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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tantum_ergo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One Roman Catholic believes in confession, the other doesn’t and never goes. One believes in the real presence, the other doesn’t. And so on and so on. How is that any different than what the Protestants face??
Click to expand...
there is a major difference. The ones that are so sure that the Catholic Church is wrong tend to leave. some of them start their own churches:eek: It comes back down to authority and humans have a problem with authority for the fact that they have the gift of free will. It is a very simple formula.
 
Old Scholar, it saddens me that you and I are not going to have fruitful discussions. I make no bones about my Catholicism. I am a descendant of Irish, Scot, English, French and German Catholics. My ancestors suffered for their beliefs and have the “been there; done that” badges. For every one of your “factoids” gleaned from some revisionist website/book, I can counter with unblemished history. The church may very well have burned books but protestants slaughtered my Irish, Scot, English, French and German Catholic ancesotrs. Throw all your burned and banned books at me and I will present my ancestors who died for their faith.

Your disdain for the Magesterium of HMC is perfectly acceptable as a protestant viewpoint. That viewpoint ignores that fact that the very movements you hold in such high accord (Albigensians, Cathars, Lollards, Pelagians, Waldensians) were all in fact heretics - not early protestants - and, more often than not, their arguments had every thing to do about class - not religion. If I can be accused of accepting the Magesterium at face value can I not accuse you of accepting your protestant myths at face value?

I repeat my initial claim. History HAS to be understood before religious idealogies can be discussed. Fewer than 10 % of the white population of the antebellum South owned slaves. It has been my direct experience that most Yankees think every Southerner owned slaves but is it true?

There are 5,000 Irishmen buried in a mass grave on Pontchartrain Blvd. in New Orleans. They dug the New Basin Canal because slaves were more valuable. My ancestors - OS and as shabbily as they were treated in NO, they were allowed to starve in Ireland by protestants. Open yourself to the realities of history and understand what your protestant ancestors did. You might be surprised that your victor’s version of history is skewed in the extreme.
 
40.png
Zooey:
I did try. And I got this message:
http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gifUmmm…:rolleyes: .lemme see,http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif what reason could I possibly have??http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/5.gif

Oh! Oh!!http://bestsmileys.com/waving/3.gif Pick me,http://bestsmileys.com/waving/1.gif pick me!!!http://bestsmileys.com/bouncing/19.gif I know,http://bestsmileys.com/bouncing/6.gif I know!!! :
[SIGN1]“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.****[/SIGN1]
Zooey,

Control yourself.

These pyrotechnics will get you nowhere.
 
brotherhrolf said:
England at the time of the beginning of Henry’s reign was the most Catholic country in Europe. The protestants were all in mainland Europe - mostly in northern Germany…
Click to expand...
Henry VIII broke away from Rome because he was desperate for a male heir and for that, he needed a new wife. He despised Protestants and thought himself very orthodox. The Book of Common Prayer is very similar to the Catholic Mass of the time–I was struck by this when first I attended Mass as an Episcopalian years ago.

The people of England despised Mary I (“Bloody Mary”) and loved Elizabeth. They hated Spain, and Philip II, Mary’s husband. When Elizabeth took her huge tours around the countryside of England, she was mobbed by enthusiastic crowds. There were Catholics loyal to Rome, but the vast majority of the people loved Elizabeth and England and didn’t care that much about religion. The Catholics were persecuted because some preached and supported sedition, Elizabeth’s overthrow and replacement by Mary, Queen of Scots, a very unwise Catholic. Elizabeth herself was not recognized by Rome–she was a bastard, and the Pope (unwisely) openly egged on anyone who would assassinate her. This put the Catholics in England in a very bad position. Priests were constantly sneaking over from Calais, who were suspected, rightly or wrongly, of treason, and treated accordingly.

The persecution of Catholics went on a long time, far too long, and was particularly oppressive in Ireland, which now, happily, is thriving, with the Church in decline.

I have ancestors on all sides of this, Brother, as do many of us, so don’t pull that stunt.

.
 
Pray, tell. What stunt have I pulled? Do you really want me and go back and quote where I said there was “more than enough blame on both sides”? Pray, tell, why do you think Mary Tudor was as vicious as she was. Could it not have had something to do with her father?

Henry VIII split from Rome for no other reason than dynastic and greed once he realized what he could do to the monasteries. We would not have a saint by the name of Thomas More if Henry was as hunky-dory as you make him out to be. Thomas More was seneschal of England and he would never have been appointed had he not met Henry’s approval. But like the earlier Thomas (a’Becket) and Henry II - sometimes England got what she asked for much to the crown’s chagrin.

Your view of post Henry VIII England suffers from the same post-reformation revisionist history as does Old Scholar. If Henry VIII was so hunky-dory, why was Thomas More put to death? Why were the great monasteries dissolved and now lie in ruin?

And pray again… there is so much Catholic blood spilled in Ireland as to cause the very heavens to cry out in shock. I wouldn’t be sitting here in hot humid south Louisiana had it not been for the protestants who let my ancestors starve while food was in abundance for protestants in County Cork. At least I am honest enough to acknowledge that the sword cuts both ways.

No stunt. None at all. I know exactly what “Bloody Mary” did but her father was far worse and her half-sister was concerned about the crown and the crown only.

And no one has answered my question about the faith of the English yeomanry. (Can we ask a very similar question about the Anglo-Saxon-Scot farmers in the southern United States in 1860 who didn’t own slaves? Do you realize that there were entire parishes in north Louisiana who did not support the Confederacy?) Naw! History is black and white and written by the victors.

1234 - unless you have specifics to back up your generalities, do not presume to lecture me on “stunts”. I have made it clear from the very beginning that history is a a sword which cuts both ways. It is precisely this dual edged sword which makes the discussion of history the foundation upon which all other discussions must be based.

When the history is straight, then we may proceed to discuss the religious issues.
 
brotherhrolf is pretty much owning everyone:thumbsup:

:clapping: Good job my friend :signofcross:
 
Al_Masetti said:
Read “Eucharistic Miracles” by Joan Carol Cruz.

It’ll make a believer out of you.
Click to expand...
LOL

Thing,was being sarcastic and making a funny in regards to a protestant stating that Jesus’ teaching in John 6 was symbolism for faith and such.
 
teadough said:
LOL

Thing,was being sarcastic and making a funny in regards to a protestant stating that Jesus’ teaching in John 6 was symbolism for faith and such.
Click to expand...
oh!

For my penance, I shall go back and read all 200+ posts and get properly all caught up!

:blushing:
 
Old_Scholar said:
The next time you take communion, look at the bread carefully to see if it is flesh and look carefully at the wine(if your church even lets you drink it, many RCCs don’t get to do so, even with the command) and see if it is wine or blood. If it “actually” turns into blood, then you would know, wouldn’t you? Or is it symbolic?
Click to expand...
One of the points of transubstantiation is that though it still looks like bread and wine it is consecrated into His body and blood.

The bread being body contains blood even if one does not partake of the chalice and the bible say or not and. My parish and 10s that I have been to in my life all offer both the body and blood.

As Jesus says in the Gosepl Luke 1:37 “Because no word shall be impossible with God.”

Great is the mystery of faith.
 
Y’all…when you honestly sit back and read the history and you read what has been passed down to others as history (which sadly is nothing more than propaganda), one can’t help but be shattered to the core of one’s being. HMC made errors. There is no denying that. Errors were made against HMC (i.e. Magistererium) ( no denying that.). But I have a firm belief that if a stalwart protestant were to read history with an open mind and without the protestant propaganda…history and history alone will change his or her mind. Not scripture…not interpretations of scripture…just history.

I wish I had a really cool “put 'em down” historical quote…I don’t. I have read the history. I understand the basis from which the protestant reformers launched their reform. In the final analysis, I am unabashadley Catholic. HMC may have banned books but it is an inescapable fact of history that what happened in Ireland alone more than makes up for any book banning.

We, as Christians, will never ever begin to be able to discuss religious issues until we are able to be able to discuss what happened in history. And as long as we have these protestant gilded interpretations, we are are not going to be moved from ground zerol.

My protestant brothers and sisters…I acknowledge what the magisterium of HMC has done. I dearly desire that you acknowledge what your forebearers did. The sword cuts both ways.
 
brotherhrolf said:
Pray, tell. What stunt have I pulled? Do you really want me and go back and quote where I said there was “more than enough blame on both sides”? Pray, tell, why do you think Mary Tudor was as vicious as she was. Could it not have had something to do with her father?

Henry VIII split from Rome for no other reason than dynastic and greed once he realized what he could do to the monasteries. We would not have a saint by the name of Thomas More if Henry was as hunky-dory as you make him out to be. Thomas More was seneschal of England and he would never have been appointed had he not met Henry’s approval. But like the earlier Thomas (a’Becket) and Henry II - sometimes England got what she asked for much to the crown’s chagrin.

Your view of post Henry VIII England suffers from the same post-reformation revisionist history as does Old Scholar. If Henry VIII was so hunky-dory, why was Thomas More put to death? Why were the great monasteries dissolved and now lie in ruin?

And pray again… there is so much Catholic blood spilled in Ireland as to cause the very heavens to cry out in shock. I wouldn’t be sitting here in hot humid south Louisiana had it not been for the protestants who let my ancestors starve while food was in abundance for protestants in County Cork. At least I am honest enough to acknowledge that the sword cuts both ways.

No stunt. None at all. I know exactly what “Bloody Mary” did but her father was far worse and her half-sister was concerned about the crown and the crown only.

And no one has answered my question about the faith of the English yeomanry. (Can we ask a very similar question about the Anglo-Saxon-Scot farmers in the southern United States in 1860 who didn’t own slaves? Do you realize that there were entire parishes in north Louisiana who did not support the Confederacy?) Naw! History is black and white and written by the victors.

1234 - unless you have specifics to back up your generalities, do not presume to lecture me on “stunts”. I have made it clear from the very beginning that history is a a sword which cuts both ways. It is precisely this dual edged sword which makes the discussion of history the foundation upon which all other discussions must be based.

When the history is straight, then we may proceed to discuss the religious issues.
Click to expand...
Greetings brotherhrolf,

I doubt that there will be much light in this heated discussion, but I’ll try, a little. Hank and his quest for a decree of nullity is one of my historical hobbies.

You’re right. History is a complicated mess. And there is blame to go around on both sides. And 1234 is right. Henry really tried to play the game, as it was played, back in the day.

His case for a decree of nullity, based, at his insistence, on a supposed divine impediment of affinity in the first degree (divine, as based on the Levitical Prohibition) was quite up to the standards of the cases of dynastic annulments granted, commonly, in the 16th century. Look at the two decrees of nullity that Henry’s sister received, to see how it was done. That Henry’s case would have been stronger, as Wolsey saw, had he based it instead on a undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty in the original dispensation permitting Henry to marry Katherine is beside the point. What Henry did was commonplace, and he would have received his decree of nullity, had he not been trumped by Charles.

And yes, he was, in the beginning, as Catholic as one could be, given that he had taken the Church in England private, the culmination of a process that can be traced back 300 years or so; asserting the authority of the Throne over the Church in England and weakening the claims of any outside England, with respect to the Church.

OTOH, yes, More, whatever one thought of him, didn’t merit the death penalty, though that was what happened to foks who defied the King and the law in those days. And it was Cromwell who caught the King’s eye with the financial balance sheets of closing the monasteries ( a process even Fisher had followed, in a small way).

History is complicated. And multifacted. And must be understood. Which requires one to get into it, a little. Deep, even. You are right.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Deacon110 said:
Jesus did correct them. Re-read John 6 completely and you will see that no one left after this teaching that starts around verse 35 and continues until verse 58. They started grumbling in verse 60 and then Jesus asks if this offended them. Then asked what if they saw HIM ascend to where he came from in verse 62. Then he clarifies and states in verse 63 that the flesh means nothing, it is the spirit that gives life. Then he states also in verse 63 that the words he had spoken, those of eating his body and blood, were spirit and life. Then in verse 64 Jesus confirms that there are those who do not believe. It’s not until after this in verse 66 that many walked away and stopped following HIM. So Jesus gave plenty of clarification for everyone to hear. Those that truly believed in HIM stayed. The others left.
Click to expand...
**Manna **

Jesus is the true Manna from Heaven, the holy Body of Christ is the true food (descended from Heaven) nourishing to life everlasting.

Doth this scandalise you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

A claim of heavenly origin and pre-human existence. The word was made flesh and came down from Heaven and will ascend back to Heaven. Scandalised by the possibility of eating His flesh, they haven’t seen anything yet. If they are scandalised by bread=flesh how scandalised would they be if they saw him ascend into Heaven where he was before? If it is seen to be impossible for Christ to give His body to be eaten in so many places being on earth they would be more scandalised if He were in Heaven.

**It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. **

Lusts of the flesh are often condemned for example. Jesus is not referring to His actual flesh. He says “the” not “my” flesh, as He had just spent ages speaking about the importance of His flesh which gives life to the world. He is speaking of a spiritual understanding and not a carnal understanding unfavourable to things supernatural. He corrects this carnal attitude towards His words, he is after all the Messiah and as he tells us, no word is impossible with God.

**Words I have spoken are spirit and life **

The words he spoke are spirit and LIFE. Jesus is the WORD made FLESH, He is Divine and human in nature. By eating Christ’s flesh and blood we become a partaker of His life. How can they discern spiritual things if they have not spiritual life. For this they must be quickened, quickened by the spirit.
One apologist noted that Jesus “states what the Spirit uses to bring about that quickening—the “words” of God. The Spirit is the Divine Agent; the Word is the Divine instrument. God begets “with the word of truth” (James 1:18). We are born again of incorruptible seed, “by the word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23). We are made partakers of the Divine nature by God’s “exceeding great and precious promises” (2 Pet. 1:4).
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. what he was pointing out was forbidden by Mosaic Law, so many walked away. Peter and others stayed. Peter said “we believe” because Jesus has the “words of eternal life” – word made flesh, don’t eat flesh = no life.

John 17:22 And the glory that thou hast given me, have I given to them: that they may be one, as we also are one. 23. I in them: and thou in me: that they may be consummate in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as me also thou hast loved. 24. Father, whom thou hast given me, I will, that where I am, they also may be with me: that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world.
Deacon110 said:
Not sure what you are asking here but Paul as Jesus did, says that the cup is the new covenant in Jesus blood. The covenant is in blood, the blood of the cross. The cup represents it. Neither Jesus nor Paul say this cup of my blood is the new covenant. So obviously the cup is a symbol of the covenant. The cup is not in blood, the covenant is. Then both Jesus and Paul both use the word anamnesis which in Greek means memorial, or as a reminder.
Click to expand...
We do the euchartist in memory of him, eating his body and blood, as he said “this is my body” not this a symbol of my body. If it’s just a symbol why didn’t he say. How can you be guilty of the body and blood of Christ by unworthily eating a symbol? To symbols count as vain idolatry?

1 Cor 11:23-24, "For **I received of our Lord **that which also I have delivered unto you…And giving thanks brake, and said: Take ye and eat, THIS IS MY BODY…

1 Cor 11:26. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of our Lord, until he comes.

Mal:1:11:For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation:

1 Cor 11:29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily: eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord

Under the old covenant an unblemished lamb was sacrificed and consumed and this observance was everlasting. Jesus fufils the old cov making it new and everlasting. He is the Lamb, a sacrifce made flesh.
Deacon110 said:
Why eat the flesh if Jesus says the flesh means nothing?
Click to expand...
Our flesh means nothing but the flesh of Christ means so much more than any mortal will ever be able to understand. His flesh is life and unless we eat his flesh we won’t have life. We come to the Father through Christ and every day and every way He is present to Catholics (and I believe some Protestants) in the Eucharist.
Deacon110 said:
It may be Biblical but that doesn’t mean the interpretation is right.
Click to expand...
And who gets to decide who is right and who is not?
 
1234 said:
I think Old Scholar quotes his sources at the end of his first post and in the body of his second post.

Here they are:

The Council of Toulouse text:

Die Indices Librorum Prohibitorum des sechzehnten
Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1886), page 246f.

Source: The Reformation, by Hans J. Hillerbrand, copyright 1964 by SCM Press Ltd and Harper and Row, Inc., Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-15480, pages 474, 475.

The first quotation from Leo XII:

From the Encyclical UBI PRIMUM of POPE LEO XII, MAY 5, 1824:
**
The second quotation from Leo XII:**

From Leo XIII, Apostolic Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum, Jan. 25, 1897, art. 1., “Of the Prohibition of Books,” chaps. 2,3, trans. in the Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (New York: Benziger, 1903):
[p. 412]

Pretty impressive sources. I couldn’t find the Toulouse text of this document on a Google search.

But even if Scholar hadn’t quoted his sources, he has clearly quoted the texts verbatim, and their sense is clear and can’t be explained away.
Click to expand...
And these councils were held in response to the Albigensian heresy. Do you know what that was, or do you just wish to keep sprouting off these anti-Catholic cut & pastes without giving a historical context?
 
brotherhrolf said:
Old Scholar, it saddens me that you and I are not going to have fruitful discussions. I make no bones about my Catholicism. I am a descendant of Irish, Scot, English, French and German Catholics. My ancestors suffered for their beliefs and have the “been there; done that” badges. For every one of your “factoids” gleaned from some revisionist website/book, I can counter with unblemished history. The church may very well have burned books but protestants slaughtered my Irish, Scot, English, French and German Catholic ancesotrs. Throw all your burned and banned books at me and I will present my ancestors who died for their faith.

**My ancestry is also Scotch/Irish but they came here very early. And my church believes that we are the remnant of the real Catholic Church, the one that Jesus founded, not the one that Rome took over and introduced paganism into it. We believe the Scriptures tell us all we need to know about faith and morals, in fact the Scriptures themselves tell us that.

In the first two centuries, the Catholic Church taught that if it can’t be proven by Scripture, then tradition is false. In fact most of the early church fathers as late as the 4th and 5th century believed that. The Catholic Catechism today still states that. The problem is that they interpret Scripture falsely. With the dogmas and doctrines present today, Scripture has to be changed too much to be true. It is being translated wrong and Christ Himself warned about that. He also warned about the “traditions” of men and that is what the RCC is founded on.

If you are a student of history as you say, then you know that the Catholic Church did not have a pope or even a bishop who claimed primacy until the 5th century. When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, that was the beginning. However even then it was a couple of hundred years before any bishop claimed authority over all the church.

To place tradition over Scripture is simply not supported by Scripture and the fact that the church a few hundred years ago decided the pope was infallible, that was a bad blow. At least the Orthodox are much more like the early church but they also have brought in some false dogmas and doctrines.**

Your disdain for the Magesterium of HMC is perfectly acceptable as a protestant viewpoint. That viewpoint ignores that fact that the very movements you hold in such high accord (Albigensians, Cathars, Lollards, Pelagians, Waldensians) were all in fact heretics - not early protestants - and, more often than not, their arguments had every thing to do about class - not religion. If I can be accused of accepting the Magesterium at face value can I not accuse you of accepting your protestant myths at face value?

**I have not said that the Albigensians, Cathars, Lollards, Pelagians, Waldensians were correct in all they taught or believed. However, in my opinion, they were as close as the RCC is in what the Bible teaches.

And I would like to see what you are calling Protestant myths…**

I repeat my initial claim. History HAS to be understood before religious idealogies can be discussed. Fewer than 10 % of the white population of the antebellum South owned slaves. It has been my direct experience that most Yankees think every Southerner owned slaves but is it true?

There are 5,000 Irishmen buried in a mass grave on Pontchartrain Blvd. in New Orleans. They dug the New Basin Canal because slaves were more valuable. My ancestors - OS and as shabbily as they were treated in NO, they were allowed to starve in Ireland by protestants. Open yourself to the realities of history and understand what your protestant ancestors did. You might be surprised that your victor’s version of history is skewed in the extreme.
Click to expand...
**I confess that I know very little about the history of England, Scotland and Ireland. I am still too busy tracing my family to think of history there but World history used to be taught in schools and I still study that, mostly as world history pertains to religion however now.

Slaves were extremely important. My family owned many in the late 1700s and early 1800s. However, according to our family history, the slaves were well cared for and remained on when they were freed. They were made sharecroppers and made a good living off the land that they had been working as slaves.**
 
Semper_Fi said:
And these councils were held in response to the Albigensian heresy. Do you know what that was, or do you just wish to keep sprouting off these anti-Catholic cut & pastes without giving a historical context?
Click to expand...
Well if you would take the time to read those quotes and verify them, you will find that it included all English versions and states the New Testament. The prohibition is not just for the books by the Albigensian heresy but many other Bibles. There is other documentation that forbids even Catholics from reading the Bible.
 
the remenant catholic church supposes that some how the church didn’t fall into error.at what point in time did this remenant churhc exist?
 
1234 said:
Zooey,

Control yourself.

These pyrotechnics will get you nowhere.
Click to expand...
** :rotfl:**Au contraire; they made my point:yup: very nicely. But I thank you for your [ahem, cough, cough]:coffeeread: concern.
Besides, I am an old & somewhat [shall we say] sedentary lady, and I need all the:p exercise I can get…

**

Old Scholar said:
The next time you take communion, look at the bread carefully to see if it is flesh and look carefully at the wine(if your church even lets you drink it, many RCCs don’t get to do so, even with the command) and see if it is wine or blood. If it “actually” turns into blood, then you would know, wouldn’t you? Or is it symbolic?
Click to expand...

**

Now, then–as for you, OS, if I may make just a [cough, ahem,😉 cough, cough] wee suggestion, laddie:
http://bestsmileys.com/nono/2.gifBefore you start spouting off a great lot of talk about what other people believe, it is generally conceded to be a :whistle: fairly intelligent idea, if you first find out what said belief actually is.
Now then, when you find out what the word “transubstantiation” means, you can come back & discuss it to your heart’s content. But at the moment, yean,http://bestsmileys.com/nono/4.gif ye hae nae a clue.
**
 
Old Scholar
My ancestry is also Scotch/Irish but they came here very early. And my church believes that we are the remnant of the real Catholic Church, the one that Jesus founded, not the one that Rome took over and introduced paganism into it.
Click to expand...
so, what you are saying is that there is a good chance that your church subscribed to arianism ?
In the first two centuries, the Catholic Church taught that if it can’t be proven by Scripture, then tradition is false.
Click to expand...
so, what you are saying is that there is a good chance that your church subscribed to arianism
 
. And my church believes that we are the remnant of the real Catholic Church, the one that Jesus founded, not the one that Rome took over and introduced paganism into it. We believe the Scriptures tell us all we need to know about faith and morals, in fact the Scriptures themselves tell us that.
Click to expand...
I still can’t get over this last quote. As intelligent as you are i find it hard to believe you would state this on a public forum.

what church do you belong to OldScholar? I asked on another thread too just incase you didn’t see it here. I am sure you have been asked a million times.

I hope you have a good Sunday. I am stuck at work and I need eveyone on these threads to keep posting to help pass time:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top