When did the heresy of using scripture alone first start?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hi everyone. When did the heresy of using scripture alone for doctrine first start? I know many of you will say the Protestant Reformation but I am inclined to believe that it actually started with some of the first heresies. What do you say? šŸ¤·:confused:
 
I am inclined to believe that it actually started with some of the first heresies.
Click to expand...
I am inclined to ask you what evidence points you to this conclusion?
 
Well since having a bible was so scarce for such a long time, I think maybe individuals could have thought of using bible-alone maybe on there own when they were writting down the biblesā€¦ But I dont think anything to major would have happened until the Printing press was invented.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hi everyone. When did the heresy of using scripture alone for doctrine first start? I know many of you will say the Protestant Reformation but I am inclined to believe that it actually started with some of the first heresies. What do you say? šŸ¤·:confused:
Click to expand...
I think it was first proposed by Martin Luther.
 
well pope damascus cannonized the bible in 390 ad so that would mean that it became heresy on the day of pentecost.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hi everyone. When did the heresy of using scripture alone for doctrine first start? I know many of you will say the Protestant Reformation but I am inclined to believe that it actually started with some of the first heresies. What do you say? šŸ¤·:confused:
Click to expand...
I think the first heresies arose a couple of centuries before the New Testament was codified; some of them, e.g. Judaizers, before it was even fully written.
 
Quite difficult to prove this started any time before the refernation. Sola Scriptura was really quite necessary to have a successful protestant refermation. Luther dumped books (OT and originally NT, or he tried his best), he also edited verses in the bible to make it anti-rome

Calvin threw out OT books, then had the gull to write an entire epissle and tuck it in there with Pauls work.

Wycleffā€™s bible was not only edited, but contained anti-rome, anti-clergy forwards and chapter notes.

The list goes on and on.
 
Lollards, perhaps, but, it was hard to p(name removed by moderator)oint if they were truly Scripture Alone.
 
crazzeto said:
Wycleffā€™s bible was not only edited, but contained anti-rome, anti-clergy forwards and chapter notes.

The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...
Wyclifā€™s translation was actually not bad. The translation, especially the earlier versions, were literal, following its Latin Vulgate source closely (too closely, one might say); there was nothing heretical in the translation itself. In addition to the 73 books, it also contains those books which are now considered apocryphal by Catholics but were widely appended in contemporary editions of the Vulgate (say, the Epistle to the Laodiceans or 3 Esdras). It was in the notes and the prefaces where the problem lied.

In fact, after Wyclifā€™s death, his translation, shorn of its heretical additions, continued to be circulated freely and were widely used by Catholic clergy and laity. Note that around that time, the Oxford Convocation of 1408 solemnly voted that no new translation of the Bible should be made without prior approval. One of the reasons the ā€˜purified Wyclifā€™ (as I dub them) made it past the cut is because there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with the translation itself - there was in practice no way by which the ecclesiastical authorities could distinguish the banned version.

Eventually, the original translator was forgotten to the point where many Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries even (mistakenly) took these manuscript English bibles containing the ā€˜purified Wyclifā€™ to represent an anonymous earlier orthodox translation.
 
patrick457 said:
Wyclifā€™s translation was actually not bad. The translation, especially the earlier versions, were literal, following its Latin Vulgate source closely (too closely, one might say); there was nothing heretical in the translation itself. In addition to the 73 books, it also contains those books which are now considered apocryphal by Catholics but were widely appended in contemporary editions of the Vulgate (say, the Epistle to the Laodiceans or 3 Esdras). It was in the notes and the prefaces where the problem lied.
Click to expand...
Well for starters, it wasnā€™t authroized and there were actually already vulgar toung versions of the bible available from the church at this point in time. More over, the history Iā€™ve read is pretty clear in pointing out the anti-catholic notations, from the pope right down to your local parish preist being contained in there. Any bible with such notations is already tainted, regardless of the translation no matter how good or bad the basic translation is.
patrick457 said:
In fact, after Wyclifā€™s death, his translation, shorn of its heretical additions, continued to be circulated freely and were widely used by Catholic clergy and laity. Note that around that time, the Oxford Convocation of 1408 solemnly voted that no new translation of the Bible should be made without prior approval. One of the reasons the ā€˜purified Wyclifā€™ (as I dub them) made it past the cut is because there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with the translation itself - there was in practice no way by which the ecclesiastical authorities could distinguish the banned version.
Click to expand...
I wouldnā€™t use whether some monks or priests used it at this time as a benchmark as to the quality of the translation. Most of King Henry VIIIā€™s bibles were based upon a horrifical heretical translation which was so bad that the King him self declared it illegal. Not only did it subvert and cause dissention with in the church, it did the same in general public life.
patrick457 said:
Eventually, the original translator was forgotten to the point where many Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries even (mistakenly) took these manuscript English bibles containing the ā€˜purified Wyclifā€™ to represent an anonymous earlier orthodox translation.
Click to expand...
 
Sola Scriptura or Scripture alone dates only to the Protestant rebellion. For scripture alone meant a denial of any other authority than scripture. Thus church authority was denied along with papal authority. No other prior heresy denied authority of the church or the pope. Prior heresies involved interpretations of teachings to include scripture verses but none rose to the broad level of sola scriptura. Even the Great Schism of 1054 did not deny church authority as did sola scriptura.
 
crazzeto said:
Well for starters, it wasnā€™t authroized and there were actually already vulgar toung versions of the bible available from the church at this point in time. More over, the history Iā€™ve read is pretty clear in pointing out the anti-catholic notations, from the pope right down to your local parish preist being contained in there. Any bible with such notations is already tainted, regardless of the translation no matter how good or bad the basic translation is.
Click to expand...
Youā€™re correct that oneā€™s personal bias does tend to taint oneā€™s own work. But hey, at least Wycliff did a so-literal-itā€™s-very-wooden job on his translation of the Vulgate instead of paraphrasing it or attempting to insert this or that into the work (thank God he did not live in the present day!)ā€¦thatā€™s probably what saved his translation from being a complete dreck.

And yes, contrary to popular anti-Catholic canards, there were actually actually translations of various books the Bible in various dialects of Middle English running around before Wycliff! We should give credit where credit is due, however: Wycliff was the first man to translate the COMPLETE Bible in Middle English, rather than just select books which were more popular (say, the Gospels or Revelation).
I wouldnā€™t use whether some monks or priests used it at this time as a benchmark as to the quality of the translation.
Click to expand...
Well, you donā€™t have to. Thatā€™s the beauty of free will. šŸ˜‰ (for the record, I wonā€™t either, unless I suddenly have the urge to learn Middle English :))
Most of King Henry VIIIā€™s bibles were based upon a horrifical heretical translation which was so bad that the King him self declared it illegal. Not only did it subvert and cause dissention with in the church, it did the same in general public life.
Click to expand...
Youā€™re referring to Tyndaleā€™s translation here, arenā€™t you? Now thatā€™s what a really bad translation is supposed to be, from a Catholic POV: offensive notes (the ā€œpestilent glossesā€ Henry VIII complained about!), coupled with deliberate choice of words (one might say ā€˜mistranslationā€™) that promote anticlericalism and heretical views to the unwary reader. Sadly, not much has changed since the days of Tyndaleā€¦
 
patrick457 said:
Youā€™re correct that oneā€™s personal bias does tend to taint oneā€™s own work. But hey, at least Wycliff did a so-literal-itā€™s-very-wooden job on his translation of the Vulgate instead of paraphrasing it or attempting to insert this or that into the work (thank God he did not live in the present day!)ā€¦thatā€™s probably what saved his translation from being a complete dreck.

And yes, contrary to popular anti-Catholic canards, there were actually actually translations of various books the Bible in various dialects of Middle English running around before Wycliff! We should give credit where credit is due, however: Wycliff was the first man to translate the COMPLETE Bible in Middle English, rather than just select books which were more popular (say, the Gospels or Revelation).
Click to expand...
The problem here though, is Wycleffā€™s translation was purposed for attacking the Magisterium, and not just the Magisterium but the whole of Church authority down to the lonely monk who does nothing but copy the bible. This was a well know fact about him before he even took to the job of translating the bible! This is why, at least in part he was denyed the right to do so.

More over, there was no need to translate the bible. We assume that Latin was a dead language at this time. It was not, if a person was at all literate back then, then they could read and write Latin. To suggest the Vatican had no reason to condem Wycleffā€™s bible is to ignore what was happening. Wycleff for all in tents and purposes was a lullard. He was trying to promote that idology, much like Tyndale (thanks, sorry his name slipped me yesterday) he was not only, ulimatly attacking the Church, but also the general order and peace.
patrick457 said:
Well, you donā€™t have to. Thatā€™s the beauty of free will. šŸ˜‰ (for the record, I wonā€™t either, unless I suddenly have the urge to learn Middle English :))

Youā€™re referring to Tyndaleā€™s translation here, arenā€™t you? Now thatā€™s what a really bad translation is supposed to be, from a Catholic POV: offensive notes (the ā€œpestilent glossesā€ Henry VIII complained about!), coupled with deliberate choice of words (one might say ā€˜mistranslationā€™) that promote anticlericalism and heretical views to the unwary reader. Sadly, not much has changed since the days of Tyndaleā€¦
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly correct. More over it wasnā€™t until King James that a ā€œerror freeā€ protestant bible was produced. Of course I put ā€œerror freeā€ in quotes, because if the septuigent is not used for the OT then it already contains error.
 
Not too many people could read then. So most of the sola scriptura people really only took the word of whoever read it to them anyway. They could not really verify if what they were being told was even accurate. I have no idea how these people could trust someone that much, and come to the conclusion that the catholic church was not ā€œfollowing the bibleā€ because they themselves were following some guy who read to them from the bible.:confused: They may have objected to catholic teachings for other reasons, but the majority surely didnā€™t do so from reading the bible on their own and then drawing that conclusion themselves.
 
So the Catholic church considers simply following scripture as our authority as a heresy???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top