Is Sola Scriptura idolatry?

[SyCarl]

I have used a line of reasoning which demonstrates that Sola Scriptura ignores the poor who cannot read. This may be uncomfortable for those who have never looked at this possibility before. But it was neither meant as an insult, nor is it in and of itself insulting.

As for my being silly: Mr Carl?
How dare I? This sounds like language used to put me in my place. What is my place? The notion of my having a ‘place’ from which I am not permitted to question a contradiction when I see a contradiction speaks in and of itself of elitism.

It is insulting to suggest that those who believe in Sola Scriptura ignore the poor and illiterate.

Firstly, you totally ignore the fact that Sola Scriptura does not say that people must read the Bible. It says that the scrptures are the final and only infallible rule of authority and that everything required for salvation is contained in them. PPeople do not need to own or be able read a Bible to be able to listen. People can be read to or taught what the Bible says without reading it themselves.

Secondly those who supported Sola Scriptura were the very ones who made every effort to get Bibles into the hands of the people in languages they could understand. First, individuals like Tynsdale translated and circulated vernacular copies of the Bible. It was Protestants who formed the Bible Societies to translate print and distribute the Bible to as many people ias possible.

It was not the Protestants whose priests read the scriptures in Latin during Church, a language that the poor and illiterate could not understand.

It was not the Protestants who forbade any but approved individuals from reading the Bible. It was Pope Paul IV who issued the following.

The translations of writers, also ecclesiastical, which have till now been edited by condemned authors, are permitted provided they contain nothing contrary to sound doctrine. Translations of the books of the Old Testament may in the judgment of the bishop be permitted to learned and pious men only, provided such translations are used only as elucidations of the Vulgate Edition for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures and not as the sound text. Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal. But if with such translations as are permitted or with the Vulgate Edition some annotations are circulated, these may also, after the suspected passages have been expunged by the theological faculty of some Catholic university or by the general inquisition, be permitted to those to whom the translations are permitted. Under these circumstances the entire volume of the Sacred Books, which is commonly called the <biblia Vatabli,> or parts of it, may be permitted to pious and learned men. From the Bibles of Isidore Clarius of Brescia, however, the preface and introduction are to be removed, and no one shall regard its text as the text of the Vulgate Edition

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.

fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html

 

[SyCarl]

Pope Clement XI wrote

1. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.

1. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.

1. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.

1. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.

Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.

papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm

It was not the Protestants who railed against the Bible Societies providing the Bible to all.

Pope Leo XII

1. You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,[16] it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil![17]

1. To prevent this evil, Our predecessors published many constitutions. Most recently Pius VII wrote two briefs, one to Ignatius, Archbishop of Gniezno, the other to Stanislaus, Archbishop of Mohileu, quoting carefully and wisely many passages from the sacred writings and from the tradition to show how harmful to faith and morals this wretched undertaking is.

1. In virtue of Our apostolic office, We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures. Do everything possible to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language, wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo12/l12ubipr.htm

 

[SyCarl]

Pope Gregory XVI

Among the special schemes with whichnon-Catholics plot against the adherents ofCatholic truth to turn their minds away from thefaith, the biblical societies are prominent. Theywere first established in England and have spreadfar and wide so that We now see them as an armyon the march, conspiring to publish in greatnumbers copies of the books of divine Scripture.These are translated into all kinds of vernacularlanguages for dissemination withoutdiscrimination among both Christians and infidels.Then the biblical societies invite everyone to readthem unguided. Therefore it is just as Jeromecomplained in his day:[l] they make the art ofunderstanding the Scriptures without a teacher"common to babbling old women and crazy oldmen and verbose sophists," and to anyone whocan read, no matter what his status. Indeed, what is even more absurd and almost unheard of, theydo not exclude the common people of the infidels from sharing this kind of a knowledge.

1. Moreover, regarding the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, even many centuries ago bishops in various places have at times had to exercise greater vigilance when they became aware that such translations were being read in secret gatherings or were being distributed by heretics. Innocent III issued warnings concerning the secret gatherings of laymen and women, under the pretext of piety, for the reading of Scripture in the diocese of Metz.[12] There was also a special prohibition of Scripture translations promulgated either in Gaul a little later[13] or in Spain before the sixteenth century.[14] But later even more care was required when the Lutherans and Calvinists dared to oppose the changeless doctrine of the faith with an almost incredible variety of errors. They left no means untried to deceive the faithful with perverse explanations of the sacred books, which were published by their adherents with new interpretations in the vernacular. They were aided in multiplying copies and quickly spreading them by the newly invented art of printing. Therefore in the rules written by the fathers chosen by the Council of Trent, approved by Pius IV,'s and placed in the Index of forbidden books, we read the statute declaring that vernacular Bibles are forbidden except to those for whom it is judged that the reading will contribute “to the increase of faith and piety.”[16] Because of the continued deceptions of heretics, this rule was further restricted and supplemented by a declaration of Benedict XIV: for the future the only vernacular translations which may be read are those which “are approved by the Apostolic See” or at least were published “with annotations taken from the holy Fathers of the Church, or from learned and Catholic authors.”[17]

1. Therefore, taking counsel with a number of Cardinals, and weighing the whole matter seriously and in good time, We have decided to send this letter to all of you. We again condemn all the above-mentioned biblical societies of which our predecessors disapproved. We specifically condemn the new one called Christian League founded last year in New York and other societies of the same kind, if they have already joined with it or do so in the future. Therefore let it be known to all that anyone who joins one of these societies, or aids it, or favors it in any way will be guilty of a grievous crime. Besides We confirm and renew by Our apostolic authority the prescriptions listed and published long ago concerning the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures.

papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16inter.htm

Pope Pius IX

1. This is the goal too of the crafty Bible Societies which renew the old skill of the heretics and ceaselessly force on people of all kinds, even the uneducated, gifts of the Bible. They issue these in large numbers and at great cost, in vernacular translations, which infringe the holy rules of the Church. The commentaries which are included often contain perverse explanations; so, having rejected divine tradition, the doctrine of the Fathers and the authority of the Catholic Church, they all interpret the words of the Lord by their own private judgment, thereby perverting their meaning. As a result, they fall into the greatest errors. Gregory XVI of happy memory, Our superior predecessor, followed the lead of his own predecessors in rejecting these societies in his apostolic letters.[16] It is Our will to condemn them likewise.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quiplu.htm

So be careful before accusing anyone else of wanting to ignore the poor and illiterate with respect to the Bible. It seems to me that a Church which prescribes such great differences between clergy and laity and that denies that the ordinary person can understand the Bible, except as they are told to, should not be accusing anyone else of elitism.

 

[st_felicity]

I am open to any definition of Sola Scriptura which posters wish to make. It is not, after all, my doctrine. It is yours. Fair enough? Anyway check with st_felicity. She is the one who started the thread.

BELOW is what I said in post 54, but no response came after…

Quote:

Originally Posted by SyCarl

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Your reasoning is faulty on a number of grounds.

1) You are assuming a definition of sola scripture that denies that there can be traditions and practices outside scripture. That is not true. Sola scripture does recognize that there are traditions but that they are subordinate to the scripture.

No–I’m assuming that Sola Scriptura defines scripture as the sole authority in Salvation Revelation and that SS needs no hierarchical teaching authority to interpret this revelation for believers. This notion is ANTI-BIBLICAL.

LINK-- forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2478890&postcount=54

Is there something wrong about that definition of SS (aside from that Protestants obviously disagree that SS is anti-Biblical)?

 

[st_felicity]

SyCarl–In response to Ani in post #60 you said,

SyCarl:

It [Sola Scriptura] says that the scrptures are the final and only infallible rule of authority and that everything required for salvation is contained in them…

That seems in agreement with how I defined it in post #54…Can we move on to considering whether this is appropriate using the Bible itself as a guide per the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as you yourself define it?

**Please note–**my contention is that the Bible does have everything required for salvation within it, but that contrary to your definition of SS, one of the things contained within those sacred pages is the Authority of the Church. That authority is Biblically co-equal with the authority of the Bible, and these authoritative teachers are necessary to appropriately understand the gospel per the Bible itself.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

It is insulting to suggest that those who believe in Sola Scriptura ignore the poor and illiterate…

Mr Carl, you are accusing me of saying something which I did not say.

I am talking about Sola Scriptura.

You are saying that I am talking about the people who believe in Sola Scriptura.

There is a difference between a doctrine and a person.

Ergo, you are misrepresenting what I have said.

I have already addressed this. I am not understanding why you are persisting with your strawman. It couldn’t be that repeating such a strawman numerous times makes it true. That’s just not logical.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Firstly, you totally ignore the fact that Sola Scriptura does not say that people must read the Bible. It says that the scrptures are the final and only infallible rule of authority and that everything required for salvation is contained in them.

Well, if the Scriptures do not need to be read, then what does one do with the Scriptures in order to access ‘everything required for salvation contained’ in them?

Does one touch them? Stand beside them? Display them?

No. Why not? Because Scriptures are text. What does text do? Text communicates. How does text communicate? Text communicates by means of being written and by means of being read.

Therefore it stands to reason, does it not, that if Scriptures contain ‘everything required for salvation’ then they must be read.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

People do not need to own or be able read a Bible to be able to listen. People can be read to or taught what the Bible says without reading it themselves.

Yes, I’ll go along with people being read to. But in order for people to be read to, the Bible still needs to be read, right?

Moreover, are we not talking about some people whose working days were from dawn to dusk? And who did hard labour? Many but not all freemen were in this category. As well as many but not all slaves. How were they to listen to the reading of the Bible if they were out in the fields or in the mines slogging all the liv’-long-day?

I am willing to concede the possibility that there might have been field Saints or mine Saints who read the Bible to folks in these locations. But that was not a safeguard built in to Sola Scriptura. In that respect, Sola Scriptura is fallible. Would Jesus institute a fallible method of spreading the Gospel? I don’t think so. Why would he put the souls of billions at risk?

People can be read to. But that means that the Bible is being read, does it not?

As for people being taught as to what is contained in the Bible, that is now outside the realm of reading: that is now in the realm of extra-biblical tradition.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Secondly those who supported Sola Scriptura were the very ones who made every effort to get Bibles into the hands of the people in languages they could understand.

The reason that the Protestant reformers used vernacular languages was because a) most educated people did not take the reformers seriously and b) they used the masses to get power for their movement. link

I do not dispute that Reformers got vernacular Bibles into the hands of the common folks. But this begs the question of how many folks could read. It also begs the question of how many folks had the leisure time to learn how to read.

• Before, during, and after Luther, at least, over 90% of the Church were illiterate.
• Before Luther, Bibles were mostly in Latin. (Actually the first vernacular Bible was Catholic a couple of centuries before Luther.) Latin was the lingua franca of Europe as Greek once had been. Most of the poor had a passing familiarity with Latin, but could not read Latin at the level of the Bible. Some Bibles were in Hebrew or Greek, but how was that a help to rural labourers in isolated parts of Britain?
• Before, during, and after Luther, very few folks had the leisure time to learn how to read. Nor did they have the leisure time to nor were they in locations where it was easy for them to be read to.
• Before Luther, If poor folks were really eager to learn how to read and wanted to read the Bible and had the leisure time to do both, then the next step would have been to acquire a Bible.
• Stealing a Bible would have been difficult because Bibles were chained to pulpits in order to prevent theft.
• Buying a Bible would have been well nigh impossible because it took whole lifetimes to hand-write them and thus their cost was astronomically beyond the means of the poor.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

First, individuals like Tynsdale translated and circulated vernacular copies of the Bible. It was Protestants who formed the Bible Societies to translate print and distribute the Bible to as many people ias possible.

This begs the question of how people were saved before the Reformation, doesn’t it?

SyCarl:

It was not the Protestants whose priests read the scriptures in Latin during Church, a language that the poor and illiterate could not understand.

Yep, it was. Latin was the lingua franca.

Latin was far from a dead language. It was the language of theology and science (the language of all educated peoples throughout Europe and beyond) well into the 17th and 18th Centuries. For example, when Isaac Newton published his works on physics, he published them in Latin so that all of Europe could read them. link

And, as for understanding, have you forgotten about Sacred Art, Sacred Music, and Sacred Theatre? These things so blythely labelled idolatry by Reformers were actually teaching tools which allowed the poor, the illiterate, the labourers, the slaves to be embraced by the Church, rather than relegated to some remote corner of noblesse oblige.

continued…

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl–In response to Ani in post #60 you said,

That seems in agreement with how I defined it in post #54…Can we move on to considering whether this is appropriate using the Bible itself as a guide per the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as you yourself define it?

**Please note–**my contention is that the Bible does have everything required for salvation within it, but that contrary to your definition of SS, one of the things contained within those sacred pages is the Authority of the Church. That authority is Biblically co-equal with the authority of the Bible, and these authoritative teachers are necessary to appropriately understand the gospel per the Bible itself.

You seem to be assuming that sole infallible authority means that there is no other authority. That is not part of the doctrine. The Church does have authority but that authority is subject to the Bible.

The view that the Church is co-equal with the Bible and that co-equality is Biblical is itself an interpreation of Scripture. The Church claims that authority and I am fully aware of the passages used to support it. Why do you accept that authority? Is it because you read those passages and interpretted them yourself in a way that agrees with the Church? That is self interpreation. That your self interpretation agrees with that of the Church does not change that fact.

There are passages that indicate that we do not require a teacher. Whether you accept these as such is again a private interpretation.

As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
(1 John 2:27 NASB)

For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’ FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. “FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.” (Hebrews 8:8-12 NASB)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

It was not the Protestants who forbade any but approved individuals from reading the Bible. It was Pope Paul IV who issued the following.

Modern History Sourcebook: Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books]

Paul IV? Your link says Pope Pius. It is best, if you are referring to Trent, that you access the original document which is here:

Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures

With the invention of the printing press came mass production of error-laden translations even of the Vetus Itala and Vulgate Catholic Bibles, to say nothing of the numerous Reformist versions of the Bible. Trent (Paul) attempted to rectify the proliferation of error to the vulnerable common folk.

…After the first printing of the Vulgate by Gutenberg in 1456, other editions came out rapidly. Their circulation with other Latin versions led to increasing uncertainties as to a standard text and caused the Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the Vulgate alone was to be held as “authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretence”… link

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

From the your link:

…Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good…

Harm like the Peasant Massacre:

…More than 1000 monasteries and castles were levelled to the ground, hundreds of villages were laid in ashes, the harvests of the nation were destroyed, and 100,000 killed… History with hardly a dissenting voice fastens the origin of this war on Luther…

Harm like the Thirty Years War:

…the Reformation was a chief factor in the evolution of royal absolutism. In every land in which it found ingress, the Reformation was the cause of indescribable suffering among the people; it occasioned civil warswhich lasted decades with all their horrors and devastations…

Germany in particular… was reduced to a state of piteous distress by the Thirty Years’ War and the German Empire was thereby dislodged from the leading position which it had for centuries occupied in Europe…

The document to which you have linked describes many variants of books not just the Reformers’ Bible. These variants of books included Luther’s lamentably rude anti-papist propaganda. They also included his On the Jews and their Lies which re-emerged as Hitler’s ‘final solution.’

Despite the “spin” that some Evangelicals put on the Catholic position, the Catholic Church was never opposed people reading the Bible. What [the Church] opposed was people reading interpretations of the Bible apart from the teaching authority of the Church, which would lead to the kinds of problems we have today with 30,000 denominations interpreting Scripture differently. The Bible itself warns against this. (2 Peter 1:20). link

Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20 DRC)

Interpretations of the Bible included Reformist translations of the Bible.

With the invention of printing, there was a communications explosion, and one suddenly saw lots of people making very poor and heretical translations of the Bible and popularizing them throughout Christendom…The Church tried to stop this…

The common people of the middle ages… were almost as vulnerable to the heresies that were sweeping through their communities as a person standing in front of a gun today… [They] had no intellectual defense with which they could make a reasonable judgment about the Truth… The Church felt it was their job to protect the souls of the innocent. In hindsight, we see that we would have done better by not using force… link

end of post

 

[SyCarl]

Yes, I’ll go along with people being read to. But in order for people to be read to, the Bible still needs to be read, right?

Moreover, are we not talking about some people whose working days were from dawn to dusk? And who did hard labour? Many but not all freemen were in this category. As well as many but not all slaves. How were they to listen to the reading of the Bible if they were out in the fields or in the mines slogging all the liv’-long-day?

I am willing to concede the possibility that there might have been field Saints or mine Saints who read the Bible to folks in these locations. But that was not a safeguard built in to Sola Scriptura. In that respect, Sola Scriptura is fallible. Would Jesus institute a fallible method of spreading the Gospel? I don’t think so. Why would he put the souls of billions at risk?

People can be read to. But that means that the Bible is being read, does it not?

continued…

You are assuming a societal state that you have yet to provoide any proof for.

If people did not have any time, as you say, how then did they attend Mass or Confession. How did have time to be taught by the infallible church.

As for people being taught as to what is contained in the Bible, that is now outside the realm of reading: that is now in the realm of extra-biblical tradition.

Sola scripture does not require that people read the Bible. It does not preclude them being taught what is in the Bible. Only if the teaching includes something that is not contained in the Bible does it become an extra-biblical tradition. If I go up to someone and say “The Bible prohibits adultery.”, that is not an extra biblical tradition.

 

[SyCarl]

I do not dispute that Reformers got vernacular Bibles into the hands of the common folks. But this begs the question of how many folks could read. It also begs the question of how many folks had the leisure time to learn how to read.

• Before, during, and after Luther, at least, over 90% of the Church were illiterate.
• Before Luther, Bibles were mostly in Latin. (Actually the first vernacular Bible was Catholic a couple of centuries before Luther.) Latin was the lingua franca of Europe as Greek once had been. Most of the poor had a passing familiarity with Latin, but could not read Latin at the level of the Bible. Some Bibles were in Hebrew or Greek, but how was that a help to rural labourers in isolated parts of Britain?
• Before, during, and after Luther, very few folks had the leisure time to learn how to read. Nor did they have the leisure time to nor were they in locations where it was easy for them to be read to.
• Before Luther, If poor folks were really eager to learn how to read and wanted to read the Bible and had the leisure time to do both, then the next step would have been to acquire a Bible.
• Stealing a Bible would have been difficult because Bibles were chained to pulpits in order to prevent theft.
• Buying a Bible would have been well nigh impossible because it took whole lifetimes to hand-write them and thus their cost was astronomically beyond the means of the poor.

continued…

Again you are assuming Sola Scriptura means reading the Bible. It does not. It only requires that what be taught is from the Bible. If people had the time to attend church at all, they could have been taught in accordance with the Bible.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Pope Clement XI wrote

As I have posted previously, the Church took measures to stop the spread of heresy among uneducated, illiterate folk who were vulnerable to Luther’s propaganda. The Church considered heresy to be harmful to the individual soul and also harmful to the peace and social order necessary for most folks to make a living, support their families, and therefore to survive.

As I have posted previously, the political chaos, violence, and destruction which resulted from widespread forcible conversions of peasants to Reformism – on pain of death – on pain of seizure of property – was foreseen by the Church as She took measures to prevent this harm or to lessen its impact.

SyCarl:

It was not the Protestants who railed against the Bible Societies providing the Bible to all.

Oh my my. It was not the Bible that the Reformers provided to all, but Luther’s version of it which removed the parts of Sacred Scripture which opposed his new religions, his new traditions of man, his new institutions, his new magisteria, and his new ‘authorities.’

Over the post-Reformation centuries, as schooling spread, the Church realized that educated folks could exercise free choice about heresy and Truth. Without education folks do not have free choice.

During the Reformation there were still throngs of uneducated folks who were very vulnerable to Luther’s propaganda machine and to the forcible conversions to Reformism which were common at that time.

Without education and with the threat of murder and seizures of property always present like a wolf among the fold, folks could not make free choices as to who to follow.

Consequently, as happened during the Christian persecutions under Decius and Diocletian, the Church community was cut down drastically in numbers by means of martyrdom and by means of forcible conversions away from the Truth.

 

[SyCarl]

This begs the question of how people were saved before the Reformation, doesn’t it?

Yep, it was. Latin was the lingua franca.

And, as for understanding, have you forgotten about Sacred Art, Sacred Music, and Sacred Theatre? These things so blythely labelled idolatry by Reformers were actually teaching tools which allowed the poor, the illiterate, the labourers, the slaves to be embraced by the Church, rather than relegated to some remote corner of noblesse oblige.

continued…

Latin may have been the international language but that does not mean that it was understood by the poor and illiterate who are the people who needed be taught. Am I mistaken in believing that Sacred Music was not sung in Latin? If so how could it teach those who did not know Latin. As to sacred music, sacred art and sacred theatre, how would the poor and illiterate, as you assume they are, have time to view theatre or have access to the art that you are referring to? Are we to assume that these people had the means to go where such art was, or that the owners would have permitted them in? You seem to assume that the people had the time and the means to do everything but be taught biblically.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Again you are assuming Sola Scriptura means reading the Bible.

Mr Carl, I have now explained several times that I accept that Sola Scriptura does not require a person to read the Bible himself/herself.

I have now explained several times that I accept that Sola Scriptura allows a person to listen to someone else reading the Bible.

But the Bible must be read.

On the subject of reading and listening, may I suggest that it would be more productive for you to address your criticisms to what I actually say instead of to what might be convenient for your defence of Sola Scripture. Building strawmen does not forward the discussion. Please, do not put words in my mouth. OK?

SyCarl:

It does not. It only requires that what be taught is from the Bible.

OK. That’s a wrap then, isn’t it? Because teaching from the Bible is no longer Sola Scriptura. Teaching from the Bible requires extra-biblical infallible authorities and magisteria.

SyCarl:

If people had the time to attend church at all, they could have been taught in accordance with the Bible.

Over the centuries the Catholic Church has taught either from the Bible or from Tradition consistent with the Bible. What do you think the Mass is?

How do you account for the centuries of Christian history before the Bible was compiled?

What were folks to read then?
What were folks to hear then?

How do you account for the decades of Christian history before the New Testament was written?

Sola Scriptura says that, for those folks, the Old Testament was ‘sufficient.’

 

[SyCarl]

Paul IV? Your link says Pope Pius. It is best, if you are referring to Trent, that you access the original document which is here:

Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures

From the same University as the previous quotes.

The principle of a list of forbidden books was adopted at the Fifth Lateran Council in 1515, then confirmed by the Council of Trent in 1546. The first edition of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, dated 1557 was published by Pope Paul IV. The 32nd edition, published in 1948 included 4000 titles. The Index was suppressed in 1966.

fordham.edu/halsall/mod/indexlibrorum.html

With the invention of the printing press came mass production of error-laden translations even of the Vetus Itala and Vulgate Catholic Bibles, to say nothing of the numerous Reformist versions of the Bible. Trent (Paul) attempted to rectify the proliferation of error to the vulnerable common folk.

Error ridden according to whom? Perhaps you could indicate how the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible were error laden other than the view of the Catholic Church? Or was it really an attempt to protect the power and control the Church had over the common folk from the truth?

 

[st_felicity]

The view that the Church is co-equal with the Bible and that co-equality is Biblical is itself an interpreation of Scripture. The Church claims that authority and I am fully aware of the passages used to support it. Why do you accept that authority?

The reason I accept that authority is very simple: I believe the words of Jesus and do as He says. How do you interpret the Keys to the Kingdom and the power of binding and loosing that Jesus grants the Church he establishes in Matthew? Jesus references an authority that is nowhere mentioned in the Scriptures except in Matthew 23:2 where he mentions that oral tradition of the Jews known as “the chair of Moses.” Historically, the symbolism of Keys and binding and loosing is well documented.

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=191&letter=K
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1073&letter=B
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1283&letter=A

Is it because you read those passages and interpretted them yourself in a way that agrees with the Church? That is self interpreation. That your self interpretation agrees with that of the Church does not change that fact.

The Catholic Church agrees both with the Bible AND with history. The man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura does NOT.

There are passages that indicate that we do not require a teacher. Whether you accept these as such is again a private interpretation.

As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.(1 John 2:27 NASB)

See…this is WHY one needs context and teachers to keep the interpretation of the scriptures in line with the truth of God’s revelation…look at verse 24 in context with verse 27. It explains the necessarily of teachers of truth to hold fast to what was HEARD from the BEGINNING.

24 Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father. 13
25 And this is the promise that he made us: eternal life.
26 I write you these things about those who would deceive you.
27 As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.