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

[Old_Scholar]

Mannyfit 75

**

The first two centuries, the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. It has been proven in Scripture. The Catholic Church does not falsely interpret Scripture. I think Protestants are the one who misterpret Scripture.

**

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that it is the RCC that misintreprets Scripture, as is proven by the fact that certain things they teach cannot be found in Scripture.

**

Another false premise. The word Pope was indeed used later. The first Pope is Peter. He was succeeded by Linus, Anacletus, Clement I down to our present Pope, Benedict XVI. By the Second Century, the Church was knowned to be called the Catholic Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch and then by other ECF. The early Church in fact did believe that the ECF believe that Rome was the Proto or the first amongst equal. This was confirmed at Ravena, Italy, where both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholic made a join agreement on Papal Primacy.

**

** Iagree that the word pope was used later—much later. And if you hold strongly to your own Tradition, then you must know that Peter himself said it was Paul who ordained Linus as the first Bishop of Rome.

Since the church can’t place Peter in Rome with Scripture, then how can it make the claim that Peter was the first when Peter himself says otherwise? And the first big church was at Jerusalem and we know James was bishop there. Not Peter.

Also the “joint agreement” you mentioned about the Orthodox and the RCC was the fact that the Orthodox does not accept the primacy of the pope or papal primacy at all. That is still the biggest difference between the two churches. **

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.

**

That is hardly a true statement. The New Testament is part of the Oral Tradition. Jesus didn’t write any text. He told his disciple to preached the Gospel. It was not until the 3rd century that local African Synod compiled a list of books that should be canonical.

**

The New Testament came from oral tradition alright but once it was written down(in the first century also), it no longer was oral tradition that was used but the written word of God.

Before the collection of New Testament books was finally settled at the Council of Carthage, 397, we find that there were three distinct classes into which the Christian writings were divided. This we know (and every scholar admits it) from the works of early Christian writers like Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and a whole host of others that we could name. These classes were:
(1) the books “acknowledged” as Canonical
(2) books “disputed” or “controverted”
(3) books declared “spurious” or false. Now in class (1) i.e., those acknowledged by Christians everywhere to be genuine and authentic and to have been written by Apostolic men, we find such books as the Four Gospels, 13 Epistles of St Paul, Acts of the Apostles. These were recognized East and West as “Canonical”, genuinely the works of the Apostles and Evangelists whose names they bore, worthy of being in the “Canon” or sacred collection of inspired writings of the Church, and read aloud at Holy Mass

Read your quote a little more carefully; it states that the New Testament was already "acknowledged" as canonical by the church.

 

[teadough]

Actually it was Constantine who embraced Arianism before he died. I believe he is one of the RCC’s heroes.

How about you give us your version of the First Council of Nicaea then.

 

[teadough]

I hate to quote myself but once again I ask…

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.

 

[Mannyfit75]

How about you give us your version of the First Council of Nicaea then.

I like to read that. Actually Constantine is venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church and they recognized him as a Saint. The Catholic Church does not.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mannyfit 75

---

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that it is the RCC that misintreprets Scripture, as is proven by the fact that certain things they teach cannot be found in Scripture.

That is your opinion. Are you suppose to be an expert in Catholicism? It is apparent, you are no expert. You aren’t Catholic.

---

** Iagree that the word pope was used later—much later. And if you hold strongly to your own Tradition, then you must know that Peter himself said it was Paul who ordained Linus as the first Bishop of Rome.

Since the church can’t place Peter in Rome with Scripture, then how can it make the claim that Peter was the first when Peter himself says otherwise? And the first big church was at Jerusalem and we know James was bishop there. Not Peter.**

Cite your source.

Also the “joint agreement” you mentioned about the Orthodox and the RCC was the fact that the Orthodox does not accept the primacy of the pope or papal primacy at all. That is still the biggest difference between the two churches.

Actually they made a Joint Declaration that the Eastern Orthodox does recognized Papal Primacy according the Agreement made in Ravenna, Italy.

---

The New Testament came from oral tradition alright but once it was written down(in the first century also), it no longer was oral tradition that was used but the written word of God.

Read your quote a little more carefully; it states that the New Testament was already "acknowledged" as canonical by the church.

Yes it does say it but it was the Church who declare it so.

 

[Old_Scholar]

catholicity.elcore.net/GrahamOnNewTestamentCanon.html

This all sounds very good but it isn’t fact. The facts are:

There were two synods in Carthage, one in 419 A.D. and the other in 424 A.D. and they met to discuss the appeals to Rome.[Note that Carthage is in Africa, not Rome.]**** In the second synod, a letter was addressed to the Bishop of Rome, Celestine, protesting his claim to appelate jusrisdiction, and urgently requesting the immediate recall of his legate, and advising him to send no more judges to Africa.(Encyclopedia Britannica)

Now a reasonable person reading that would understand that they were advising Pope Celestine I to stay out of this. The councils in Africa evidently didn’t agree that the pope had any authority over them. So one can’t say that Rome made this decision because history tells us they defied Rome in doing this.This is also evidence that not all Christianity was Roman Catholic as you stated in your quotation. Catholic—yes. Roman—no.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Thank you GKC! Bro is not nuts in insisting that history must be understood. Yep, we could actually go back to Henry II to look at the roots of the relationship between HMC and England in later ages.

And, yes, Spain was the 600 lb. gorilla in the early 1500s and isn’t the relationship between England and Spain during the 16th century absolutely fascinating? A century earlier and it was England and France. The entire 16th century is fascinating and like I have said, there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides.

And no one has yet brought into account the impact of the Black Death and the rise of the middle class afterward and its impact on the reformation.

Probably because the topic of this thread is whether the Bible was forbidden in the Middle Ages and it seems to have been proven so by the words of the Roman Catholic Councils and Decrees.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This all sounds very good but it isn’t fact. The facts are:

There were two synods in Carthage, one in 419 A.D. and the other in 424 A.D. and they met to discuss the appeals to Rome.[Note that Carthage is in Africa, not Rome.]**** In the second synod, a letter was addressed to the Bishop of Rome, Celestine, protesting his claim to appelate jusrisdiction, and urgently requesting the immediate recall of his legate, and advising him to send no more judges to Africa.(Encyclopedia Britannica)

Now a reasonable person reading that would understand that they were advising Pope Celestine I to stay out of this. The councils in Africa evidently didn’t agree that the pope had any authority over them. So one can’t say that Rome made this decision because history tells us they defied Rome in doing this.This is also evidence that not all Christianity was Roman Catholic as you stated in your quotation. Catholic—yes. Roman—no.

That is wrong. I already told you numerous times that the Catholic Church consist of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, Ephesus, and other Churches, as well as African Synods. In fact St. Augustine is a Latin Father who is the Bishop of Hippo in Africa

It is a fact of history that the Council of Carthage, which was held in 397 A.D., mainly through the influence of St Augustine, settled the Canon or Collection of New Testament Scriptures as Catholics have them now and decreed that its decision should be sent on to Rome for confirmation. No Council (that is, no gathering of the Bishops of the Catholic Church for the settlement of some point of doctrine) was ever considered to be authoritative or binding unless it was approved and confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, while the decisions of every General Council that has received the approval of Rome are binding on the consciences of all Catholics. The Council of Carthage, then, is the first known to us in which we find a clear and undisputed catalogue of all the New Testament books as we have them in Bibles now.

That is quote hardly prove your claim that the ECF isn’t the Roman Catholic Church. That is just your own conclusion and ignore the fact.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar, you are missing my point. My point is that history is a very complex subject and cannot be iterated as black and white. World history or American history as taught in high school and freshman college courses is naught but an over view to familiarize students who couldn’t point out Rome or Athens on a map. When you add in the propaganda of the victors (e.g. the Catholic church banned and burned books) and accept it at face value, you cheapen the memories of those who lived during the age.

Frankly, I was ashamed to find that one of my ancestors owned and sold slaves in Louisiana. The mere idea of holding a living human being in thrall is anathema to me. But, make no mistake. I am a Southerner and for all the Yankees’ revisionist history that the War of Northern Agression was caused by slavery, I can show that the primary cause of The War was states’ rights…and do we not have echo after echo after echo of this to this present day (e.g. the practice of some northern states in allowing homosexual marriages).

The same thing applies to the reformation. Scripture has little to do with it. Scripture was involved, of course, in the justification of actions taken.

** But to call the reformation some kind of righteous crusade in which the prostestant reformers corrected 1500 years of living according to the Magesterium of HMC ignores history and ignores the far greater socio-political issues which were at the root of it. And so, the bumper stickers…“Hell no, I ain’t fergettin” - **shallow, vapid, and every bit as offensive as a Jack Chick tract.

**I have taken the liberty of highlighting your words. I don’t think you will find where I have made any such claims. I have consistently said that Martin Luther was only complaining about indulgences. That’s what started it all. And Scripture had a great deal to do with it…

And I agree with you on history and the understanding of it. I love to watch those TV shows where college students are quizzed and have no idea of the simply questions asked. They just don’t teach history as they used to…**

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar. Here we go again. First - any Bible; any translation; had to be written by hand particularly in the twelfth century when the Cathars/Albigensians were around. Question to you. Was the world created by Satan? Is the physical world corrupt? I await your answer.

**God created the world and God created Satan and yes we do live in a corrupt world. God says Satan is in control of this world. Christ said that His kingdom was not of this world.

Being written by hand was not as big a problem as some would like to believe. To think that there were not many copies of Scriptures available in apostolic times is just wrong. Obviously there could not have been enough copies for all to have but you can be sure all the churches had them as soon as they could be copies and they were readily available.

How could we still have copies going back to 125 BC if there had not been copies available? We all know there were as many as the Romans could find burned and many have been burned throughout history by many others as well.

Could we have what we have today without the help of God?**

 

[Old_Scholar]

Welcome back, Old Scholar, and I hope that your grandson is doing fine.

We need a little more light and a lot less heat around here…

Do you get the feeling that some don’t understand the reason for these forums and take everything too seriously?

 

[Old_Scholar]

I hate to quote myself but once again I ask…

I don’t know if it has been that many times but it has been quite a few.

 

[Old_Scholar]

How about you give us your version of the First Council of Nicaea then.

I will do that but not tonight—it’s almost time for me to go back to my cell…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Mannyfit75

Have to answer in this manner because your quote tags didn’t work right…

That is your opinion. Are you suppose to be an expert in Catholicism? It is apparent, you are no expert. You aren’t Catholic.

You are part correct. I am now and have studied Catholicism for quite some time, and I am not a Roman Catholic. A Roman Catholic has to believe in the primacy of the pope. I do not!

**Regarding the source that says Jerusalem was the first church of consequence, you only have to consult the Bible. Acts tells us that the Day of Pentecost took place in Jerusalem. That was the birth of the church. Scriptures also tell us that the first church council was held in Jerusalem and that James was the first leader of the church (bishop).

This was long before a church had been established in Rome. Paul tells us that in his epistles.**

You are apparently a little misinformed about the Roman and Orthodox churches agreeing on the papacy.

The meetings are still taking place to attempt to bring both churches into communion with each other and will probably last for years. Part of the already agreed upon statements are that the Orthodox will not believe in the primacy of the pope and the Roman Church will. If you don’t have your own church’s information on that, I will be glad to give you a link.

And I agree that the church declared the New Testament to be canonical—however I also believe it had already been considered canonical by the fact that all the churches taught from the same books. The church made it official to them by stating the ones that would be considered part of the Bible, even though they were still being used. Most scholars will tell you that the date of the actual canonization of the Bible was about 140 to 150 A.D. and that was because of the fact that those books are the ones that had been filtered out of all those that did not belong. There are several writings of the early church fathers that name the books long before the councils. A few of them disagreed on one or two books but they were generally agreed upon. As early as Philo, Jerusalem had accepted most all the books that made it into the Bible because Philo went to Jerusalem to find out which books were canonical.

 

[Old_Scholar]

That is wrong. I already told you numerous times that the Catholic Church consist of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, Ephesus, and other Churches, as well as African Synods. In fact St. Augustine is a Latin Father who is the Bishop of Hippo in Africa

That is quote hardly prove your claim that the ECF isn’t the Roman Catholic Church. That is just your own conclusion and ignore the fact.

Since you don’t give a source for that statement, I feel I would rather believe an encyclopedia, a secular publication that has to verify what they print. I am sure what you are stating came from a Catholic source and you should admit that such a source would be considered a little biased.

 

[teadough]

I don’t know if it has been that many times but it has been quite a few.

Is there a private reason for not telling us your denomination? You keep avoiding that question or I have missed the answer.

Glad your back posting. I look forward to reading your responses.

 

[Old_Scholar]

That is wrong. I already told you numerous times that the Catholic Church consist of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, Ephesus, and other Churches, as well as African Synods. In fact St. Augustine is a Latin Father who is the Bishop of Hippo in Africa

That is quote hardly prove your claim that the ECF isn’t the Roman Catholic Church. That is just your own conclusion and ignore the fact.

As late as the date of Constantine, all the churches you mentioned had their own bishop and none of them claimed or had jurisdiction over any other church. There was no pope or bishop over the church then. Constantine is the one who called the council, not a pope.

Let me ask you a question…Why didn’t Christ mention the Church at Rome in Revelation, when he mentioned the seven churches? Or is Rome mentioned elsewhere in Revelation?

 

[brotherhrolf]

Probably because the topic of this thread is whether the Bible was forbidden in the Middle Ages and it seems to have been proven so by the words of the Roman Catholic Councils and Decrees.

The operative word here is “seems”. Funny how all those splendid illuminated copies of the Bible still exist after all these hundreds of years. Sigh. Revisionist history rears its ugly head again.

And you still haven’t adressed why you hold Cathars and Albigensians in such high honor given what they taught and believed.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Is there a private reason for not telling us your denomination? You keep avoiding that question or I have missed the answer.

Glad your back posting. I look forward to reading your responses.

You probably missed it. I have said that I was Catholic. I also am a Republican who used to be a Democrat. However during the years, the Democratic party moved to the Liberal spectrum of politics and left me, so I joined the Republican party because of the conservative values. I have the same feeling about the Roman Catholic Church.

I don’t believe it is of importance however for the purpose of this forum.

 

[Church_Militant]

As late as the date of Constantine, all the churches you mentioned had their own bishop and none of them claimed or had jurisdiction over any other church. There was no pope or bishop over the church then. Constantine is the one who called the council, not a pope.

Yeah… right. Even if that is true it doesn’t mean that they didn’t acknowledge the primacy of Rome. But of course… as usual, your “scholarship” is not what it should be.

Clement of Alexandria

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).*

Let me ask you a question…Why didn’t Christ mention the Church at Rome in Revelation, when he mentioned the seven churches? Or is Rome mentioned elsewhere in Revelation?

Cute inference, but of course that is only because you chose to errantly interpret some passages of Revelation that actually apply to “Babylon”.

Jesus didn’t mention the United States, England, or Brazil either. Does that mean they have no place in His plan? Try something new. L O G I C.