledged to open their microfilm files of all the scroll photographs.

Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are located at two sites in Israel. One is the Rockefeller Museum in East Jerusalem, which is under the authority of the Israel Antiquities Authority and for which access is grated only to certified researchers. The other is the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum in West Jerusalem. Additional scrolls are found in the Amman Archaeological Museum in Jordan, and several fragments are in the French National Library in Paris, Azuza University in California, and in the hands of private collectors. The Vatican Library has a few fragments.

You really have a lot of nerve and arrogance coming into this forum and spewing your disinformation and total filth against the Church in here. You prove that you can’t fix stupid.

 

[beeliner]

jericho777:

The Church also controlled access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn’t until some people figured a way around the road block and published the work. Now us plain stupid folks can read it too.

People were killed for reading the word of God. That’s something to remember. How can you people defend and justify this haneous action. People in the OT were allowed to read and know sacred scripture. This is the word from God to his people.

Poster peary1 is absolutely correct in his history of the DSS and in his assessment of your claims.

Name a person ‘killed for reading the word of God’, except perhaps in Muslim countries.

The reasons for the ‘haneous’ (never encountered THAT word before) action were enumerated earlier in the thread. Any Bible available to the public before the development of mechanical printing was almost certainly bogus or heretical.

People in the OT were allowed to read and know scripture - absolutely! They went to the temple and studied the handwritten scrolls with the rabbi, just as Christians heard it read at Mass, and do today. And by the way, who do you think is buying all of the millions of copies of Catholic versions of scripture in print?

It is true that in the age of mechanical printing, Catholics were at one time if not forbidden, at least strongly discouraged from reading or owning Protestant translations of the Bible such as the KJV. Today, with interdenominational scholarship the norm, such discouragement is no longer deemed important.

jericho, you are, in a word, full of it. Gee, I guess that’s three words.