Protestants: When did the Church depart from Truth into Error?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rr1213
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ani_Ibi said:
Yes, tremendously ironic. Especially considering that over 90% of the Church could not read. What would they have used their Bibles for? Plant stands?

Thoughts anyone? 😃

The insistance on using the Bible as the gate to Truth is so elitist. It is so based on a 21 Century, Western, affluent experience of life. It so excludes thoroughly the very people whom Jesus most chided us for excluding! What did he call them? “The least of Mine.”

Those very folks whom Sola Scriptura excludes are the very folks whom Jesus calls His Own.
Click to expand...
Right on the money 👍

On the other hand, it did cause the Protestants to run all over the world teaching people to read. So there was an up-side to it 😃
 
Ani_Ibi said:
Yes, tremendously ironic. Especially considering that over 90% of the Church could not read. What would they have used their Bibles for? Plant stands?

Thoughts anyone? 😃

The insistance on using the Bible as the gate to Truth is so elitist. It is so based on a 21 Century, Western, affluent experience of life. It so excludes thoroughly the very people whom Jesus most chided us for excluding! What did he call them? “The least of Mine.”

Those very folks whom Sola Scriptura excludes are the very folks whom Jesus calls His Own.
Click to expand...
While people may not have been able to read, they could be read to from vernacular Bibles they could understand.
 
SyCarl said:
While people may not have been able to read, they could be read to from vernacular Bibles they could understand.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I bet it would take - oh, I don’t know - maybe 3 years to read the entire bible out loud, right? Maybe sing a psalm in between just to keep their spirits up 😃
 
Grateful4mercy said:
Right on the money 👍

On the other hand, it did cause the Protestants to run all over the world teaching people to read. So there was an up-side to it 😃
Click to expand...
Somehow to insinuate that protesting the church had anything to do with modern literacy rates doesn’t set well with me.

Its sort of feels like claiming the invention of the printing press or defiling the scriptures (kjv) made the false doctrines correct.

Does prove God will bring good from all things for those who believe though I suppose. Even though all those things aren’t neccessarily good.
 
Grateful4mercy said:
Hmm, I bet it would take - oh, I don’t know - maybe 3 years to read the entire bible out loud, right? Maybe sing a psalm in between just to keep their spirits up 😃
Click to expand...
So what if it would take a long time to read it? The point is they didn’t need to be able to read to have the Bible read to them, not in Latin, as the Church did, but in their own tongue.
 
SyCarl said:
So what if it would take a long time to read it? The point is they didn’t need to be able to read to have the Bible read to them, not in Latin, as the Church did, but in their own tongue.
Click to expand...
This was a little tongue-in-cheek inside joke. The CC reads the entire bible at Mass on a 3 year cycle. Most days we read an OT verse, sing a psalm, then a reading from the letters of the Apostles, then a reading from the Gospel. If you go to Mass every week for 3 years you will hear the entire bible read to you out loud (in your native tongue). 🙂
 
You do know that Latin was the ‘popular’ language, don’t you?

Picture a missionary going into a reasonable size city in Europe around AD 1200. Quite likely there will be sizable groups of people there who speak French (of various dialects and types). And a few who speak Danish or Finnish or Norwegian, some speaking various Germanic dialects, the Irish contingent speaking a type of Gaelic, some low Dutch, some speaking Italian, some Swiss, a few speaking the Chaucerian middle English, maybe some Russians, some Arabic traders, some Spaniards and Portuguese. . .

Guess what? Virtually every one of them would have some knowledge of Latin. Rather than having 15 different missionaries going out to speak to 15 different groups in 15 different tongues, all that is needed is ONE missionary speaking to an ENTIRE group in ONE language.

Just because a sizeable number of people are ignorant not only of Latin, but of all but their ‘own’ language today does not mean that even the ‘serf’ of those long-ago days was likewise ignorant of anything but his ‘own’ language. The man (and woman) of the times from around AD 1000-AD 1500 was on the contrary more likely to know more than one language as a matter of course.

The people of those times may have lacked the ‘breadth’ of our contemporary culture, where a lot of people know a ‘little’ about a ‘lot’ of things. However, they had a DEPTH of culture that we would do well to emulate; they may not have known about a ‘lot’ of things, but what they DID know, they knew a lot about.

People picture those people as ignorant, brainwashed dolts who knew at most some vague, Catholic Church distorted picture of God = the pope, give us money for your sins to be forgiven and that’s all you need to know.

They forget that with a preliteral culture comes a very strong ORAL tradition. These people had anywhere from 1000-1500 years of that oral culture. They ‘knew’ more about God in what they had been told, and read to, that lots of people who spend their days combing through their Bibles and concordances arguing about what a passage ‘meant’ probably do.
 
That would indeed have been a great idea. But that is not what the medieval Church did–you are anachronistically projecting current practice backwards. (Never mind that in fact most of the OT is not covered even by the current Sunday lectionary.) The traditional lectionary had a 1-year cycle and only included NT readings, except for Ember Days and a few other occasions. Furthermore, it was read in Latin almost exclusively. I believe that the practice of following the Latin readings with a vernacular version began in the early 20th century–it certainly was not the common practice in the Middle Ages or the early modern period.

Edwin
Grateful4mercy said:
Hmm, I bet it would take - oh, I don’t know - maybe 3 years to read the entire bible out loud, right? Maybe sing a psalm in between just to keep their spirits up 😃
Click to expand...
 
40.png
SyCarl:
While people may not have been able to read, they could be read to from vernacular Bibles they could understand.
Click to expand...
This begs the question, doesn’t it? And really seems to be grasping at straws.

Most folks did not have the leisure to sit there interminably while someone read the Bible to them. Their work days were from before dawn to well after dusk. Weekly attendance at the Mass did not afford them the time to study the Bible.

Folks learned about Christianity through sacred art (those idols some folks like to accuse us of worshipping); sacred music; theatre; prayer; revelation. All of these being non-textual.

The fact of the matter is that Sola Scriptura – apart from being unfounded – is elitist. It is elitist because the study of the Bible cannot be undertaken by the illiterate, the poor, the working class. Sola Scriptura is the spawn of the literate, the moneyed, and the leisure class.

So I am assuming that Jesus directed the Gospel to the literate, the moneyed, and the leisure class, then? And the Church departed from the Truth when she attempted to teach the illiterate, the poor, and the working class? This would have been during the time of Jesus Himself. I wonder why Jesus did not correct that errancy Himself while He was alive?

D-oh! :doh2:
 
ACbishop said:
Here you go again with this, “We are right and the rest of creation is wrong” stuff again. This seems to be the norm with you sir. You have a huge beef with Protestants in general and will stop at nothing to continue to feed your own ego and keep reminding yourself that you are right on all counts. Maybe this is what you have to do to keep all of the Catholic propaganda from appearing to be the lies, deceit and manipulation that it genuinely is. It proves nothing to non-Catholics to use, “the church says that it is so” as proof on any and all issues. The Reformation took place becase it had to for Christianity to survive.
Click to expand...
Wow. This sounds really angry. What is the propaganda to which you are referring?
 
Grateful4mercy said:
Hmm, I bet it would take - oh, I don’t know - maybe 3 years to read the entire bible out loud, right? Maybe sing a psalm in between just to keep their spirits up 😃
Click to expand...
As opposed to what, not having a church to go to that reads scripture at all but insists on hearing the individual and ifallable opinion of a false christ whose theology is based on protesting the root its derived from?

Isn’t this what Paul admonished the Corinthians for?

By the way, a Psalm IS scripture. Forgive me if I missunderstand you but it sounds like you might be a bit resentful towards scripture being read to anyone. If your not then sry. Anyone that would, would be contrary towards reading scripture at all if you ask me. Sort of like contrary towards the church, miracles or prayer for that matter. I guess that would be protesting that leads to division by getting others to follow false doctrines and departing from the sound doctrines given.

Where would anamosity towards these things come from? The master of saints or devils.
 
Grateful4mercy said:
This was a little tongue-in-cheek inside joke. The CC reads the entire bible at Mass on a 3 year cycle. Most days we read an OT verse, sing a psalm, then a reading from the letters of the Apostles, then a reading from the Gospel. If you go to Mass every week for 3 years you will hear the entire bible read to you out loud (in your native tongue). 🙂
Click to expand...
You read the entire bible in three years through weekly scripture readings on Sunday? That’s only 156 weeks worth of Sunday Scripture readings. I think you meant that if you go to Mass everyday…
 
rr1213 said:
You read the entire bible in three years through weekly scripture readings on Sunday? That’s only 156 weeks worth of Sunday Scripture readings. I think you meant that if you go to Mass everyday…
Click to expand...
He didnt say how much was read each week. How many chapters are in the bible any how?
 
ACbishop said:
The Reformation took place becase it had to for Christianity to survive.
Click to expand...
So the church needed to be betrayed to survive huh?

Intersting thought but wouldnt that make Jesus a liar when he said he would protect the church from the gates of hell and send it the comforter to lead it into all truth until the end of time.

Now if the reformation had actually reformed anything then I would agree with you.

On the contrary it was a disobedient rebellion aimed at recreating the wheel but left the hub. As we all know a wheel cannot turn without a hub.

The Church visiable endures and will do so until Jesus returns no matter who protests it. Do you think Martin Luther was the first or will be the last? Bah!

Heresies will either be left behind or fall and come back to the hub. Not without a free will choice first though.
 
rr1213 said:
As opposed to the learned, I don’t think that the average person spoke, let alone read, Latin during Medieval times.
Click to expand...
There are two issues:
  1. Being able to read: Here is an article on Picture Bibles. But the existence of these books still begs the question of who could afford them, since they were all hand written, hand bound. It also begs the question of who had the leisure to read them, since most folks worked hard from before dawn to well after dusk every day, Sunday being their day off.
  2. Being conversant in Latin: Here is some information on language facility but it is for Medieval England only. I can’t quote from the webpage but it claims that quite a few folks could ‘get by’ in non-Classical Latin as well as Hebrew and French.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top