Why wouldn't the Roman church allow scripture to be translated into the tongue of the people?

[Gamera]

Tyndale was opposed by the Catholic Church, persecuted by the Cathollioc Church, arrested and jailed in a Catholic country by the agents of the Catholic Church, and finally executed by the agents of the same Catholic Church. Henry VIII was a very wicked man who who also wanted him dead, and aided and abeted, maybe even instigated, that crime.

zerinus

Almost everything here is true. I never denied that Tyndale was opposed and persecuted by Catholic authority. He was. Perhaps part of our misunderstanding is that you think I dispute that. I only dispute that he was executed by order of a Catholic authority, because he wasn’t. The death sentence was Henry VIII’s and it was issued when Henry no longer was a Catholic.

Well, Zerinus, at least you stuck around to defend your position, which is more than can be said for the OP who started this mess. I think it’s safe to conclude that he’s long gone.

 

[Gamera]

Tyndale was opposed TO the Catholic Church. Kind of gives a sense of perspective when you realize that BOTH Catholics AND Protestants thought this guy was trouble.

Ah, but remember, Henry VIII wasn’t Protestant. He was Anglican.

 

[zerinus]

Ah, but remember, Henry VIII wasn’t Protestant. He was Anglican.

Those who murdered him were Catholics.

zerinus

 

[flyersfan1088]

Those who murdered him were Catholics.

zerinus

So does that mean that the Catholic Church is not the one Church founded by Christ?

 

[Catherine_S]

I think you will find that that is not historically acurate. In England there was a great thirst for reading the Bible in English. Tyndale’s translations (smuggled into England from Europe, where he was in hiding and translating) were selling like hotcakes. They were so popular, and fetched such high prices, that it made their smuggling a profitable business. Their popularity was such that all attempts by the authorities to stamp it out failed.

zerinus

We must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the “father of the English Bible.” But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that **"all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, **and **untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, **and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die)** in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536.** **His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—**not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).
Tyndale’s Heresy:
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
.

 

[patrick457]

Tyndale was opposed by the Catholic Church, persecuted by the Cathollioc Church, arrested and jailed in a Catholic country by the agents of the Catholic Church, and finally executed by the agents of the same Catholic Church. Henry VIII was a very wicked man who who also wanted him dead, and aided and abeted, maybe even instigated, that crime.

zerinus

So what does that prove? Does that mean an institution as a whole is to blamed for what its members have done?

Let’s say a Baptist tried to rob a store and kidnap people. Obviously he’s guilty, but is the church where he belongs or its members also guilty? Are they also guilty of the crime of theft and kidnapping?

 

[patrick457]

We must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the “father of the English Bible.” But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and** put away out of the hands of the people."**

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die)** in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536.** **His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—**not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).
Tyndale’s Heresy:
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
.

It is also said that after Tyndale was executed, his Bible continued in use among some people yet the heretical prologue from it was taken off.

 

[Catherine_S]

It is also said that after Tyndale was executed, his Bible continued in use among some people yet the heretical prologue from it was taken off.

No doubt!
.
:harp: O Sacrament most Holy,
O Sacrament Divine,
**All praise **and all thanksgiving be every moment Thine :bowdown:
.

 

[guanophore]

That is not what I had asked. In post #77 you had stated: “How about the viciously anti-Catholic “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” which itself states that Tyndale was killed by Henry VIII’s order;” and then you had referred to the Wikipedia article. I read the article, and did not find any quotes from Fox to that effect, and asked you to help me to find it. Now you are talking about something completely different. Frankly, I am getting sick to death of this futile debate. Half the time I don’t know what you are talking about, and I don’t think you do either. I think it is about time to bring this futile debate to a close.
zerinus

zerinus is right, Gamera. I think all of your efforts have fallen on deaf ears. Clearly learning is not the goal here, and getting the facts straight is irrelevant. What we are facing here is intractable prejudice. Shake off the dust of your feet.

So does that mean that the Catholic Church is not the one Church founded by Christ?

LEt’s see. The Jews handed Jesus over to be crucified. therefore, the Jews were never God’s chosen people. Is that how this logic works?

 

[guanophore]

So does that mean that the Catholic Church is not the one Church founded by Christ?

LEt’s see. The Jews handed Jesus over to be crucified. therefore, the Jews were never God’s chosen people. Is that how this logic works?

 

[Pax]

Those who murdered him were Catholics.

zerinus

Let’s apply your logic to Mormons. Please inform us of the implications for the LDS Church based on the following actions by Mormons:

1.The Mormon mob burning the town of Gallatin.

2.The the Mountain Meadows Massacre, where Mormons slaughtered 150 innocent and unarmed immigrants.

3.The driving out of David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and others from their homes under threat of death.

4.The persecution of the Godbeites in Utah.

Do these historical events invalidate your holy books, your doctrines, or your Church?

 

[VociMike]

B. Before the printing press, a bible took a gazillion hours to copy by hand, so why on earth would they waste precious time making a vernacular bible that only a few could actually read and those few that could probably read Latin as well?

Crucial point! Where were all these vernacular-literate people who could not, at the same time, read Latin?

When something is very expensive to produce, you aim your limited production for the widest possible audience. The widest possible audience of people-who-can-read in Europe were people who could read Latin.

And as has been noted, there still were plenty of vernacular bibles or partial bibles before the Reformation.

 

[Teflon93]

Crucial point! Where were all these vernacular-literate people who could not, at the same time, read Latin?

When something is very expensive to produce, you aim your limited production for the widest possible audience. The widest possible audience of people-who-can-read in Europe were people who could read Latin.

And as has been noted, there still were plenty of vernacular bibles or partial bibles before the Reformation.

But wait! I was taught that it was Martin Luther who brought the Bible to the Masses?

Surely you don’t expect me to believe that that Gutenberg guy (a Catholic) printed more than the one Bible the Pope chained to St Peter’s, do you?

 

[sterryfamily]

Zerinus,

As always you are being rediculous - rejecting scholarly works with actual historical references while trumpeting works with only accusations and no references…but…I’m going to do it anyway.

Here’s another link. newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

This link, as with Graham’s, refers to the actual documents in existence - not to someone’s unsubstantiated claim of their existence. Also, it only mentions the surviving works. We know that Church documents throughout history were often destroyed by persecutors.

 

[fellowChristian]

I often wonder if the Roman church is the one true church, then why wouldn’t the magisterium allow the Bible to be written in the language of the people instead of Latin only? It wasn’t until Luther broke away that folks could actually read scripture for themselves. Could it be because the Roman church didn’t want folks to know the truth about God and the ugly truth about what the church was doing to them and God?

Try telling a joke in English then translate it in Spanish.

Not so funny.

Try taking a book written in Greek translate into German.

Lost in translation comes to mind.

And do you think the common people could read? Only the wealthy could afford tutors and private schools.

And Martin Luther’s translation was not the first. Sorry

And Wyclif is not the first either

Wyclif’s Bible is the name now given to a group of Bible translations into Middle English, that were made under the direction of, or at the instigation of, John Wycliffe. They appeared over a period from approximately **1380 to 1390.**The translators worked from the Vulgate, the Latin Bible that was the standard Biblical text of Western Christianity

Look up “The Latin Vulgate” in a dictionary an encyclopedia the History Channel’s website.

this can sometimes be a useful source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Vulgate

history.com/search.do?searchText=latin+vulgate

About St. Jerome
newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm

 

[Zooey]

Henry didn’t burn Tyndale at the stake – although I am sure he agreed with it.

zerinus

He ORDERED it.

Hence the popular report of Tyndale’s last words: “Lord, open the eyes of the King of England.”

Tyndale’s last words do not mean that Henry “ordered it”. Do you have independent historical evidence that Henry “ordered it”? Henry was a wicked man, and it was not beyond him to “order it”. He had murdered his own dear wives, so he shouldn’t have had any compunction about murdering Tyndale. But as I said berfore, Tyndale’s arrest and execution took place outside Henry’s jurisdiction.

zerinus

How about the viciously anti-Catholic “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” which itself states that Tyndale was killed by Henry VIII’s order, NOT by the Catholic Church.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale

Yes, I know his “arrest and execution took place outside Henry’s jurisidiction.” I never said otherwise. I said that Henry ordered Tyndale’s death. Tyndale was arrested in Antwerp ON HENRY’S CHARGES. People who flee from charges in one jurisdiction often get arrested in another jurisdiction. So what? The death sentence imposed on Tyndale was Henry VIII’s death sentence.

Tyndale was opposed by the Catholic Church, persecuted by the Cathollioc Church, arrested and jailed in a Catholic country by the agents of the Catholic Church, and finally executed by the agents of the same Catholic Church. Henry VIII was a very wicked man who who also wanted him dead, and aided and abeted, maybe even instigated, that crime.

zerinus

Those who murdered him were Catholics.

zerinus

Oh, for the love of mike… The fact is, that Henry VIII was the one who had Tyndale executed. Period.
So, Catholics objected to Tyndale’s translation. So???
It’s naive in the extreme to say that “Tyndale was out of Henry’s jurisdiction”. Sheesh! You don’t actually think that a little thing like that would stop Henry, do you???
You need to brush up on your history, a wee bit, yean. It does nae matter where Tyndale was; Henry VIII wanted him dead, & he had him killed. If he managed to get individual Catholics to cooperate with him, it was probably because a wee bit of $$$$ * greased a few people’s hands.
Nobody is claiming that every Catholic in all of history has had clean hands. What we’re talking about, is blaming the Catholic Church for the actions of an Anglican king & others who had about had it, with William Tyndale.*

 

[fellowChristian]

Ah, but remember, Henry VIII wasn’t Protestant. He was Anglican.

Anyone who broke from the one true church that was founded by Christ, and “protested” the head bishop’s authority is a Protestant.

A Protestant is not a denomination it is a movement. A revolt, an uprising, a mutiny, an open rebellion against the bishop who was left in charge on earth of the church.

You know when you go out of town and you have someone watch your house and take care of it while you’re gone? You give them the keyes to your house. It does not mean that they own your house. It just means that they are in charge of it until you come back.

Just like when Jesus said in

Matthew 16

19** I will give you the keys** of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

He was talking to Peter who Jesus made head bishop.

John 21
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, **“Feed my lambs.” **
16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”

  He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." 
  Jesus said, **"Take care of my sheep." **

17 The **third time **he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?”
He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, **"Feed my sheep.** 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but **when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, **"Follow me!"

 

[Pons]

Thanks for clearing up some widely spread misconceptions on this thread.

---

I’d just like to note (though off topic, sorry), that if Peter loves Jesus “more than these”, more than the others (Apostles, note), he must feed Jesus’s sheep more than the others - i.e., as chief leader. A point that has surely been made by others through the centuries.

 

[Zooey]

Those who murdered him were Catholics.

zerinus

Missed this before.
Tyndale was NOT murdered; he was legally executed.
Now, you can argue until you’re blue, about whether his execution was justified…What you can’t do, without playing fast-and-loose with the historical facts, is to claim that he was “murdered”. By Catholics, or anybody else.
He was tried. He was found guilty. He was sentenced to death. He was executed.
This was a long time ago, in a place far away, where people were being executed for stealing a loaf of bread, for heaven’s sake!
You can like Tyndale or you can loathe him. You can make him your biggest hero, if you like, but let’s have done with the histrionics about murder. He committed a crime, & he was punished for it.
Let us proceed, shall we???

 

[MelanieAnne]

The people who post these diversions, this sort of mis-direction, do so with a purpose. (Duh! to mis-direct!)

That you engage in this argument is laudable. But do not think that one post will be the end of it. Those that have this idea will state it again and again, and you will need to argue it again and again.

If you have the stomach for it, continue!