Was the Bible forbidden in the Middle Ages, as some have claimed?

[Claudius]

I have already listed the Roman Catholic documents that in fact DID ban books and gave you all the references so you can check yourself. I don’t want to continually have to list them over and over.

No you haven’t. Please show me where in the thread the place that you have listed these documents. I have checked the documents that you listed and it is a bogus list. You claim that “The First Book of Moses” is refering to Genesis but that just is not true. I have discovered what this and a number of your other listed books are and they do not refer to Bible documents at all. In any event, whatever these books are that you have listed, the fact remains, the Layity was always been encouraged to read the Bible and rewarded with indulgences for doing so and the Clergy have always been REQUIRED to read the bible, and at Mass they read it TO the Layity.

Besides, the Bible being banned or not banned is only important if you hold to Sola Scriptura which is a false doctrine. The Mass, and specifically the Eucharist is far more holy and important then the Bible ever will be. If you don’t agree with this then I can only assume that you are hear to lead Catholic astray and not get to the truth.

We also must contend with the problem of the protestants who now worship the Bible in place of God in a clear cut case of idolotry. Perhaps the Bible will need to go the way of the staff with the snake on it from the Old Testament in order to remove all obsticles between believers and their duty to render to God pleasing worhsip.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Claudius

I believe I did this on this thread but it could have been another thread on this forum so I will post the information again.

We won’t even go back to the early years, because the church carefully guarded the books and did not even want to allow anyone to have copies. However, the many Churches of Christ that existed outside the Catholic Church had many copies.

In 1229, the *Council of Toulouse *banned all copies of the Bible in the vulgar tongue. In Canon 1, they ordered bishops and priests to seek out and search all houses looking for such books. Then they destroyed the houses when books were found in accordance with Canon 6.

In Canon 14, they forbade the laity of possession of the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The *Council of Tarragona *in 1234 ruled that no one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the romance language and if they did possess such books they were to turn them over to the local bishop within eight days so that they may be burned.

They commanded that no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract made in the time of John Wycliffe.

The *Council of Constance *in 1415 condemned the books of Wycliffe, dug up his bones 40 years after he was buried and burned them in a public display, then tossed them into a river.

In 1525, William Tyndale, who translated the New Testament, which was of course banned, was arrested, jailed for a year and then burned at the stake by the church.

Pope Pius IV had a list of forbidden books compiled and officially prohibited them in the Index of Trent (Indes Librorum Prohibitorum) of 1559.

In it he said that all books condemned prior to 1515 by popes or ecumenical councils, even though they may not be on the list, were to be condemned.

In his rule II, he condemned all the books of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Hubmaier, Schwenckfeld and others who had translated the Bible and prohibited them. He said that all those books, without exception which deal with religion were banned. Any examined by Catholic theologians and approved by them would be allowed. He also said that any other translations of the Old Testament were to be read only by learned and pious men, as long as they elucidate the Vulgate, but would not be considered Sacred Scripture.

His rule 4 stated that the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is dangerous and must be done in accord with the counsel of the local priest. Permission in writing would allow Catholic translations of the book to be read. However any copies of other translations must be turned in to the church.

Rule 6 said that any other books in the vernacular dealing with controversies between Catholics and others of that time were not to be permitted but handled as the other heretical books.

To look at a much later time period, in 1824, Pope Leo XII issued a *UBI PRIMIUM *that exhorted the church to try every means possible to keep their flock from “those deadly pastures” and to strictly observe the rules of the Congregation of the Index and convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language would cause more harm than good.

In 1844, Pope Gregory XVI issued an encyclical, *INTER PRAECIPUAS *complained that the common babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists were reading the books in the common language and reminded his people of the prohibition of such books.

Then in 1897, Pope Leo XIII prohibited non-Catholic Bibles again.

He stated: ”All versions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language, made by non-Catholics are prohibited; and especially those published by the Bible societies, which have been more that once condemned by the Roman Pontiffs, because in them the wise laws of the Church concerning the publication of the sacred books are entirely disregarded.”

These documents are on many websites and available for anyone who wished to read them. The Catholic sites list them in their entirety.

For anyone to say the Bible was not kept from the common man by the Roman Catholics would be to deny the truth. The record is there for anyone who wants to see it.

All Christians should now move forward and try to follow the guidelines we are given in the Bible. I personally believe that we now possess as good a translation of the Holy Bible as possible as God has guided it throughout the ages, in spite of some who may have attempted to change it.

We should not, however, forget the history of how we got here and all the other history of our religion.

 

[guanophore]

All Christians should now move forward and try to follow the guidelines we are given in the Bible.

 "..the Bible being banned or not banned is only important if you hold to Sola Scriptura which is a false doctrine.   If you don't agree with this then I can only assume that you are hear to lead Catholic astray and not get to the truth.

I think OS has made it very clear that this is his primary purpose on this forum. He consistently promotes his anti-catholic attitudes and doctrine. I can’t imagine that there is any other purpose than to lead others into it.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Old Scholar:

Claudius

I believe I did this on this thread but it could have been another thread on this forum so I will post the information again.

We won’t even go back to the early years, because the church carefully guarded the books and did not even want to allow anyone to have copies. However, the many Churches of Christ that existed outside the Catholic Church had many copies.

Who do you signify by Churches of Christ?
Who do you signify by the Catholic Church?

In 1229, the *Council of Toulouse *banned all copies of the Bible in the vulgar tongue. In Canon 1, they ordered bishops and priests to seek out and search all houses looking for such books. Then they destroyed the houses when books were found in accordance with Canon 6.

This council and its proposed actions should be read in context of the Albigensianism then raging in southern France.

In Canon 14, they forbade the laity of possession of the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Again, this canon should be read in context of the Albigensianism.

If the translations were done by Albigensians, then I would imagine the translation would tend towards heterodox interpretations on which Catholics and Protestants would alike disagree.

I’m not condoning this specific action of forbidding the Bible from the hands of laymen, but I do believe that this council and its actions must be viewed in relation to the Albigensian heresy.

The *Council of Tarragona *in 1234 ruled that no one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the romance language and if they did possess such books they were to turn them over to the local bishop within eight days so that they may be burned.

I don’t know the context of this council.

They commanded that no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract made in the time of John Wycliffe.

Perhaps the translations were egregiously bad?

The *Council of Constance *in 1415 condemned the books of Wycliffe, dug up his bones 40 years after he was buried and burned them in a public display, then tossed them into a river.

This does seem, yes, a little spiteful. Jan Hus was burned, too.

In 1525, William Tyndale, who translated the New Testament, which was of course banned, was arrested, jailed for a year and then burned at the stake by the church.

All right.

Pope Pius IV had a list of forbidden books compiled and officially prohibited them in the Index of Trent (Indes Librorum Prohibitorum) of 1559.

The Index has since been lifted. I have mixed feelings on the Index. On the one hand, it is a good thing: a warning to pious literate people that certain books are dangerous and fallacious in their views. But, on the other hand, it suggests that the hierarchy should think for the people rather than the people freely think with the mind of the Church…if that makes any sense.

In it he said that all books condemned prior to 1515 by popes or ecumenical councils, even though they may not be on the list, were to be condemned.

Very interesting.

In his rule II, he condemned all the books of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Hubmaier, Schwenckfeld and others who had translated the Bible and prohibited them. He said that all those books, without exception which deal with religion were banned. Any examined by Catholic theologians and approved by them would be allowed. He also said that any other translations of the Old Testament were to be read only by learned and pious men, as long as they elucidate the Vulgate, but would not be considered Sacred Scripture.

Interesting. Not all Luther wrote is bad.

His rule 4 stated that the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is dangerous and must be done in accord with the counsel of the local priest. Permission in writing would allow Catholic translations of the book to be read. However any copies of other translations must be turned in to the church.

Even many Protestant pastors today would advise their congregation to be careful of Mormon and Jehovah Witness tracts and translations.

The issue I see is force rather than the issue of warning against translations of the Bible, which may or may not be orthodox.

Rule 6 said that any other books in the vernacular dealing with controversies between Catholics and others of that time were not to be permitted but handled as the other heretical books.

Interesting.

To look at a much later time period, in 1824, Pope Leo XII issued a *UBI PRIMIUM *that exhorted the church to try every means possible to keep their flock from “those deadly pastures” and to strictly observe the rules of the Congregation of the Index and convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language would cause more harm than good.

All right. Guarding the flock from doctrinal error. That’s nothing new. St. Irenaeus attempted to do the same with his flock against forms of Gnosticism in his own day.

In 1844, Pope Gregory XVI issued an encyclical, *INTER PRAECIPUAS *complained that the common babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists were reading the books in the common language and reminded his people of the prohibition of such books.

Then in 1897, Pope Leo XIII prohibited non-Catholic Bibles again.

He stated: ”All versions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language, made by non-Catholics are prohibited; and especially those published by the Bible societies, which have been more that once condemned by the Roman Pontiffs, because in them the wise laws of the Church concerning the publication of the sacred books are entirely disregarded.”

Ok, interesting.

These documents are on many websites and available for anyone who wished to read them. The Catholic sites list them in their entirety.

For anyone to say the Bible was not kept from the common man by the Roman Catholics would be to deny the truth. The record is there for anyone who wants to see it.

From the foregoing, one can say that the Church–or rather, Catholic bishops in certain places and during certain circumstances–prohibited translations of the Bible into the vernacular. I do not believe this can be denied. However, in other cases, especially when dealing with decisions of the Pope of Rome, it would appear that Bible translations as such are not prohibited, but only those translations not undertook and accepted by the Church.

The conciliar canons you present are from local councils–not ecumenical ones. If the Church of Rome had a true desire to stamp out all reading of the Bible by lay Christians in the vernacular, then why not make this a fast and general rule at an ecumenical Council, such as at Trent?

All Christians should now move forward and try to follow the guidelines we are given in the Bible. I personally believe that we now possess as good a translation of the Holy Bible as possible as God has guided it throughout the ages, in spite of some who may have attempted to change it.

Ehrman would disagree.

We should not, however, forget the history of how we got here and all the other history of our religion.

 

[Madaglan]

My statement was that Jerome translated it to his own liking, as he did not accept the Septuagint.

The “to his own liking” implies to me that Jerome translated on a whim. I do not believe this to be the case, judging from his actions. Jerome traveled to Palestine to study Hebrew with Jewish scholars. He also used previous Latin translations to assist him.

Of interest: St. Augustine did accept the Septuagint, and even claimed its translation as divinely inspired. He remarks, in his City of God, that the Septuagint is the Church’s official translation, although others have translated the Bible into other languages.

 

[Madaglan]

The oldest copies of the New Testament we have only date back to 400 A.D. Seems that was about the time Jerome started his translations…

I don’t know about this subject.

But, this withstanding, it should be noted: the Eastern Churches never relied on the Vulgate. They stuck to the Septuagint, or to the Peshitta, or whatever translation made it into common usage.

 

[Madaglan]

Why don’t you start another thread and tell us how Christianity spread out further than the Roman Empire in the first two centuries? I would love to see that one.

Syriac Christianity.

 

[Old_Scholar]

The “to his own liking” implies to me that Jerome translated on a whim. I do not believe this to be the case, judging from his actions. Jerome traveled to Palestine to study Hebrew with Jewish scholars. He also used previous Latin translations to assist him.

Of interest: St. Augustine did accept the Septuagint, and even claimed its translation as divinely inspired. He remarks, in his City of God, that the Septuagint is the Church’s official translation, although others have translated the Bible into other languages.

This needs to be clarified. The “to his own liking” was not meant to be detrimental. Jerome wanted to be sure it was translated correctly so he wanted to translate it directly from the Hebrew and not from the Greek. He was not happy with the Septuagint as he felt it was not a good translation.

His final acceptance of the apocrypha was due to the extreme pressure placed on him by Augustine. You can read their letters back and forth and see how Jerome fought putting it there, but finally consented to satisfy Augustine.

 

[Madaglan]

This needs to be clarified. The “to his own liking” was not meant to be detrimental. Jerome wanted to be sure it was translated correctly so he wanted to translate it directly from the Hebrew and not from the Greek. He was not happy with the Septuagint as he felt it was not a good translation.

His final acceptance of the apocrypha was due to the extreme pressure placed on him by Augustine. You can read their letters back and forth and see how Jerome fought putting it there, but finally consented to satisfy Augustine.

Oh ok. Well, in a way, he did go his own way; the LXX was the translation used by the Church since Apostolic times.

I haven’t read the letters, but I’ll take your word for it.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Who do you signify by Churches of Christ?
Who do you signify by the Catholic Church?

**The Churches of Christ are the churches that teach the same gospel the apostles taught, even today. They never wavered from their teachings, or added anything to them.

When I refer to the Catholic Church, I refer to the Romanists; those who established the office of the pope and believe in government of the church from Rome.**

This council and its proposed actions should be read in context of the Albigensianism then raging in southern France.

The Romanists called the Albigensians heretics but they do not tell us what they did that was so wrong. According to history, and not the history of the Catholic Church, they followed apostolic teachings. However, all their books were burned by the church so we really don’t know what they taught, do we…Howeve most theologians and scholars believe they still exist in the Baptist Chruch today.

Again, this canon should be read in context of the Albigensianism.

If the translations were done by Albigensians, then I would imagine the translation would tend towards heterodox interpretations on which Catholics and Protestants would alike disagree.

You are imagining but you really don’t know for sure do you? All you have is the word of the church. Who speaks for the Albigensians?

I’m not condoning this specific action of forbidding the Bible from the hands of laymen, but I do believe that this council and its actions must be viewed in relation to the Albigensian heresy.

**Even if this is so, to withold the Bible from anyone would not be a Christian thing to do. Where is the “polluted” and heretical Bible they taught from? **

I don’t know the context of this council.

Perhaps the translations were egregiously bad?

That may be so, but what were the transgressions?

This does seem, yes, a little spiteful. Jan Hus was burned, too.

All right.

The Index has since been lifted. I have mixed feelings on the Index. On the one hand, it is a good thing: a warning to pious literate people that certain books are dangerous and fallacious in their views. But, on the other hand, it suggests that the hierarchy should think for the people rather than the people freely think with the mind of the Church…if that makes any sense.

The problem is that the Romanists banned everything they had not personally approved. From an objective viewpoint, there are many things the Romanists teach that others cannot find in Scripture, so we wonder what was the offense and were is the proof of what the RCC teaches today? It is not in Scripture so who are the heretics?

Very interesting.

Interesting. Not all Luther wrote is bad.

Even many Protestant pastors today would advise their congregation to be careful of Mormon and Jehovah Witness tracts and translations.

That is true but they deal with them and do not burn them or burn the people who wrote them. Since they use written words, we can easily see what is different from our Bible. We can’t do that with the RCC. They make the claim of “Tradition” and that covers anything the church wants to say.

The issue I see is force rather than the issue of warning against translations of the Bible, which may or may not be orthodox.

It is true things were handled in those days by force rather than reason.

Interesting.

All right. Guarding the flock from doctrinal error. That’s nothing new. St. Irenaeus attempted to do the same with his flock against forms of Gnosticism in his own day.

Protestants today would say the doctrinal errors are in the RCC. The standard does not authenticate what they teach. Where is this “Tradition” written down anyhow? How can it be checked? Remember Paul says check the Scriptures for proof. We can’t do that without something as a guideline. It’s just believe what we are told. Doesn’t that worry you?



Ok, interesting.



From the foregoing, one can say that the Church–or rather, Catholic bishops in certain places and during certain circumstances–prohibited translations of the Bible into the vernacular. I do not believe this can be denied. However, in other cases, especially when dealing with decisions of the Pope of Rome, it would appear that Bible translations as such are not prohibited, but only those translations not undertook and accepted by the Church.

The conciliar canons you present are from local councils–not ecumenical ones. If the Church of Rome had a true desire to stamp out all reading of the Bible by lay Christians in the vernacular, then why not make this a fast and general rule at an ecumenical Council, such as at Trent?

This was made a rule by several popes. They are supposed to have more power than a council aren’t they?

Ehrman would disagree.

 

[LilyM]

Old_Scholar:
You are joking, aren’t you? The Catholic Church sent St Dominic and his fellow religionists to preach against them. They didn’t do so without knowing and recording something of what the Albigenses believed that was so offensive.

Try reading the following article on Albigensianism for starters: newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm

Or wikipedia if you don’t trust a Catholic source (it’s listed under Catharism which is exactly the same thing - the Albigenses were also called Cathars - it’s at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensianism)

If you can’t see what’s wrong with people who believe in TWO Gods, that material creation is intrinsically evil contrary to Genesis where God declares all creation GOOD, and that suicide is a good thing, then I don’t know what to say.

 

[Zooey]

Old Scholar:

The *Council of Constance *in 1415 condemned the books of Wycliffe, dug up his bones 40 years after he was buried and burned them in a public display, then tossed them into a river.

Madaglan:

This does seem, yes, a little spiteful.

It seems more ridiculous than spiteful.
And sheer hell on the ecology of the river. Maybe we should get Al Gore to dig them up, and use their bones for fertilizer or something.

Sheesh. The:whacky: things people get their knickers in a twist over…

 

[Crumpy]

…Besides, the Bible being banned or not banned is only important if you hold to Sola Scriptura which is a false doctrine. The Mass, and specifically the Eucharist is far more holy and important then the Bible ever will be. If you don’t agree with this then I can only assume that you are hear to lead Catholic astray and not get to the truth.
…

Hey, why don’t we all take a deep breath and relax a bit.

We know that the quote above is not exactly the position of the Catholic Church. Without the Bible, I don’t think we have the Eucharist? do we?

The Bible is the foundation of the belief and celebration of the Eucharist. We need them both, which are both gifts from God.

 

[CreosMary]

From reading some posts it seems
“OLD SCHOLAR”
Only wants to argue and is not interested in seeking the truth.

As to some of “his” points
I can see Bishops not wanting vernacular translations or non Catholic interpretations as it is thier responsibility to protect the faithful from heretics and anti-Catholic lunatics.

Knowing the the Bible is Holy; Bishops would want to ensure that it was kept intact and without faulty translation.
What has happened since the Protestant rebellion? now 10,000 new “sects” opening shop a year, each one claiming to have the REAL truth, because of own thier interpretation, independent of Tradition and the Magisterium which comes to us from the apostles.
I love being Catholic

God Bless

 

[Old_Scholar]

You are joking, aren’t you? The Catholic Church sent St Dominic and his fellow religionists to preach against them. They didn’t do so without knowing and recording something of what the Albigenses believed that was so offensive.

Try reading the following article on Albigensianism for starters: newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm

Or wikipedia if you don’t trust a Catholic source (it’s listed under Catharism which is exactly the same thing - the Albigenses were also called Cathars - it’s at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensianism)

If you can’t see what’s wrong with people who believe in TWO Gods, that material creation is intrinsically evil contrary to Genesis where God declares all creation GOOD, and that suicide is a good thing, then I don’t know what to say.

That’s the real problem. All you read is the RCC version of what it was all about and then recommend a website encyclopedia that anyone can change to read whatever they want to.

The truth about the Albigensians is that they started out as the Paulicans. They quoted and followed the writings of Paul and that angers their persecutors.

The Albigensians were evangelical and held to two doctrines necessary to a New Testament Church; Scriptural Baptism and Scriptural Salvation.(1) They spread throughout southern France and northern Italy and their main fault seemed to be that they did not follow the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church.

They were condemned for speculations for virtuous rules of action. They said that a Christian church should consist of good people, a Church had no power to frame any constitutions; it was not right to take any oaths; it was not lawful to kill mankind; the Church ought not to persecute people at all, even the wicked; the benefits of society should be available to all people; faith without works could not save a man; there was no need for Priests, especially the wicked ones; the Sacraments, and orders, and ceremonies of the Church of Rome were futile, expensive, oppressive, and wicked. They baptized by immersion and rejected infant baptism. They were decidedly anti-clerica.l(2)

The Albigensian “heresy” brought about the civilization, the literature, the national existence of the most opulent and enlightened part of the great European family. It is because of their oppression and persecution of the RCC that there is little on record of them.

They had very high moral standards and their actions showed their zeal for the purity of life. They had schools, institutions and charitable organizations of their own and this state of affairs angered the pope. They were condemned by the Lateran Council in 1139 and by the same in Tours in 1163. The RCC sent mission after mission to get them to return to the Roman Church and in 1189 they employed force. Pope Innocent III started a crusade against them and the first city they captured was Braziers, a city of 40,000 people. The Earl of Leicester asked the Abbott of Ceteaus, the Papal legate, What he was to do with the inhabitants of Braziers and the legate answered: "Kill them all. God knows His own." This war carried on for 20 years until they were all wiped out. Town after town was taken, pillaged, and burnt. Nothing was left but a smoking waste. In 1229 the inquisition finished its work.(Schaff-Herzog, pp. 62-63)

The RCC had again stamped out the opposition but that only caused many more groups to break away from the RCC. The Petrobrussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Berengarians, Waldenses and others classified by their opposition to the Roman Church as Anabaptists, “Heretics,” etc. This was the forerunner of those who came later, such as: Luther, Calvin, Hubmaier, Zwingli, Knox and others.

It was not because of any heresy to the Scriptures but the fact that the people did not want to believe what the RCC was teaching as it was against Scripture. That’s what really happened but I am sure the RCC has recorded it differently.

Even if all the RCC said was true, should they have killed and burned those who did not believe as they did? Do you suppose that could happen today?

Of course you can believe what you want to but if you read real history, then you would learn the truth.



Gob Bless

(1) Roy Mason, The Church Jesus Built, p. 132
(2) John T. Christian, The History of the Baptists, Vol 1, pp. 60- 61

 

[Lampo]

If you have patience with me for a little I shall prove to you that, just as the Catholic Church at the very beginning wrote and collected together the sacred books of the New Testament, so by her monks and friars and clergy generally she preserved them from destruction during the Middle Ages and made the people familiar with them; and, in short, that it is to the Roman Church again under God that we owe the possession of the Bible in its integrity at the present day.

Taken from here.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Taken from here.

Thanks. I have read quite a bit of Rev. Graham but he doesn’t seem to give a great deal of references; mostly his personal opinions.

 

[brotherhrolf]

The Albigensian “heresy” brought about the civilization, the literature, the national existence of the most opulent and enlightened part of the great European family. It is because of their oppression and persecution of the RCC that there is little on record of them.

You know, I find this quite odd. In all of the many, many hours of history that I have, I never once heard of an “Albigensian Renaissance” or their literature. Are you saying that the rise of chivalric literature and the “courts of love” are attributable to this “Albigensian Renaissance”. I think Eleanor of Aquitaine and her court might have a little something to say about that given that the Languedoc was the home of this genre. Said genre being in violent opposition to the Albigensians.

There was a Twelth Century Renaissance which, unfortunately, was primarily in northern Europe.

amazon.com/Renaissance-Twelfth-Century-Charles-Haskins/dp/0674760751/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211305967&sr=8-1

amazon.com/Twelfth-Century-Renaissance-Twelfth-Century/dp/0719042569/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211305967&sr=8-2

amazon.com/Twelfth-Century-Renaissance-Christopher-Brooke/dp/B001128V52/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211305967&sr=8-14

The last two I have in my collection. The book by Brooke was used in my graduate history seminar on the Upper Middle Ages.
Funny, before I responded to you Old Scholar, I went and checked and, no, I don’t see any reference to an Albigensian Renaissance.

So, like the good historian that I am, I went back and checked your references.

amazon.com/church-that-Jesus-built/dp/B0007JLE1S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211306239&sr=1-1

Ninth edition in 1951. Unknown binding. One hundred and thirty five pages in which your reference regarding the Albigensians comes into play on page 132. Fascinating.

I desired to know more about Roy Mason.

members.aol.com/ancientbaptist/a3.htm

baptistpillar.com/bd0647.htm

Well, I’m sure you get the idea. There is page after page after page of references. Old Scholar, I’m going to call you to task on this reference. In the academic world what you have done would be described as intellectual dishonesty. You cited a blatantly biased Baptist resource and you chide we Catholics. :tsktsk: Needless to say, Mr. Mason is no historical scholar. I provided you with three secular references.

Oh, and BTW amongst those Baptist references I found is the outline of a 1950 lecture at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY by a Dr. Young who takes issue with Mason’s conclusions.

amazon.com/history-Baptists-Together-principles-practices/dp/B00085N3NI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211306811&sr=1-1

Sunday School Board of the Baptist Convention 1922.

I have two friends who are ordained Southern Baptist ministers who graduated from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I called them in the middle of the day and said, hey, have you guys ever heard of the Albigensian Renaissance or of these two authors? :nope:

What you are posting is not current nor does it reflect current standards of historical practice. What you are doing is as if all I referenced were the histories of the American Civil War written in the 20’s and 30s and tried to pass myself off as an historian at a Civil War Round Table. I would be laughed out of the room.

If you are going to make these “Dan Brown” statements, then at least have the decency to let folks where you are coming from. I don’t need Catholic historians to back me up and you should not need to rely upon outdated “histories” to back yours up either.

 

[Lampo]

Thanks. I have read quite a bit of Rev. Graham but he doesn’t seem to give a great deal of references; mostly his personal opinions.

Isn’t the same true for most of the Early Church Fathers?

 

[LilyM]

That’s the real problem. All you read is the RCC version of what it was all about and then recommend a website encyclopedia that anyone can change to read whatever they want to.

The truth about the Albigensians is that they started out as the Paulicans. They quoted and followed the writings of Paul and that angers their persecutors.

The Albigensians were evangelical and held to two doctrines necessary to a New Testament Church; Scriptural Baptism and Scriptural Salvation.(1) They spread throughout southern France and northern Italy and their main fault seemed to be that they did not follow the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church.

They were condemned for speculations for virtuous rules of action. They said that a Christian church should consist of good people, a Church had no power to frame any constitutions; it was not right to take any oaths; it was not lawful to kill mankind; the Church ought not to persecute people at all, even the wicked; the benefits of society should be available to all people; faith without works could not save a man; there was no need for Priests, especially the wicked ones; the Sacraments, and orders, and ceremonies of the Church of Rome were futile, expensive, oppressive, and wicked. They baptized by immersion and rejected infant baptism. They were decidedly anti-clerica.l(2)

The Albigensian “heresy” brought about the civilization, the literature, the national existence of the most opulent and enlightened part of the great European family. It is because of their oppression and persecution of the RCC that there is little on record of them.

They had very high moral standards and their actions showed their zeal for the purity of life. They had schools, institutions and charitable organizations of their own and this state of affairs angered the pope. They were condemned by the Lateran Council in 1139 and by the same in Tours in 1163. The RCC sent mission after mission to get them to return to the Roman Church and in 1189 they employed force. Pope Innocent III started a crusade against them and the first city they captured was Braziers, a city of 40,000 people. The Earl of Leicester asked the Abbott of Ceteaus, the Papal legate, What he was to do with the inhabitants of Braziers and the legate answered: "Kill them all. God knows His own." This war carried on for 20 years until they were all wiped out. Town after town was taken, pillaged, and burnt. Nothing was left but a smoking waste. In 1229 the inquisition finished its work.(Schaff-Herzog, pp. 62-63)

The RCC had again stamped out the opposition but that only caused many more groups to break away from the RCC. The Petrobrussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Berengarians, Waldenses and others classified by their opposition to the Roman Church as Anabaptists, “Heretics,” etc. This was the forerunner of those who came later, such as: Luther, Calvin, Hubmaier, Zwingli, Knox and others.

It was not because of any heresy to the Scriptures but the fact that the people did not want to believe what the RCC was teaching as it was against Scripture. That’s what really happened but I am sure the RCC has recorded it differently.

Even if all the RCC said was true, should they have killed and burned those who did not believe as they did? Do you suppose that could happen today?

Of course you can believe what you want to but if you read real history, then you would learn the truth.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/sauer/angry-smiley-014.gif

Gob Bless

(1) Roy Mason, The Church Jesus Built, p. 132
(2) John T. Christian, The History of the Baptists, Vol 1, pp. 60- 61

And your sources aren’t biased at all, of course :nope: for example, by a pathological hatred of Catholicism, or a desperate need in the case of the Baptists to manufacture some sort of non-existent link with the Apostolic faith (therefore some sort of persecuted remnant of the Apostolic church) without which they’d have no legitimacy?

See the beauty of wikipedia is that if anyone had any CREDIBLE evidence with which to rebut what the article says - they can put it in there! For that matter you can yourself, if you want. Just don’t expect people to believe in the goodness of the Albigenses as uncritically as you do.