Scripture suppressed by the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ReturningToRome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ReturningToRome

Guest
Was Scripture suppressed by the Church and withheld from the people in the time leading up to the Reformation? The claim is made that Luther gave the Word of God back to the people, in their own language.
 
ReturningToRome said:
Was Scripture suppressed by the Church and withheld from the people in the time leading up to the Reformation? The claim is made that Luther gave the Word of God back to the people, in their own language.
Click to expand...
Most were illiterate up to that time. And since people did begin reading it, we disagreed as often as agreed on what it meant anyway!
 
ReturningToRome said:
Was Scripture suppressed by the Church and withheld from the people in the time leading up to the Reformation? The claim is made that Luther gave the Word of God back to the people, in their own language.
Click to expand...
There is so much wrong with that claim that I can hardly write out everything, so I’ll keep it short.
  1. Scripture was not suppressed. You often hear stories of bibles being chained to pulpits so no one could access them. This is true, since before the printing press a bible would take about 3 years to write, and were adorned in such a way that they were worth over a year’s salary for the average person. Chaining them down was only prudent since they were highly desired by theives for their high value, not to mention the gold and precious gems that adorned the covers.
  2. The claim that Luther pioneered scripture in the native tongue is a downright rotten lie in all ways. The church had translations partially completed in English, French, and an entire bible already translated in German with progress being made to complete translations into the other major languages. The Gutenberg bible was published in 1450, 64 years before Luther started the reformation in 1517, and was the complete bible translated into German. Luther did not complete his translation of scripture until 1534. It was the first major work to be printed on the printing press, and it was trying to be quickly distributed to the population who spoke German. IIRC, high costs combined with low literacy rates made this rather futile, since most people understood latin and was content to have scripture read to them each sunday.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg_Bible
 
I think you could credit Gutenberg more than Luther. Prior to the Gutenberg Press, books were expensive and, as indicated previously, most people were illiterate. Gutenberg made reading relatively cheap and it kept getting cheaper.

However, it’s my understanding that there were many (relatively) native language versions of the Bible before Luther. They probably weren’t endorsed by the Church.
 
Can you imagine, Bible alone, illiterate people reading the 1611 King James Bible, about ancient Israel?

Have you seen a copy? :eek:

Bott Radio has preachers on all day explaining Scripture (because the Bible is so self explanatory all a person needs do is read it.)

🤷
 
My understanding is that the Gutenberg Bible is a Latin Vulgate. But that being said, since the literacy levels are so low at this time, and the people who knew how to read and write knew how to read and write in Latin and their vernacular language.

When Protestants tell me that the KJV (1st edition in 1611) was the first English translation of the Bible, I point out that the Douey-Rheims was published in 1609.

But the best argument one can give is to let the KJV Bible translators speak for themselves:
cin.org/users/james/files/pre-1611.htm

(special thanks to Jimmy Akin :))
 
derekohachey said:
My understanding is that the Gutenberg Bible is a Latin Vulgate. But that being said, since the literacy levels are so low at this time, and the people who knew how to read and write knew how to read and write in Latin and their vernacular language.

When Protestants tell me that the KJV (1st edition in 1611) was the first English translation of the Bible, I point out that the Douey-Rheims was published in 1609.

But the best argument one can give is to let the KJV Bible translators speak for themselves:
cin.org/users/james/files/pre-1611.htm

(special thanks to Jimmy Akin :))
Click to expand...
ah, my bad. I’ll need to find the names of the manuscripts of the germna, french, and english translations that were in progress at that time though.
 
My understanding was that that were dozens of translations of the Bible into German before Luther and that Luther used some of these to help him with his translation.

I think Luther was the first to translate from the original Greek into German whereas the previous translations were from Latin into German.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
 
It’s all in the timing. Relatively after the introduction of the printing press, Luther introduced the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura, which opposed the Church’s necessary authoritative interpretation of scripture. Jesus said “by their fruits you will know them”. Look at the fruits of sola scriptura today: millions of popes out there, all running and dodging in different directions. If someone had set out to destroy unity in the Body of Christ, I cannot see how they could have been any more successful.
 
ReturningToRome said:
Was Scripture suppressed by the Church and withheld from the people in the time leading up to the Reformation? The claim is made that Luther gave the Word of God back to the people, in their own language.
Click to expand...
Don’t mean to be rude, but that’s ignorant. In the era of the Internet, how can people think that?
 
One is never surprised at the amount of pure myth ( Protestantand later atheist ) the surrounds so many issues like this.

EG the chaining of bibles. Ohh wicked kafflicks. How could they? Well they only had one Bible and couldn’t lose it.

Reminds me of the Huxley V Wilberforce lie…it never happened or at least didn’t happen as the atheist mythmakers would have us believe.
 
=ReturningToRome;7083900]Was Scripture suppressed by the Church and withheld from the people in the time leading up to the Reformation? The claim is made that Luther gave the Word of God back to the people, in their own language.
Click to expand...
**TRUE!

AND HERE IS WHY.**

**2nd. Peter Chapter One verse 20 **“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. “

Peter informs us that self interpetation is NOT PERMITTED. Why?

**2 Cor. 4: 2-3 ** “We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing."

1Tim.3: 15 “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, [SINGULAR] which is the church [SINGULAR] of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” [SINGULAR]

Timothy clarly states what ought to be obvious. ONLY the CC has the call, the charism and the ability to translate properly, God’s word.

This is obvious from Matt. 16: 19 “I [JESUS] will [DO] give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **Mt. 18:18 **extends this to the other Apostles and through them to the leaders of His Church.

Implicit in this gift is both all the power and all the tools needed to accomplish this task.

Further PROOFof this can be seen in Matt.28 Verses 19 to 20:

[JESUS speaking to the Apostles] “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Teaching ALL that Jesus Commanded is the very reason for the Bible. The ability to do it Fully, Correctly, and trutfully; by absolute necessity has to be prt of the authority given by Jesus to enable it to accomplish the goal He set for them.

And to His CC and this Church alone and ONLY does Jesus give HIMSELF as a pledge of her teaching truth [and inability to lie] on all matters of Faith and or Morals.

Eph. 4: 18 “they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart;” [Because there leaders left the One True Faith’ One true Church.]

**John.17 Verses 14 to 19: ** [Jesus praying to the Father] “I [JESUS] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. [16] They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. [19] **And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. **”

It is no acident, not coincidence that the Protestant community of MANY churches and faith beliefs are foundational on Luthers self-interpetation of the bible.

Today after but a few hundred years the Protestant churches number in the THOUSANDS, while the CC remains ONE, with 27 connected branches after 2,000 years.

The Fathers in responce to Luthers position published the Catholic translation from St. Jeromes Latin Vulgate bible about ten years before the KJB was published.

It was feared that Catholics anxious to “know the bible” would read the KJB which is missing seven entire books as well as hving numerious text changes to accomidate there New Faith positions.

This action was seen as “the lesser of two evils.”

TIME and History have proven the early CC Correct!

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
yinekka said:
You might like to read:
Where We Got the Bible, our debt to the Catholic Church by Rev (later bishop) Henry Graham
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Were there no vernacular translations of the Bible before the reformation? - Fr Paul Stenhouse MSC
jloughnan.tripod.com/fun1_2.htm

Did the Catholic Church keep the Bible from English Christians? - Fr Paul Stenhouse MSC
jloughnan.tripod.com/fun1_1.htm
Click to expand...
Thank you for these 3 very interesting links. 🙂
 
Another key doctrine of Luther was that any Christian, with the light of the Holy Spirit, could interpret scripture. Then, of course, a good number of his followers read the scriptures, came up with really wacky interpretations of various passages, and ran amok. There’s a good reason why Luther promulgated not only the bible in German but also various catechisms to guide his followers in what the bible really meant – according to Luther, of course.
 
Alan55 said:
Another key doctrine of Luther was that any Christian, with the light of the Holy Spirit, could interpret scripture. Then, of course, a good number of his followers read the scriptures, came up with really wacky interpretations of various passages, and ran amok. There’s a good reason why Luther promulgated not only the bible in German but also various catechisms to guide his followers in what the bible really meant – according to Luther, of course.
Click to expand...
…to say nothing of Calvin, the Anabaptists, and many others who looked at the same scriptures that Luther was interpreting – with the benefit of the Holy Spirit, mind you – and found that Luther held to incorrect positions on the sacraments (Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist, for example), predestination, etc.
 
Whitacre_Girl said:
There is so much wrong with that claim that I can hardly write out everything, so I’ll keep it short.
  1. Scripture was not suppressed. You often hear stories of bibles being chained to pulpits so no one could access them. This is true, since before the printing press a bible would take about 3 years to write, and were adorned in such a way that they were worth over a year’s salary for the average person. Chaining them down was only prudent since they were highly desired by theives for their high value, not to mention the gold and precious gems that adorned the covers.
They were chained in the same way phone books used to be attached to pay phones (when there were pay phones). The “chained bible syndrome” is the mark of an extreme, yet completely ignorant, fundamentalist. All one has to do is go to WIKIPEDIA and search for “chained library” and one will see pictures and links to numerous European chained libraries where ALL the books were chained to a pole or bar and could go no further that a reading shelf. Lorraine Boettner had a lot to answer for when he crossed into eternity.
Click to expand...
 
I guess it does not really make sense to preach Christianity and keep your best resource purposely hidden.

I think when people break away from other groups, in order to define themselves they usually have themes and characteristics that they believe the new group exhibits and that correspondingly the original group must be opposed to, or have even purposely suppressed.

I’d suggest that when the Protestants broke away it was faith and the Bible, when the Atheists broke away it was reason and Science.

Both are tempted to believe they have these chosen characteristics and the original group doesn’t, never did or purposely suppressed them and therefore the original group need to be ‘enlightened’ to see things ‘properly.’
 
Alan55 said:
Another key doctrine of Luther was that any Christian, with the light of the Holy Spirit, could interpret scripture. Then, of course, a good number of his followers read the scriptures, came up with really wacky interpretations of various passages, and ran amok. There’s a good reason why Luther promulgated not only the bible in German but also various catechisms to guide his followers in what the bible really meant – according to Luther, of course.
Click to expand...
I remember being tought at school in ZA that the Church kept holy scripture from the public. :eek:

Something we should keep in mind is that not all Protestant dogma is based on Luther, especially the newer groups and that many protestant people are not hostile to Catholic teaching. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top