Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[josie_L]

What I posted (unfortunately in Italian) it does say that permission is needed if one wants to own a bible.

Just confirming what you’re saying.

GG

What you quoted does not say that!!! It states permission was needed for translations into the vernacular by competent authorities, without which such translations would be prohibited. You’re not translating properly.

 

[GodsGrace154]

And where in this discourse does it state that the Bible was prohibited to be read in the 50’s and 60’s, moreover, the piece below reads like something I would find from a Jehovah’s Witness site, i.e., it is a deliberate distortion of Church history. In fact, would you mind posting the website wherein you got this quote?

And wouldn’t 1557 be the time that the Council of Trent stated that any mistranslations of the Bible would be prohibited?

That would be in reference only to mistranslated versions of the Bible, not the official Latin Vulgate Bible, moreover, how could the Catholic Church condemn burning Bibles, when Scripture was a vital part of our faith, i.e., mass consists of readings from the Bible?

All this says is that the Pope will not allow any translations of Sacred Scripture in the vernacular without permission from competent authorities. I would assume by competent authority they meant the authorities in Rome or the “Congregazione dell’indice”.

For whoever wrote this to suggest that the Catholic Church condemned the Bible to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum has got to be one stupid fellow or is being deliberately distortive. The Catholic Church has never nor will ever hate the Bible as this person is implying.

Tomorrow.

GG

I know Italian, where did you get this from?

I’m not sure the last paragraph is referring to bibles.
I’ll see if I could find the site again.
I’d rather just ask a priest friend of mine here, or even a Deacon, but I’ll look.
It wasn’t easy to find anything, TTYTT.

Okay. Can’t get that back. I found this but I don’t have time to read it. Maybe you could run through it and let us know. Will still ask the priest.

GG
unavox.it/050b.htm

 

[josie_L]

I’m not sure the last paragraph is referring to bibles.
I’ll see if I could find the site again.
I’d rather just ask a priest friend of mine here, or even a Deacon, but I’ll look.
It wasn’t easy to find anything, TTYTT.

Okay. Can’t get that back. I found this but I don’t have time to read it. Maybe you could run through it and let us know. Will still ask the priest.

GG
unavox.it/050b.htm

Because it isn’t true, that’s why you’re having a hard time finding anything, moreover, the person whom you quoted is most certainly implying that since the Bible was condemned, it like all other books condemned will always be hated.

And why isn’t you can’t get that back, i.e., where did you get the quote from??

 

[abucs]

I agree that there is secularism in Europe. In fact, I know for sure.

But, can you explain to me how there wasn’t secularism in the days of Martin Luther?

GG

The state has taken over much of Christian culture but removed God from it. Education, health care, patron of the arts and sciences, charity etc

Do you believe the people of that era knew and loved God and served Him because they wanted to out of the love of their heart
OR
Because they were under the thumb of the church and were filled with fear?

GG

You can’t love someone out of fear. Take your anti-Catholic blinders off.

 

[GodsGrace154]

The state has taken over much of Christian culture but removed God from it. Education, health care, patron of the arts and sciences, charity etc

You can’t love someone out of fear. Take your anti-Catholic blinders off.

Thanks. But I won’t be taking my history lessons from you.

GG

 

[Duane1966]

Thanks. But I won’t be taking my history lessons from you.

GG

Nor us you. Unless we we want to learn fantasy history.

 

[Duane1966]

GodsGrace154:

Josie,

I had said that I didn’t read what I posted.
I’m rather sorry I said mentioned this.
What I posted before was from either google or bing but I can’t remember what I wrote in.

I just spoke to the priest from one town over - he’s a priest I’ve known many years.
I asked him if it’s true what people here tell me in regards to the bible being prohibited from being read.

He said it’s true. Prior to VAT II you needed special permission if you wanted to read it. It was obtained from the local priest. He said Protestants were far ahead of Catholics in reading and studying the bible. The reason is due to education. The people here did not reach high school level till at least the 60’s and even 70’s (but that may be pushing it.) The church felt it was too difficult to understand.

NOW, if we want to know if Rome decided this or the local Bishops, this I forgot to ask. Here the local Bishop has a lot of power.

I live in the Lucca area. I find it impossible to prove this in a written form and am going to drop it. Those reading along could accept or reject. Everyone here is reading one now and studying and that’s what’s important.

I know this to be true because many have told me, not just a couple of persons. My two aunts, both believers, have confirmed. Not to mention Don Giovanni who is about 72 years old and grew up here in this area. I too was incredulous when I first heard of this.

Have a nice Sunday
GG

Why would anyone post something they did not read?

 

[rcwitness]

GodsGrace154:

FOR JOSIE L

Just spoke to a Deacon friend of mine.
Get this:
He said that prior to VAT II, SEMINARIANS needed permission to read the O.T. !!
If they were discovered reading it, they were dismissed!

He said Italy lost a lot of Catholics back then because they wanted to read the bible and so became Protestant and accused the CC of not allowing it to be read because it wasn’t following its tenets.

It’s worse than I thought!

If anyone out there has relatives living in Italy, this could be easily proven since he said it was common. The order was not written (from Rome) but it was passed on from there and it was at the discretion of the Bishops, but all did adhere to this. He said the O.T. would have been very problematic for a people with little education. But the gospels??? Oh well. Things are how things are.

GG

Hey bro,
I’d be curious to see an official document regarding this order. Any positivity of acquiring something?

These seminarians probably attended daily Mass with old testament readings, no?

 

[GKC]

Hey bro,
I’d be curious to see an official document regarding this order. Any positivity of acquiring something?

These seminarians probably attended daily Mass with old testament readings, no?

How about a location for these restrictions and prohibitions? Might be useful in assessing the assertions.

 

[rcwitness]

How about a location for these restrictions and prohibition? Might be useful in assessing the assertions.

Yes. You mean more details, right?

 

[GKC]

Yes. You mean more details, right?

Indeed. Who/what/when/where.

 

[jediliz]

It was not a good thing. It has created disunity within the believers as a group . As I pointed out, things like the belief in the true presence have been tossed away by almost all churches excluding Catholic and Orthodox. Baptism is not considered necessary by some or just symbolic. Then there is the rapture, which was invented in the 1800s. Then the restoration “churches” which mess even more of the basic beliefs up.

Do you think Christ is happy with the disunity? The early church had his apostles to pass on teachings, there was no new testament portion of the bible yet…it was passed down orally until the canon was chosen. Then, God’s grace, the bible was HAND COPIED by monks which took years…very few people were literate, so very few owned a bible UNTIL the printing press was invented. The bible was the first thing printed. And it was not a king James bible, so it had all 73 books.

The bible is read every day at mass, so I seriously doubt seminarians were FORBIDDEN from reading it. If I get a chance to talk to my bishop emeritus, who is 80, I could ask him.

 

[rcwitness]

Do you think Christ is happy with the disunity? The early church had his apostles to pass on teachings, there was no new testament portion of the bible yet…it was passed down orally until the canon was chosen. Then, God’s grace, the bible was HAND COPIED by monks which took years…very few people were literate, so very few owned a bible UNTIL the printing press was invented. The bible was the first thing printed. And it was not a king James bible, so it had all 73 books.

I don’t think Catholics can discredit Scriptures role as guiding the Church long before the Canon was established. That is overreacting to the heterodox within SS.

 

[josephback]

When the 500th anniversary of the Reformation takes place, I am sure many people will be singing its praises, but I hope there will be those pointing out the ramifications.

If Luther was right, then those who embrace the Reformation as God’s work but reject the Mormon claim of Restoration as obviously false are blind to their own tradition’s history. Luther restoring the Gospel implies the Mormon claim of a Great Apostasy at some undetermined time in Church history. Just because the LDS break with historic Christian orthodoxy is no reason to be hating on them. If private interpretation was/is God’s intent, who determines orthodoxy?

(How’d I do?)

 

[josephback]

GodsGrace154:

FOR JOSIE L

Just spoke to a Deacon friend of mine.
Get this:
He said that prior to VAT II, SEMINARIANS needed permission to read the O.T. !!
If they were discovered reading it, they were dismissed!

He said Italy lost a lot of Catholics back then because they wanted to read the bible and so became Protestant and accused the CC of not allowing it to be read because it wasn’t following its tenets.

It’s worse than I thought!

If anyone out there has relatives living in Italy, this could be easily proven since he said it was common. The order was not written (from Rome) but it was passed on from there and it was at the discretion of the Bishops, but all did adhere to this. He said the O.T. would have been very problematic for a people with little education. But the gospels??? Oh well. Things are how things are.

GG

The problem isn’t with reading the Bible but with private interpretation. In Europe this is held in check by state churches but here in the United States with disestablishment enshrined in the Constitution private interpretation has created Disneyland. Anyone and their uncle can claim to be a preacher with no formal theological training and apply to the IRS for religious denomination status to collect an income tax free(for the cynical minded). The Catholic Church used to discourage Bible reading for a reason but has since judged that the benefits outweigh the dangers. I have a religious ed book from the 1940’s which claims Popes attached indulgences to Bible reading. The book isn’t the problem, the interpretative framework employed is.

 

[PJM]

Some just cannot accept facts.
Protestant denominations make it a point to evangelize and have been doing so for hundreds of years.

Catholics do not evangelize and have just begun with the New Evangelization, which is evangelization to their own. WHY? Because they need it because they don’t know their own faith.

SO, how does one evangelize, in the past, if they didn’t even know their own faith??

GG

I certainly agree that there ARE a great many Catholics who do NOT know our Catholic faith, that IS a sad reality.

However how is it worse than others who do NOT rightly know God’s Will and desires:shrug:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

GodsGrace154:

FOR JOSIE L

Just spoke to a Deacon friend of mine.
Get this:
He said that prior to VAT II, SEMINARIANS needed permission to read the O.T. !!
If they were discovered reading it, they were dismissed!

He said Italy lost a lot of Catholics back then because they wanted to read the bible and so became Protestant and accused the CC of not allowing it to be read because it wasn’t following its tenets.

It’s worse than I thought!

If anyone out there has relatives living in Italy, this could be easily proven since he said it was common. The order was not written (from Rome) but it was passed on from there and it was at the discretion of the Bishops, but all did adhere to this. He said the O.T. would have been very problematic for a people with little education. But the gospels??? Oh well. Things are how things are.

GG

PROVE IT,

That claim is a LIE

 

[GodsGrace154]

PROVE IT,

That claim is a LIE

I’m outta here PJM.
Probably leaving the site altogether.
Have not found much Christian love here.
My husband has parkinson’s disease and I thought this would be a good way to keep my mind off things.
Instead I’m being attacked from all sides.
So yes, I think the time has come to leave.
I’m sure you’ll be very happy about that.

BTW, I live in Lucca Italy.
The next time you’re in the area, send an alert and I’ll come and pick you up wherever you are; Pisa, Florence. Lucca is also a big tourist destination right now.

I’ll be happy to introduce you to Don Giovanni and also to Deacon Francesco.

May God’s love find its way into your heart.
GG

 

[susanlo]

Hey bro,
I’d be curious to see an official document regarding this order. Any positivity of acquiring something?

These seminarians probably attended daily Mass with old testament readings, no?

Maybe they were just abiding to the order from the Council of Trent discussed on the previous pages that was not rescinded. It said everyone needs written permission to own a Bible. I understand from Duane 1966 that this is not practiced in most places, but is still binding for Catholics.

 

[GKC]

Maybe they were just abiding to the order from the Council of Trent discussed on the previous pages that was not rescinded. It said everyone needs written permission to own a Bible. I understand from Duane 1966 that this is not practiced in most places, but is still binding for Catholics.

Nothing I’ve read here suggest to me that it is an accurate claim.

Certainly I’d need something authoritative to support it.