First, for 1500 years, there was nothing but the Catholic Church. Had they wished to bury the scriptures, they could have done so and utterly destroyed them, particularly if they were as all-powerful as you claim they were.
This is historically incorrect, and presumes all copies of the scriptures were in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. Also untrue.
Mark, I wouldn't berate someone for an ignorance of history in the same post as inaccuracy this blatant.
This is historically incorrect, and presumes all copies of the scriptures were in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. Also untrue.
Mark, I wouldn't berate someone for an ignorance of history in the same post as inaccuracy this blatant.
Sorry, Raf, but it is historically accurate (unless you are speaking of the Eastern/Western Schism in the 11th Century...but I would submit that both churches are Catholic in form and belief.) Otherwise, there were little heretical movements that popped up from time to time, but no other "denominations." You'll note that I said "Catholic," not "Roman Catholic." I did so for a reason. In fact, there were no protestant denominations until 1517-1521, the time period between the 95 Theses and the Diet of Worms.
Further I never said all copies of scripture were in the hands of the Church. I did say the following:
First, for 1500 years, there was nothing but the Catholic Church. Had they wished to bury the scriptures, they could have done so and utterly destroyed them, particularly if they were as all-powerful as you claim they were. Before printing presses, how were the scriptures preserved and transmitted? They were hand-written: normally by Catholic monks working and living in Catholic Monastaries. Curious behavior for a group who wished to "bury the scriptures."
That doesn't state that all copies of the scriptures were in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church (common sense says that this could not be true). I never addressed possession of copies of scripture; I addressed reproduction of scripture.
Finally I wasn't berating somebody for ignorance of history...I was berating somebody for sheer bigotry.
You can call other forms of worship "Catholic," but then you need to define your term. They would balk at the term, most certainly.
There is intercommunion between the groups. The groups accepta tha apostolicity of each others episcopate.
More importantly, Jerry is talking about the Roman Catholic Church, so for you to switch definitions on him mid-argument is less than fair.
Give me a break, Raf.
As to your:
Umm, okay.
You quote me saying:
Jerry, you make inaccurate assumptions that are clearly ignorant of the reality of history.
That is not the full context.
The full context is:
Jerry, you make inaccurate assumptions that are clearly ignorant of the reality of history.
And why am I lashing out at you? Because you offend me personally when you spout this garbage (why? because I'm Catholic). I don't care if you agree with what I believe or not. But when you continue to propagate your lies that are based on something only casually related to the facts and to history, I need to set the record straight.
And if you really want the total context, you need to go back to my opening statement to capture that full context:
Jerry,
Your bigotry is getting old.
That sort of frames the whole discussion, doesn't it?
I only take issue with this statement, and question the accuracy thereof.
Not so in the first few centuries of Christianity.
Unless some ancient prejudices prevented Roman Catholics
from even recognizing that rival movements
were "Christian" in any respect.
But I don't see that as having always been the case.
You're right on that count. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Marcionite belief system came into being around the middle of the second century and largely died out somewhere around the fifth, only recently (in the past 100 years or so) coming back into fashion with the modern resurgence into the "new age" practices and gnosticism in general. I believe that most orthodox Christians (not just Catholics) would have a hard time accepting gnostic beliefs as genuinely "christian."
As I mentioned to you in another thread, Marcionites who converted to
Catholicism did not always require re-baptism.
The Marcionite Church, besides having been the most formidable rival to Roman Catholicism,
possessed their own scriptures, and had an ecclesiastical structure that
in many respects was almost identical to the Roman Catholic. Warnings were issued
to travelers, when passing through any village and inquiring for a "House of the Lord",
to specifically ask for the "Catholic" church, lest they wander into a Marcionite Church by mistake.
Danny
You are quite correct that the Marcionites were one of the longest-lived heterodox groups in the ancient world. I'm not sure as to the numbers, but I do believe their life-span was about twice that of the Arians. As to baptism, I said in that thread:
Part of the baptism rite is an acceptance of the Apostle's Creed by the adult to be baptized (preceeded by instruction so that the person understands what he's being asked). Could a Marcionite, with the belief in the creator God and the Good God, be able to, in clear conscience, be able to affirm the Apostle's Creed?
I think the point you raise about them having their own Canon is a vital one. Their Canon did not line up with that accepted by orthodox Christianity. As you can (and have) attest, their complete Canon is not available. Your pet project, reconstructing that Canon, illustrates the point I was trying to make: had the Catholic Church wished to eradicate the scriptures, they surely could have done so in the first 1500 years of their existence (particularly if the power and reach of the Church was as ubiqutous as some anti-Catholic writers claim it was).
As to the ecclesiastical structure of the Marcionite church, I am certainly no expert, but will take your word for it.
And so, I will revise my original statement from:
First, for 1500 years, there was nothing but the Catholic Church. Had they wished to bury the scriptures, they could have done so and utterly destroyed them, particularly if they were as all-powerful as you claim they were.
to:
First, for 1500 years, with the exception of some heterodox groups that popped up and were either supressed or died out on their own, there was nothing but the Catholic Church. (This takes into account the schism of 1096...which altered the ecclesiastical structure but not the fundamental dogma nor the majority of the practices of the universal Church) Had they wished to bury the scriptures, they could have done so and utterly destroyed them, particularly if they were as all-powerful as you claim they were. (After 1096, Rome's ability to direct the utter destruction of the scriptures would have been effectively limited to the area west of a line from the Sweedish-Finnish border, including the Baltic States, the Polish-Russian-Ukranian border, and west of the Romanian and Bulgarian borders, and north of the Serbian and Macedonian borders. The destruction of scriptures in areas east of that point would have been effectively controlled by the Church of the East, which, although having separated themselves from union with the Holy See, shared the same dogma and remarkably similar liturgical practices, and who could and likely would have continued on with any tendency to destroy scriptures that have been attributed to Rome--if those attributions were right in the first place).
The caveats added are highlighted by italicizing. Hopefully that will placate the critics on this thread while still illustrating the point that I was attempting to make that jbarrax's assertion that Rome intentionally tried to destroy the scriptures is not only ludicrous but is highly offensive.
I did not deny that you accused Jerry of bigotry. I only said you berated him as being ignorant of history. I didn't say that was the ONLY thing you were saying.
As for switching terms in the middle of the discussion, sorry, I won't give you a break. It makes reasonable dialogue impossible when someone changes definitions midstream.
I did not deny that you accused Jerry of bigotry. I only said you berated him as being ignorant of history. I didn't say that was the ONLY thing you were saying.
As for switching terms in the middle of the discussion, sorry, I won't give you a break. It makes reasonable dialogue impossible when someone changes definitions midstream.
Well we have quite a heated discussion here don't we?
Mark and TempleLady: I seem to have skewered some sacred cows of yours. I do not mean to ruin anyone's day, I'm simply offering a different perspective than those you seem to be so passionately committed to.
Mark. I believe my original statement was in the context of Paul's writings having been preserved by God's providence even during a period of time when the ruling Church did not want the knowledge of the Scriptures disseminated. I'm sorry if that statement offends you. You can obsess over my use of the word "bured" if you like. It is a historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church, although they had the Scriptures, did not TEACH from the Scriptures. Their people were deliberately kept ignorant of them.
It is also a fact that the Roman Catholic Church persecuted people who wanted to publish and distribute Bibles. Look into the reign of "Bloody Mary" the Catholic Queen of England and see how many people she had tortured or burned at the stake in an effort to prevent the distribution of English language Bibles.
Now please note. At no time in my post did I say that Catholics are evil, stupid, or any such thing. So your accustion of bigotry is an overreaction to my mentioning facts about your denomination that you don't happen to like. Chill.
TempleLady:
I still think we're missing each other. As Evan said, you seem to have dug your heels in about Paul. And I think Evan answered quite eloquently regarding the importance of Paul's influence in the preaching of the gospel of Christ. I have issues with Paul's writings too, but I cannot discount the impact of his ministry.
Look at it this way. Jesus gave the Twelve a job to do. They weren't getting it done. So he went and found someone who would carry the gospel to the Gentiles. Was Paul perfect? No. He had been a murderous Pharisee. But the best men chosen weren't spreading the news, so he had to go with the second string. If you want to say that Paul should never have been an apostle, I won't argue that. If you want to say that Paul blew it and got thrown into prison for his own disobedience, I won't argue that either (although Evan would). But to say that Paul doesn't deserve credit for taking the message of Jesus Christ to the rest of the world, just isn't valid.
It doesn't take much digging to discover that what became the Roman Catholic Church was only the most successful of various competing factions among Christians. Of course gnostics and other groups might not be considered "Christian", because they, as the losers, didn't get to define what "Christian" meant.
Even after the Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites and others were figuratively buried, there were numerous groups, such as the Nestorians, and various churches known later as Monophysites which flourished in areas outside the easy control of the church in Roman provinces.
Well we have quite a heated discussion here don't we?
Mark and TempleLady: I seem to have skewered some sacred cows of yours. I do not mean to ruin anyone's day, I'm simply offering a different perspective than those you seem to be so passionately committed to.
Mark. I believe my original statement was in the context of Paul's writings having been preserved by God's providence even during a period of time when the ruling Church did not want the knowledge of the Scriptures disseminated. I'm sorry if that statement offends you. You can obsess over my use of the word "bured" if you like. It is a historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church, although they had the Scriptures, did not TEACH from the Scriptures. Their people were deliberately kept ignorant of them.
It is also a fact that the Roman Catholic Church persecuted people who wanted to publish and distribute Bibles. Look into the reign of "Bloody Mary" the Catholic Queen of England and see how many people she had tortured or burned at the stake in an effort to prevent the distribution of English language Bibles.
Now please note. At no time in my post did I say that Catholics are evil, stupid, or any such thing. So your accustion of bigotry is an overreaction to my mentioning facts about your denomination that you don't happen to like. Chill.
Jerry
I believe that your statement is inaccurate. I believe that the scriptures were preserved by that church that you accuse. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church taught the scriptures. It is a historical fact that the scriptures were read each week to a largely illiterate people in their service. No matter what propaganda you happen to subscribe to, that is a fact. All you have to do is to look at the liturgical ceremonies from any time period since they have been recorded.
Your example of Mary I's persecution is an interesting one. Her father, Henry VIII, split from Rome because the Pope would not grant him a divorce when he tired of his wife. For that reason, he split from Rome. His daughter, Mary, never renounced her original faith. When she acceeded to the throne, she attempted to return England to the Catholic church. Her marriage to Phillip of Spain was very unpopular with her subjects. But do you know what the difference, dogmatically between the Church of England and the Catholic Church was, particularly in those days? The Catholic Church recognized the Pope. The Church of England gave that authority to the Crown. (Why? So that Henry could get the nookie he wanted). That's it. The liturgy was still the same, all of those evil practices of the Catholics were still done by the English Church. The three hundred people Mary had burned were were those who resented her taking England back to Catholicism. What were they defending? Certainly not the Word of God...they were defending having the Crown serve as the head of the church. Oh, and by the way, after her sister, Elizabeth, took the throne, returning England to Anglican rule, she ended up killing seven times as many Catholics as her sister did Protestants.
But, of course, killing Catholics is perfectly OK, therefore, Elizabeth had a reputation as a noble leader (the Virgin Queen), while Mary got the title "Bloody Mary." Go figure.
So try again with another example.
Let me try. Of course, we know that the Pilgrims who settled in Massachusetts were fleeing religious persecution, right? And since they were fleeing religious persecution, they must have been fleeing from the Catholics, of course, right? Wrong...they just happened not to agree with the (Protestant) Church of England. And for that, they had to pay. So they were persecuted and moved to the Netherlands (who, at the time were Calvinists). The Netherlands decided that it was not in their best interest to keep them anymore, and so the Pilgrims went on to the New World...where their descendents became known as the Puritans. Of course, we know what happened there...the Salem Witch Trials.
And then lets try the Spanish Inquisition. The Catholic Church killed millions of protestants there, right? Surely he can't defend that, can he? Do me a favor, read the Wikipedia article on it. What you should note is <u>who</u> established it. I know that you weren't taught this in Sunday School or in TWI Jerry, but facts are, nevertheless, facts.
And I could go through more. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Catholic Church is perfectly innocent...not hardly. But the garbage you get from reading your Jack Chick tracts needs to be a bit balanced with some reality.
Look, I'm used to anti-Catholic bigotry. Anti-Catholicism is as American as apple pie. Ever hear of those fine Protestant organizations, the Ku Klux Klan and the Know-Nothings? (btw, Raf, before you say anything, I know that no Protestant denomination established the Klan. However, their membership was restricted to White Protestant Males, therefore they are as much a Protestant organization as the Knights of Malta is a Catholic one)
I realize that you may have been taught this stuff as fact. I remember how anti-Catholic TWI was when I was in TWI. If you grew up in a Protestant household, particularly one in certain denominations, you would have likely grown up with that for your entire life. But look, if you were a "good old boy" who grew up in the rural south, you may not mean anything when you call blacks n*gg*rs, because that's just what they're called. You may honestly believe that they are mentally deficient and cannot control the urge to eat watermelon and fried chicken. But, just because you may not mean anything by it, its still a bigoted statement and is still wrong-headed, hurtful, and factually wrong -- even if you mean nothing by it.
Look, Jerry, I am mostly a live-and-let-live kind of guy. I'll respect your right to believe what you want and won't start going off calling you a heretic or anything. All I'm asking is that you do the same. I'll be happy to get into a spirited discussion about the differences in theology or the differences in Biblical interpretation as a matter of intellectual interest, but I don't typically get up in arms over it. But when you start making statements like those that I called you on, I consider those statements to be over the top and a personal affront. You generalize, inaccurately, and then expect it to be considered as fact...and, of course, it can't be offensive. You want me to chill out? Then show some respect. And that goes not only for Catholics, but Mormons, Jews, or whoever. You'd want them to show some respect for your beliefs, right?
It doesn't take much digging to discover that what became the Roman Catholic Church was only the most successful of various competing factions among Christians. Of course gnostics and other groups might not be considered "Christian", because they, as the losers, didn't get to define what "Christian" meant.
Even after the Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites and others were figuratively buried, there were numerous groups, such as the Nestorians, and various churches known later as Monophysites which flourished in areas outside the easy control of the church in Roman provinces.
I would almost agree with you; its my belief, based upon what I've seen, that these various competing belief systems (with the exception of the gnostics) sprung up during various periods of time in the early church history. For example the Marcionites came into existance somewhere around the middle of the second century (named after Marcion, bishop of Sinop on the Black Sea coast, who originated the practice). The Arian heresy is said to of originated with Paul of Samosata, about 100 years after the Marcionites. The common thread, though, of almost all of these groups was a divergence from what was already identified as orthodox Christian doctrine.
I draw an exception with the Gnostics, because, so far as I can tell, gnostic thought originated hundreds of years before Christ. The heretical "gnostic" group to which I believe you refer tried to interpret Christianity with that gnostic philosophy that was pre-existent.
But I do agree with your conclusion, though. Had any of these heresies prevailed, they would now be considered the orthodoxy and what is now considered orthodox would be considered heresy.
"You're right on that count. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Marcionite belief system came into being around the middle of the second century..."
Someone recently wrote me and asked a similar question relating to the dating of Marcion, which I hope you don't mind me reproducing here:
"I have frequently seen that Marcion was excommunicated in July of 144 by the Roman Church. Would you know the source document for this information?"
[my reply]
Dear ___, Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem, Bk. I, ch. 19) would appear to be the main source for this date, though precisely what was the significance to the Marcionites reckoning 115 years and 6 1/2 months "between Christ and Marcion" has been a point of debate with scholars. Apparently Harnack's interpretation, that this represented the day of Marcion's excommunication from the Roman Church, has been quite popular. As Blackman mentions in "Marcion and His Influence" (p.3), others have interpreted this differently, as the day Marcion left Pontus, to the day of Marcion's death (Barnikol), the latter theory which Blackman also reviews in greater detail in Appendix 2 (p.20). Epiphanius (Panarion 42.I) is a source for Marcion's meeting and controversy with the church presbyters in Rome, over his interpretation of the "new wine/old wineskins" parable (Luke 5:36, 6:43). "
This is only the tip of the iceberg to considering a myriad of points relating to the dating of Marcion's life. It seems quite probable - even reasonable if only considering the time required for any new movement to catch hold - that Marcion and his movement goes back further than circ.150 CE.
If 144 A.D was significant to Marcionites by reason of it having represented
Marcion's break from the Great Church to begin his own movement - that would then leave only 6 years for this new movement to have grown and spread to "every nation" upon the earth (the essence of Justin Martyr's complaint in his 1st Apology, written circ. 150 AD). It doesn't strike as realistic.
Add to this that there have been legends preserved relating to Marcion's earlier activity in Asia Minor, where among all things, the fantastic tale of Marcion having worked as an secretary for the elder "John", a legend preserved in an ancient Latin anti-marcionite prologue to the Fourth Gospel, as well as through paintings and statues depicting an aged, long-bearded "John" firing his ghost writer "Marcion" (in some paintings, he is shown as a sneaky young lad, up to no good; in others, a man in his 40s) for having added his own heretical touches to John's Gospel! (for an examination of traces of Marcionism in the fourth gospel, Joseph Turmel's (pen-name "Henri Delafosse", an excommunicated Catholic priest) "La Quatrieme Evangile" as well as Eisler's work, "the Enigma of the Fourth Gospel")
A recent study also worth mentioning which covers the question of dating in greater detail than I can here is R. Joseph Hoffmann's "Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity (1984, Scholars Press), which presents a re-evaluation of evidence throughout Patristic testimony pertaining to Marcion's life and activity. Hoffmann proposes Marcion to have been born as early as circ 70 A.D.
And the second half of your question -
"...and largely died out somewhere around the fifth, only recently (in the past 100 years or so) coming back into fashion with the modern resurgence into the "new age" practices and gnosticism in general. I believe that most orthodox Christians (not just Catholics) would have a hard time accepting gnostic beliefs as genuinely "christian."
From what I've gathered there were pockets of Marcionism surviving well into the 10th century; indeed it did begin slowing down by the 5th century, receding into the east.
The line of demarcation between certain "Christian" and "gnostic" ideas have not been nor are not always so apparent. The Catholics appear to have learned as much from the Marcionites as the Marcionites from the Catholics. As I delve further to the subject, Marcionism appears more and more an early form of Catholicism without the Old Testament.
But to say that Paul doesn't deserve credit for taking the message of Jesus Christ to the rest of the world, just isn't valid.
ARRGGGGH
Sorry That was letting off frustration at not being able to communicate clearly
Paul of couse deserves credit for taking the Word to the places he did.
But that wasn't the rest of the world, it wasn't even the rest of his world during his life.
I am not denigrating Paul but at the same time I feel that it is incorrect not to acknowledge those whose ministries writings were discarded or destroyed-- or never written down in the first place
If you believe that Paul was the only one with a sizable ministry to the Gentiles ,you declare that his efforts were largely ineffectual. Because if they had been effectual the fruit of those efforts would have been more "missionairies" inspired to set out for places as yet waiting to hear the good news. I believe his efforts were fruitful, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion therefore there had to beothers out there others preaching and we lack those records.
And I still have a problem with calling anyone beisdes Jesus Christ the ROOT of our Christian faith
have you ever attended a Mormon "Baptism for the Dead"?
Yes , I have been baptized for the dead.
One of the major problenms I have had with "mainstream' Protestantism is their attitude towqard those who have never heard the gospel
For example.
Let us say in the 1400's, there was a Native Amazonian living far up a tributrary of the Rio Negra. He was esteemed in his village, he was known for his honesty, and wisdom, he sat on the council of elders. His family lived in well made huts and there was always plenty of food to eat. He was a good provider and shared the extra he caught with the widows , the ill and the poor of his village. HIs world was his village and the three villages that shared the tributary no outsiders ever came there. He died
According to Christianity outside of the LDS faith HE will be in hell because he never accepted Jesus Christ. Never mind that he didn't know of Jesus' existence, thet is irrelevant in Protestant, non LDS theology.
I cannot accept this
NOr would a just and loving GOd sentence one of HIs children to eternal damnation, not because of the fruit or lack of in his life but because of a accident of birth
Thank you for most generously providing this fascinating link, which I have bookmarked and will be visiting.
I have personally encountered a number of publications and Christian studies over the years outside of LDS literature which also promote the idea of Jesus' love and salvation ultimately extending to the entire universe. For example, A.E.Knoch, "All in All"; Adlai Loudy "God's Eonian Purpose"; Andrew Jukes, "The Restitution of All Things"; these ideas I have always cherished as little, encouraging islands of hope amidst the roaring seas of wrath and damnation; I am very glad to hear LDS promoting similar beliefs.
Mark, I wasn't going to join the tiff, but then you made remarks concerning England of the 1500's.
Your simplistic remarks miss the struggle that had taken hold at a grassroots level throughout the UK.
The sainted Sir Thomas More made it his life's mission to wipe out the English bibles of Tyndale which were flooding in from Belgium, and to arrest and try Tyndale himself, whose crime was getting the English Bible into the hands of "the ploughboy". The thing that made More's mission a losing proposition is that an English version of the Reformation had taken hold at the grassroots level and simply could not be stamped out, though he did succeed in arresting Tyndale and condemning him to burn.
(Just to be clear, I do realize it was not for this 'noble' task alone that More was sainted. It was primarily because of the martyrdom he suffered for daring to refuse to annul Henry VIII's marriage.)
My point is that the English reformation was not simply a struggle of the Crown against the Holy Roman Empire. Yes, that struggle happened, and many on both sides were killed. And yes, in the end more Catholics than Protestants were killed. But focusing on the political intrigue alone fails to recognize that the dissemination of Tyndale's Bible had caused revival in the heart of the average Englishman. No political authority, no matter how many killings, was going to stamp out those flames. What happened with the ploughboy when he read the scriptures for himself was quite beyond the ken and reach of any civil or religious authority. That was the essence of the true English reformation.
What was the problem with people reading the Bible for themselves in their own tongue?
Mark, I wasn't going to join the tiff, but then you made remarks concerning England of the 1500's.
Well, I, for one, welcome your joining the fray.
Your simplistic remarks miss the struggle that had taken hold at a grassroots level throughout the UK. The sainted Sir Thomas More made it his life's mission to wipe out the English bibles of Tyndale which were flooding in from Belgium, and to arrest and try Tyndale himself, whose crime was getting the English Bible into the hands of "the ploughboy". The thing that made More's mission a losing proposition is that an English version of the Reformation had taken hold at the grassroots level and simply could not be stamped out, though he did succeed in arresting Tyndale and condemning him to burn.
(Just to be clear, I do realize it was not for this 'noble' task alone that More was sainted. It was primarily because of the martyrdom he suffered for daring to refuse to annul Henry VIII's marriage.)
You may regard my comments as simplistic, but they simply try to deal with the most critical issues without confusing matters.
You bring up Tyndale. He was found to be guilty of violation of the "Constitutions of Oxford" (an act of the English parliment) and was burned at the stake in Beligium, by the Belgian authorities at the instigation of Henry VIII and the Church of England in 1536. That was an act of the English state, not an act of Rome.
Tyndale's version of the Bible was condemned by Rome because it was alleged to be laden with errors, not because it was in the vernacular. This translation was condemned not only by Rome but also by the Church of England (post-separation). That point cannot be over-emphasized.
Now I haven't personally studied Tyndale's Bible, so I am relying upon other people's analysis of it. But I understand that much of it was used in the KJV. So I'd like to give one example (yes, I realize that this is going off a bit on a tangent): 1 John 5:7-8. If you take a look at the KJV, you will notice the following:
1 John 5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:8 (KJV) And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:7 (RSV) And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
1 John 5:8 (RSV) There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
The RSV is a whole lot closer to the Greek (because the Greek fonts are not always faithfully reproduced, you can follow this link
The point is that there were a NUMBER of mistranslations...not just casual ones, but dramatic ones like the one above...that occurred in many of these vernacular translations. That's why some of the vernacular translations, such as the Tyndale, were proscribed.
Tyndale, was, in essence, a Lutheran. Lutherans were not treated well by the Church of England. They regarded him a heretic just as surely as Rome did.
To clarify one statement you made, though, Tyndale's Bible was not in Belgium, it was published in Worms, Germany (a hotbed of the Lutheran heresy). I realize you did not address where it was published, but that little detail is important in understanding the full scope of the issue.
My point is that the English reformation was not simply a struggle of the Crown against the Holy Roman Empire. Yes, that struggle happened, and many on both sides were killed. And yes, in the end more Catholics than Protestants were killed. But focusing on the political intrigue alone fails to recognize that the dissemination of Tyndale's Bible had caused revival in the heart of the average Englishman. No political authority, no matter how many killings, was going to stamp out those flames. What happened with the ploughboy when he read the scriptures for himself was quite beyond the ken and reach of any civil or religious authority. That was the essence of the true English reformation.
And that is all well and good. But, keep in mind that these people sympathetic to the likes of Luther and Calvin were subject mostly to the wrath of the Church of England, which had already separated itself from Rome. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the Puritans left England for the Netherlands, and ultimately for Massechusetts, not because of Roman persecution, but because of persecution at the hands of the English Church.
Again, let me stress (in my simplistic fashion) that what ended up happening as often as not was that rulers used the Church to accomplish their political goals. Heresy was not only regarded as a threat to the Church, but as a threat to the State, as well. Again, this is not to say that all of the popes were perfect or that there were not abuses happening within the church, rather than strictly on behalf of the church. But I do believe it is important to clarify when abuses are being done in the name of the Church, vice done by the Church.
What was the problem with people reading the Bible for themselves in their own tongue?
Obviously, nothing (provided an accurate translation is provided). However, this brings up one critical point that nobody has cared to address: If the Catholic Church was so opposed to a Bible in the vernacular, why would they authorize, sponsor and publish the Douay-Rheims Bible, which, as I mentioned earlier, was published well before the KJV? (The New Testament was published 25 years before the KJV first came out and the full Bible published two years before the KJV). Why would they do this if they so hated the thought of the scriptures being translated into the vernacular?
Allan, take that God Damned background sound out of the previous page!
I take that back...read the source wrong. Mark, take that sound out! It's way too annoying.
Sorry, Rick, I'm beyond the time allowed for editing. I did report myself to the moderators, though, so hopefully they can either yank the tag or pull the post altogether.
(I did reduce the number of repititions from 10 to 1, though...it used to be worse) :)
Obviously, nothing (provided an accurate translation is provided). However, this brings up one critical point that nobody has cared to address: If the Catholic Church was so opposed to a Bible in the vernacular, why would they authorize, sponsor and publish the Douay-Rheims Bible, which, as I mentioned earlier, was published well before the KJV? (The New Testament was published 25 years before the KJV first came out and the full Bible published two years before the KJV). Why would they do this if they so hated the thought of the scriptures being translated into the vernacular?
You bring up various valid responses and rebuttals, as well as those that might not be so valid. One of my questions for you is, how much of this defense is based on 1) actual facts, irrelevent to who looks good (or not so good) by said facts, as opposed to 2) defense based on loyalty and obligation to the Church that you are now a member of? Heck, you even don't have to answer; just think about the question if you want. But keep in mind that defenses based on loyalty to the organization/group does little, if any, to address the actual facts related to the topic.
Another question I have for you is that even while the Church was reading the scriptures to the congregations through the years, what about encouraging the individual members of the congregations to read (and interpret) the scriptures for themselves, as well as teaching the members how to read (particularly during the Middle Ages, when the illiteracy rate was so damn high) as well as providing them with a good education? I mean, you consider the overall excellence of Catholic schools in education nowadays, why wasn't that pursued back then?
If you would be so kind as to deal with these questions.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
15
15
23
Popular Days
Oct 9
24
Oct 8
21
Oct 1
20
Oct 10
15
Top Posters In This Topic
Allan 10 posts
Oakspear 15 posts
templelady 15 posts
markomalley 23 posts
Popular Days
Oct 9 2005
24 posts
Oct 8 2005
21 posts
Oct 1 2005
20 posts
Oct 10 2005
15 posts
Raf
This is historically incorrect, and presumes all copies of the scriptures were in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. Also untrue.
Mark, I wouldn't berate someone for an ignorance of history in the same post as inaccuracy this blatant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Sorry, Raf, but it is historically accurate (unless you are speaking of the Eastern/Western Schism in the 11th Century...but I would submit that both churches are Catholic in form and belief.) Otherwise, there were little heretical movements that popped up from time to time, but no other "denominations." You'll note that I said "Catholic," not "Roman Catholic." I did so for a reason. In fact, there were no protestant denominations until 1517-1521, the time period between the 95 Theses and the Diet of Worms.
Further I never said all copies of scripture were in the hands of the Church. I did say the following:
That doesn't state that all copies of the scriptures were in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church (common sense says that this could not be true). I never addressed possession of copies of scripture; I addressed reproduction of scripture.
Finally I wasn't berating somebody for ignorance of history...I was berating somebody for sheer bigotry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You can call other forms of worship "Catholic," but then you need to define your term. They would balk at the term, most certainly.
More importantly, Jerry is talking about the Roman Catholic Church, so for you to switch definitions on him mid-argument is less than fair.
Umm, okay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
There is intercommunion between the groups. The groups accepta tha apostolicity of each others episcopate.
Give me a break, Raf.As to your:
You quote me saying:
That is not the full context.The full context is:
And if you really want the total context, you need to go back to my opening statement to capture that full context:
That sort of frames the whole discussion, doesn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I only take issue with this statement, and question the accuracy thereof.
Not so in the first few centuries of Christianity.
Unless some ancient prejudices prevented Roman Catholics
from even recognizing that rival movements
were "Christian" in any respect.
But I don't see that as having always been the case.
As I mentioned to you in another thread, Marcionites who converted to
Catholicism did not always require re-baptism.
The Marcionite Church, besides having been the most formidable rival to Roman Catholicism,
possessed their own scriptures, and had an ecclesiastical structure that
in many respects was almost identical to the Roman Catholic. Warnings were issued
to travelers, when passing through any village and inquiring for a "House of the Lord",
to specifically ask for the "Catholic" church, lest they wander into a Marcionite Church by mistake.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
TempleLady,
have you ever attended a Mormon "Baptism for the Dead"?
This was also a baptism exercised by the ancient Marcionite Church,
in which a living person was baptized in place of a dead relative.
I would appreciate you sharing your personal insights and experiences relating
to this baptism. If you would prefer communicating through email
( dmahar@snet.net ) that would okay.
My father passed away last winter, and I've become interested in these sorts of things.
Thank you.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You're right on that count. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Marcionite belief system came into being around the middle of the second century and largely died out somewhere around the fifth, only recently (in the past 100 years or so) coming back into fashion with the modern resurgence into the "new age" practices and gnosticism in general. I believe that most orthodox Christians (not just Catholics) would have a hard time accepting gnostic beliefs as genuinely "christian."
You are quite correct that the Marcionites were one of the longest-lived heterodox groups in the ancient world. I'm not sure as to the numbers, but I do believe their life-span was about twice that of the Arians. As to baptism, I said in that thread:I think the point you raise about them having their own Canon is a vital one. Their Canon did not line up with that accepted by orthodox Christianity. As you can (and have) attest, their complete Canon is not available. Your pet project, reconstructing that Canon, illustrates the point I was trying to make: had the Catholic Church wished to eradicate the scriptures, they surely could have done so in the first 1500 years of their existence (particularly if the power and reach of the Church was as ubiqutous as some anti-Catholic writers claim it was).
As to the ecclesiastical structure of the Marcionite church, I am certainly no expert, but will take your word for it.
And so, I will revise my original statement from:
to:The caveats added are highlighted by italicizing. Hopefully that will placate the critics on this thread while still illustrating the point that I was attempting to make that jbarrax's assertion that Rome intentionally tried to destroy the scriptures is not only ludicrous but is highly offensive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark,
I did not deny that you accused Jerry of bigotry. I only said you berated him as being ignorant of history. I didn't say that was the ONLY thing you were saying.
As for switching terms in the middle of the discussion, sorry, I won't give you a break. It makes reasonable dialogue impossible when someone changes definitions midstream.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Well we have quite a heated discussion here don't we?
Mark and TempleLady: I seem to have skewered some sacred cows of yours. I do not mean to ruin anyone's day, I'm simply offering a different perspective than those you seem to be so passionately committed to.
Mark. I believe my original statement was in the context of Paul's writings having been preserved by God's providence even during a period of time when the ruling Church did not want the knowledge of the Scriptures disseminated. I'm sorry if that statement offends you. You can obsess over my use of the word "bured" if you like. It is a historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church, although they had the Scriptures, did not TEACH from the Scriptures. Their people were deliberately kept ignorant of them.
It is also a fact that the Roman Catholic Church persecuted people who wanted to publish and distribute Bibles. Look into the reign of "Bloody Mary" the Catholic Queen of England and see how many people she had tortured or burned at the stake in an effort to prevent the distribution of English language Bibles.
Now please note. At no time in my post did I say that Catholics are evil, stupid, or any such thing. So your accustion of bigotry is an overreaction to my mentioning facts about your denomination that you don't happen to like. Chill.
TempleLady:
I still think we're missing each other. As Evan said, you seem to have dug your heels in about Paul. And I think Evan answered quite eloquently regarding the importance of Paul's influence in the preaching of the gospel of Christ. I have issues with Paul's writings too, but I cannot discount the impact of his ministry.
Look at it this way. Jesus gave the Twelve a job to do. They weren't getting it done. So he went and found someone who would carry the gospel to the Gentiles. Was Paul perfect? No. He had been a murderous Pharisee. But the best men chosen weren't spreading the news, so he had to go with the second string. If you want to say that Paul should never have been an apostle, I won't argue that. If you want to say that Paul blew it and got thrown into prison for his own disobedience, I won't argue that either (although Evan would). But to say that Paul doesn't deserve credit for taking the message of Jesus Christ to the rest of the world, just isn't valid.
Love and peace
JerryB
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Apology accepted. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It doesn't take much digging to discover that what became the Roman Catholic Church was only the most successful of various competing factions among Christians. Of course gnostics and other groups might not be considered "Christian", because they, as the losers, didn't get to define what "Christian" meant.
Even after the Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites and others were figuratively buried, there were numerous groups, such as the Nestorians, and various churches known later as Monophysites which flourished in areas outside the easy control of the church in Roman provinces.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Jerry
I believe that your statement is inaccurate. I believe that the scriptures were preserved by that church that you accuse. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church taught the scriptures. It is a historical fact that the scriptures were read each week to a largely illiterate people in their service. No matter what propaganda you happen to subscribe to, that is a fact. All you have to do is to look at the liturgical ceremonies from any time period since they have been recorded.
Your example of Mary I's persecution is an interesting one. Her father, Henry VIII, split from Rome because the Pope would not grant him a divorce when he tired of his wife. For that reason, he split from Rome. His daughter, Mary, never renounced her original faith. When she acceeded to the throne, she attempted to return England to the Catholic church. Her marriage to Phillip of Spain was very unpopular with her subjects. But do you know what the difference, dogmatically between the Church of England and the Catholic Church was, particularly in those days? The Catholic Church recognized the Pope. The Church of England gave that authority to the Crown. (Why? So that Henry could get the nookie he wanted). That's it. The liturgy was still the same, all of those evil practices of the Catholics were still done by the English Church. The three hundred people Mary had burned were were those who resented her taking England back to Catholicism. What were they defending? Certainly not the Word of God...they were defending having the Crown serve as the head of the church. Oh, and by the way, after her sister, Elizabeth, took the throne, returning England to Anglican rule, she ended up killing seven times as many Catholics as her sister did Protestants.
But, of course, killing Catholics is perfectly OK, therefore, Elizabeth had a reputation as a noble leader (the Virgin Queen), while Mary got the title "Bloody Mary." Go figure.
So try again with another example.
Let me try. Of course, we know that the Pilgrims who settled in Massachusetts were fleeing religious persecution, right? And since they were fleeing religious persecution, they must have been fleeing from the Catholics, of course, right? Wrong...they just happened not to agree with the (Protestant) Church of England. And for that, they had to pay. So they were persecuted and moved to the Netherlands (who, at the time were Calvinists). The Netherlands decided that it was not in their best interest to keep them anymore, and so the Pilgrims went on to the New World...where their descendents became known as the Puritans. Of course, we know what happened there...the Salem Witch Trials.
And then lets try the Spanish Inquisition. The Catholic Church killed millions of protestants there, right? Surely he can't defend that, can he? Do me a favor, read the Wikipedia article on it. What you should note is <u>who</u> established it. I know that you weren't taught this in Sunday School or in TWI Jerry, but facts are, nevertheless, facts.
And I could go through more. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Catholic Church is perfectly innocent...not hardly. But the garbage you get from reading your Jack Chick tracts needs to be a bit balanced with some reality.
Look, I'm used to anti-Catholic bigotry. Anti-Catholicism is as American as apple pie. Ever hear of those fine Protestant organizations, the Ku Klux Klan and the Know-Nothings? (btw, Raf, before you say anything, I know that no Protestant denomination established the Klan. However, their membership was restricted to White Protestant Males, therefore they are as much a Protestant organization as the Knights of Malta is a Catholic one)
I realize that you may have been taught this stuff as fact. I remember how anti-Catholic TWI was when I was in TWI. If you grew up in a Protestant household, particularly one in certain denominations, you would have likely grown up with that for your entire life. But look, if you were a "good old boy" who grew up in the rural south, you may not mean anything when you call blacks n*gg*rs, because that's just what they're called. You may honestly believe that they are mentally deficient and cannot control the urge to eat watermelon and fried chicken. But, just because you may not mean anything by it, its still a bigoted statement and is still wrong-headed, hurtful, and factually wrong -- even if you mean nothing by it.
Look, Jerry, I am mostly a live-and-let-live kind of guy. I'll respect your right to believe what you want and won't start going off calling you a heretic or anything. All I'm asking is that you do the same. I'll be happy to get into a spirited discussion about the differences in theology or the differences in Biblical interpretation as a matter of intellectual interest, but I don't typically get up in arms over it. But when you start making statements like those that I called you on, I consider those statements to be over the top and a personal affront. You generalize, inaccurately, and then expect it to be considered as fact...and, of course, it can't be offensive. You want me to chill out? Then show some respect. And that goes not only for Catholics, but Mormons, Jews, or whoever. You'd want them to show some respect for your beliefs, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oakspear,
I would almost agree with you; its my belief, based upon what I've seen, that these various competing belief systems (with the exception of the gnostics) sprung up during various periods of time in the early church history. For example the Marcionites came into existance somewhere around the middle of the second century (named after Marcion, bishop of Sinop on the Black Sea coast, who originated the practice). The Arian heresy is said to of originated with Paul of Samosata, about 100 years after the Marcionites. The common thread, though, of almost all of these groups was a divergence from what was already identified as orthodox Christian doctrine.
I draw an exception with the Gnostics, because, so far as I can tell, gnostic thought originated hundreds of years before Christ. The heretical "gnostic" group to which I believe you refer tried to interpret Christianity with that gnostic philosophy that was pre-existent.
But I do agree with your conclusion, though. Had any of these heresies prevailed, they would now be considered the orthodoxy and what is now considered orthodox would be considered heresy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mark graciously wrote:
"You're right on that count. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Marcionite belief system came into being around the middle of the second century..."
Someone recently wrote me and asked a similar question relating to the dating of Marcion, which I hope you don't mind me reproducing here:
"I have frequently seen that Marcion was excommunicated in July of 144 by the Roman Church. Would you know the source document for this information?"
[my reply]
Dear ___, Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem, Bk. I, ch. 19) would appear to be the main source for this date, though precisely what was the significance to the Marcionites reckoning 115 years and 6 1/2 months "between Christ and Marcion" has been a point of debate with scholars. Apparently Harnack's interpretation, that this represented the day of Marcion's excommunication from the Roman Church, has been quite popular. As Blackman mentions in "Marcion and His Influence" (p.3), others have interpreted this differently, as the day Marcion left Pontus, to the day of Marcion's death (Barnikol), the latter theory which Blackman also reviews in greater detail in Appendix 2 (p.20). Epiphanius (Panarion 42.I) is a source for Marcion's meeting and controversy with the church presbyters in Rome, over his interpretation of the "new wine/old wineskins" parable (Luke 5:36, 6:43). "
This is only the tip of the iceberg to considering a myriad of points relating to the dating of Marcion's life. It seems quite probable - even reasonable if only considering the time required for any new movement to catch hold - that Marcion and his movement goes back further than circ.150 CE.
If 144 A.D was significant to Marcionites by reason of it having represented
Marcion's break from the Great Church to begin his own movement - that would then leave only 6 years for this new movement to have grown and spread to "every nation" upon the earth (the essence of Justin Martyr's complaint in his 1st Apology, written circ. 150 AD). It doesn't strike as realistic.
Add to this that there have been legends preserved relating to Marcion's earlier activity in Asia Minor, where among all things, the fantastic tale of Marcion having worked as an secretary for the elder "John", a legend preserved in an ancient Latin anti-marcionite prologue to the Fourth Gospel, as well as through paintings and statues depicting an aged, long-bearded "John" firing his ghost writer "Marcion" (in some paintings, he is shown as a sneaky young lad, up to no good; in others, a man in his 40s) for having added his own heretical touches to John's Gospel! (for an examination of traces of Marcionism in the fourth gospel, Joseph Turmel's (pen-name "Henri Delafosse", an excommunicated Catholic priest) "La Quatrieme Evangile" as well as Eisler's work, "the Enigma of the Fourth Gospel")
A recent study also worth mentioning which covers the question of dating in greater detail than I can here is R. Joseph Hoffmann's "Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity (1984, Scholars Press), which presents a re-evaluation of evidence throughout Patristic testimony pertaining to Marcion's life and activity. Hoffmann proposes Marcion to have been born as early as circ 70 A.D.
And the second half of your question -
"...and largely died out somewhere around the fifth, only recently (in the past 100 years or so) coming back into fashion with the modern resurgence into the "new age" practices and gnosticism in general. I believe that most orthodox Christians (not just Catholics) would have a hard time accepting gnostic beliefs as genuinely "christian."
From what I've gathered there were pockets of Marcionism surviving well into the 10th century; indeed it did begin slowing down by the 5th century, receding into the east.
The line of demarcation between certain "Christian" and "gnostic" ideas have not been nor are not always so apparent. The Catholics appear to have learned as much from the Marcionites as the Marcionites from the Catholics. As I delve further to the subject, Marcionism appears more and more an early form of Catholicism without the Old Testament.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
ARRGGGGH
Sorry That was letting off frustration at not being able to communicate clearly
Paul of couse deserves credit for taking the Word to the places he did.
But that wasn't the rest of the world, it wasn't even the rest of his world during his life.
I am not denigrating Paul but at the same time I feel that it is incorrect not to acknowledge those whose ministries writings were discarded or destroyed-- or never written down in the first place
If you believe that Paul was the only one with a sizable ministry to the Gentiles ,you declare that his efforts were largely ineffectual. Because if they had been effectual the fruit of those efforts would have been more "missionairies" inspired to set out for places as yet waiting to hear the good news. I believe his efforts were fruitful, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion therefore there had to beothers out there others preaching and we lack those records.
And I still have a problem with calling anyone beisdes Jesus Christ the ROOT of our Christian faith
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Yes , I have been baptized for the dead.
One of the major problenms I have had with "mainstream' Protestantism is their attitude towqard those who have never heard the gospel
For example.
Let us say in the 1400's, there was a Native Amazonian living far up a tributrary of the Rio Negra. He was esteemed in his village, he was known for his honesty, and wisdom, he sat on the council of elders. His family lived in well made huts and there was always plenty of food to eat. He was a good provider and shared the extra he caught with the widows , the ill and the poor of his village. HIs world was his village and the three villages that shared the tributary no outsiders ever came there. He died
According to Christianity outside of the LDS faith HE will be in hell because he never accepted Jesus Christ. Never mind that he didn't know of Jesus' existence, thet is irrelevant in Protestant, non LDS theology.
I cannot accept this
NOr would a just and loving GOd sentence one of HIs children to eternal damnation, not because of the fruit or lack of in his life but because of a accident of birth
here is a link to more on the subject
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=t...r%3Bfield%3ARef
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
TempleLady,
Thank you for most generously providing this fascinating link, which I have bookmarked and will be visiting.
I have personally encountered a number of publications and Christian studies over the years outside of LDS literature which also promote the idea of Jesus' love and salvation ultimately extending to the entire universe. For example, A.E.Knoch, "All in All"; Adlai Loudy "God's Eonian Purpose"; Andrew Jukes, "The Restitution of All Things"; these ideas I have always cherished as little, encouraging islands of hope amidst the roaring seas of wrath and damnation; I am very glad to hear LDS promoting similar beliefs.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Mark, I wasn't going to join the tiff, but then you made remarks concerning England of the 1500's.
Your simplistic remarks miss the struggle that had taken hold at a grassroots level throughout the UK.
The sainted Sir Thomas More made it his life's mission to wipe out the English bibles of Tyndale which were flooding in from Belgium, and to arrest and try Tyndale himself, whose crime was getting the English Bible into the hands of "the ploughboy". The thing that made More's mission a losing proposition is that an English version of the Reformation had taken hold at the grassroots level and simply could not be stamped out, though he did succeed in arresting Tyndale and condemning him to burn.
(Just to be clear, I do realize it was not for this 'noble' task alone that More was sainted. It was primarily because of the martyrdom he suffered for daring to refuse to annul Henry VIII's marriage.)
My point is that the English reformation was not simply a struggle of the Crown against the Holy Roman Empire. Yes, that struggle happened, and many on both sides were killed. And yes, in the end more Catholics than Protestants were killed. But focusing on the political intrigue alone fails to recognize that the dissemination of Tyndale's Bible had caused revival in the heart of the average Englishman. No political authority, no matter how many killings, was going to stamp out those flames. What happened with the ploughboy when he read the scriptures for himself was quite beyond the ken and reach of any civil or religious authority. That was the essence of the true English reformation.
What was the problem with people reading the Bible for themselves in their own tongue?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
Allan, take that God Damned background sound out of the previous page!
I take that back...read the source wrong. Mark, take that sound out! It's way too annoying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Well, I, for one, welcome your joining the fray.
You may regard my comments as simplistic, but they simply try to deal with the most critical issues without confusing matters.You bring up Tyndale. He was found to be guilty of violation of the "Constitutions of Oxford" (an act of the English parliment) and was burned at the stake in Beligium, by the Belgian authorities at the instigation of Henry VIII and the Church of England in 1536. That was an act of the English state, not an act of Rome.
Tyndale's version of the Bible was condemned by Rome because it was alleged to be laden with errors, not because it was in the vernacular. This translation was condemned not only by Rome but also by the Church of England (post-separation). That point cannot be over-emphasized.
Tyndale, was, in essence, a Lutheran. Lutherans were not treated well by the Church of England. They regarded him a heretic just as surely as Rome did.
To clarify one statement you made, though, Tyndale's Bible was not in Belgium, it was published in Worms, Germany (a hotbed of the Lutheran heresy). I realize you did not address where it was published, but that little detail is important in understanding the full scope of the issue.
And that is all well and good. But, keep in mind that these people sympathetic to the likes of Luther and Calvin were subject mostly to the wrath of the Church of England, which had already separated itself from Rome. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the Puritans left England for the Netherlands, and ultimately for Massechusetts, not because of Roman persecution, but because of persecution at the hands of the English Church.
Again, let me stress (in my simplistic fashion) that what ended up happening as often as not was that rulers used the Church to accomplish their political goals. Heresy was not only regarded as a threat to the Church, but as a threat to the State, as well. Again, this is not to say that all of the popes were perfect or that there were not abuses happening within the church, rather than strictly on behalf of the church. But I do believe it is important to clarify when abuses are being done in the name of the Church, vice done by the Church.
Obviously, nothing (provided an accurate translation is provided). However, this brings up one critical point that nobody has cared to address: If the Catholic Church was so opposed to a Bible in the vernacular, why would they authorize, sponsor and publish the Douay-Rheims Bible, which, as I mentioned earlier, was published well before the KJV? (The New Testament was published 25 years before the KJV first came out and the full Bible published two years before the KJV). Why would they do this if they so hated the thought of the scriptures being translated into the vernacular?Sorry, Rick, I'm beyond the time allowed for editing. I did report myself to the moderators, though, so hopefully they can either yank the tag or pull the post altogether.
(I did reduce the number of repititions from 10 to 1, though...it used to be worse) :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
Thank you Mark. I had my volume all the way up and almost jumped out of my chair when it started. :)
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Hmmm, good question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mark,
You bring up various valid responses and rebuttals, as well as those that might not be so valid. One of my questions for you is, how much of this defense is based on 1) actual facts, irrelevent to who looks good (or not so good) by said facts, as opposed to 2) defense based on loyalty and obligation to the Church that you are now a member of? Heck, you even don't have to answer; just think about the question if you want. But keep in mind that defenses based on loyalty to the organization/group does little, if any, to address the actual facts related to the topic.
Another question I have for you is that even while the Church was reading the scriptures to the congregations through the years, what about encouraging the individual members of the congregations to read (and interpret) the scriptures for themselves, as well as teaching the members how to read (particularly during the Middle Ages, when the illiteracy rate was so damn high) as well as providing them with a good education? I mean, you consider the overall excellence of Catholic schools in education nowadays, why wasn't that pursued back then?
If you would be so kind as to deal with these questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.