A charge worthy of conviction

[ReformedBaptist]

Concerning "heretics" it was said that they "never ceased inveighing against human inventions, and citing the Holy Scriptures, whence they always had a
text on hand on all occasions."

I came accross this a charge from old papal rome against Christians. Now that is a charge worth conviction!

 

[DHK]

I think today they are called "Bible thumpers."

 

[lori4dogs]

Concerning "heretics" it was said that they "never ceased inveighing against human inventions, and citing the Holy Scriptures, whence they always had a
text on hand on all occasions."

I came accross this a charge from old papal rome against Christians. Now that is a charge worth conviction!

:sleep::sleep::sleep:

 

[lori4dogs]

What kinds of Holy Scripture are we talking about here? Tyndales translation was condemned by other protestants who cited over 2,000 errors within it. Then we have Luther's bible where he added the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28. Never mind the books (like James) he deleted.

The Holy Catholic Church sought to protect people from the counterfeit, blasphemous and totally distorted translations. Even Peter warns us in 2nd Peter 3:16 of the damage that ignorant and unstable people can do when they distort Holy Scripture which is what the OP's quote is REALLY about.

 

[DHK]

What kinds of Holy Scripture are we talking about here? Tyndales translation was condemned by other protestants who cited over 2,000 errors within it. The Holy Catholic Church sought to protect people from the counterfeit, blasphamous and totally distorted translations. Even Peter warns us in 2nd Peter 3:16 of the damage that ignorant and unstable people can do when they distort Holy Scripture which is what the OP's quote is REALLY about.

This is a fallacy. Tyndale was the first to put the Bible in the language of the English-speaking people, so that they could read it. It was an accurate translation, no doubt still more accurate than the Douay-Rheims used by the RCC today. What was Tyndale's reward? He was burned at the stake, and his ashes scattered on the river. His Bibles were gathered up by the RCC and burned lest the common people get them. So afraid was the RCC that the common people should have a Bible in their hands that they would be able to read it!! That would be horrible wouldn't it!

 

[lori4dogs]

This is a fallacy. Tyndale was the first to put the Bible in the language of the English-speaking people, so that they could read it. It was an accurate translation, no doubt still more accurate than the Douay-Rheims used by the RCC today. What was Tyndale's reward? He was burned at the stake, and his ashes scattered on the river. His Bibles were gathered up by the RCC and burned lest the common people get them. So afraid was the RCC that the common people should have a Bible in their hands that they would be able to read it!! That would be horrible wouldn't it!

Actually, Tyndale was put to death by the civil judges and was executed as a subversive of law and order.

Your conclusion as to why Tyndales bibles were burned is the fallacy. It had nothing to do with the church 'being afraid' of what people might learn if they got their hands on a bible. It was because his bible had over 2,000 errors in it! It was the Churches love for the bible that they got rid of this perversion of God's Holy Word. The Holy Catholic Church did not oppose FAITHFUL vernacular translations.

 

[lori4dogs]

I'm sure the 'chained bibles' accusation is on it's way as well. Those 'chained bibles' were OPEN bibles and people could read them 'til their hearts content'. Paper was scarce then and it took about a year to produce a written bible in those days so naturally they did their best to protect them kinda like telephone books, dictionaries, etc. are chained.

 

[DHK]

I'm sure the 'chained bibles' accusation is on it's way as well. Those 'chained bibles' were OPEN bibles and people could read them 'til their hearts content'. Paper was scarce then and it took about a year to produce a written bible in those days so naturally they did their best to protect them kinda like telephone books, dictionaries, etc. are chained.

In 1434 the printing press had been invented. The first thing of the press was a Bible. Printing made it easier to produce Bibles. Size was another matter. If you want history, go here:

http://www.williamtyndale.com/0welcomewilliamtyndale.htm

What were the crimes for which Tyndale was murdered for:

[SIZE=+2] T [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]h e [/SIZE][SIZE=+2]"C [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]r i m e s[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]" [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]o f [/SIZE][SIZE=+2]W [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]i l l i a m[/SIZE][SIZE=+2] T [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]y n d a l e . . .[/SIZE] [SIZE=+2]F[/SIZE]irst:[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE] He maintains that faith alone justifies.
[SIZE=+2]S[/SIZE]econd:[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]He maintains that to believe in the forgiveness of sins and to embrace
the mercy offered in the Gospel, is enough for salvation.
[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]hird: He avers that human traditions cannot bind the conscience, except
where their neglect might occasion scandal.
[SIZE=+2]F[/SIZE]ourth: He denies the freedom of the will.
[SIZE=+2]F[/SIZE]ifth: He denies that there is any purgatory.
[SIZE=+2]S[/SIZE]ixth: He affirms that neither the Virgin nor the Saints pray for us in their
own person.
[SIZE=+2]S[/SIZE]eventh: He asserts that neither the Virgin nor the Saints should be invoked by us.

 

[lori4dogs]

Your cut & paste rants will, of course, be followed by BobRyans. Oh, well . . .

First, you Protestants usually ignore the fact that many English versions of the bible were around even before Wycliff. These were acceptable, authorized and legal. Reading these authorized versions was not only OK, it was encouraged. Secondly, if the Holy Catholic Church needed a new 'authorized' English version of the bible, Tyndale was certainly not the man. He was, at best, a mediocre theologian who constantly hurled insults at people and was known to have bouts of violence. Real Godly man, huh!

So full of errors was Tyndales translation that after Henry's break from Rome he 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."

Again, it was the civil authorities that brought the end to Tyndale.

I would say that your Protestant 'gender inclusive' NIV bible or the JW New World Translation is a good example of why you don't want buy into just any translation like Tyndales.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm sure the 'chained bibles' accusation is on it's way as well. Those 'chained bibles' were OPEN bibles and people could read them 'til their hearts content'. Paper was scarce then and it took about a year to produce a written bible in those days so naturally they did their best to protect them kinda like telephone books, dictionaries, etc. are chained.

The "key difference" being that nobody is burning phone books and claiming it is "heresy" to own one -- and the phone books are all in the native language. A not-so-subtle distinction between today and the dark ages.

(I am always impressed by those who take the "dark ages were really not so bad" approach).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, Tyndale was put to death by the civil judges and was executed as a subversive of law and order.

http://www.williamtyndale.com/0welcomewilliamtyndale.htm

What were the crimes for which Tyndale was murdered for:

T [SIZE=+1]h e [/SIZE][SIZE=+2]"C [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]r i m e s[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]" [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]o f [/SIZE][SIZE=+2]W [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]i l l i a m[/SIZE][SIZE=+2] T [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]y n d a l e . . .[/SIZE] [SIZE=+2]F[/SIZE]irst: He maintains that faith alone justifies.
[SIZE=+2]S[/SIZE]econd:He maintains that to believe in the forgiveness of sins and to embrace
the mercy offered in the Gospel, is enough for salvation.
[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]hird: He avers that human traditions cannot bind the conscience, except
where their neglect might occasion scandal.
[SIZE=+2]F[/SIZE]ourth: He denies the freedom of the will.
[SIZE=+2]F[/SIZE]ifth: He denies that there is any purgatory.
[SIZE=+2]S[/SIZE]ixth: He affirms that neither the Virgin nor the Saints pray for us in their
own person.
[SIZE=+2]S[/SIZE]eventh: He asserts that neither the Virgin nor the Saints should be invoked by us.

Vatican Hosts Inquisition Symposium

By CANDICE HUGHES

.c The Associated Press

VATICAN CITY (AP) – The Vatican assembled a blue-ribbon panel of scholars Thursday to examine the Inquisition and declared its readiness to submit the church's darkest institution to the judgment of history.

The three-day symposium is part of the Roman Catholic Church's countdown to 2000. Pope John Paul II wants the church to begin the new millennium with a clear conscience, which means facing up to past sins.

For many people, the Inquisition is one of the church's worst transgressions. For centuries, ecclesiastical ``thought police'' tried, tortured and burned people at the stake for heresy and other crimes.

``The church cannot cross the threshold of the new millennium without pressing its children to purify themselves in repentance for their errors, infidelity, incoherence,'' Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said, opening the conference.

The inquisitors went after Protestants, Jews, Muslims and presumed heretics. They persecuted scientists like Galileo. They banned the Bible in anything but Latin, which few ordinary people could read.

The Inquisition began in the 13th century and lasted into the 19th. An index of banned books endured even longer, until 1966. And it was 1992 before the church rehabilitated Galileo, condemned for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

The symposium, which gathers experts from inside and outside the church, is the Vatican's first critical look at the church's record of repression.

Among other things, it will give scholars a chance to compare notes on what they've found in the secret Vatican archives on the Inquisition, which the Holy See only recently opened.

``The church is not afraid to submit its past to the judgment of history,'' said Etchegaray, a Frenchman who leads the Vatican's Commission on the Grand Jubilee.

Closed to the public and press, the symposium is not expected to produce any definitive statement from the Vatican on the Inquisition. That is expected in 2000 as part of the grand ``mea culpa'' at the start of Christianity's third millennium.

The great question is whether the pontiff will ask forgiveness for the sins of the church's members, as it did with the Holocaust, or for the sins of the church itself. Unlike the Holocaust, the Inquisition was a church initiative authorized by the popes themselves.

Etchegaray on Thursday swept aside the idea that it can be seen a series of local campaigns whose excesses might be blamed on secular authorities. There was only one Inquisition, he said, and it was undeniably an ecclesiastical institution.

The pontiff may give a hint as to his thinking on Saturday, when he meets with participants in the conference.

About 50 scholars from Europe, the United States and Latin America are taking part.

AP-NY-10-29-98 1403EST

Hint - how long BEFORE Vatican II was it commonly allowed for the mass to be said in the venacular.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Salty]

First, you Protestants usually ignore the fact that many English versions ...I would say that your Protestant 'gender inclusive' NIV bible or the JW New World Translation is a good example of why you don't want buy into just any translation like Tyndales.

Your profile states you are "anglican" which is also Protestant.
If you remember, I started a poll some time ago based on your statement. You might be interested in knowing that many Baptists do not consider themselves Protestants.!

Check this link:

 

[DHK]

Your cut & paste rants will, of course, be followed by BobRyans. Oh, well . . .

First, you Protestants usually ignore the fact that many English versions of the bible were around even before Wycliff.

Name some and give me their dates.

These were acceptable, authorized and legal. Reading these authorized versions was not only OK, it was encouraged.

Back that statement up. Give reputable references.

Secondly, if the Holy Catholic Church needed a new 'authorized' English version of the bible, Tyndale was certainly not the man.

Not even the RCC had an English Bible at that time. You do not know what you are talking about.

He was, at best, a mediocre theologian who constantly hurled insults at people and was known to have bouts of violence. Real Godly man, huh!

He was a scholar educated both at Cambridge and Oxford and knew Greek and Hebrew well. His education far exceeded the translators of the RCC who later on simply translated an English version from the Latin Vulgate. But that was much later--much, much later.
As mentioned, Tyndale was burned at the stake for his beliefs held against the Catholic Church. The RCC is such a kind bunch of souls.

So full of errors was Tyndales translation that after Henry's break from Rome he 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."

First document the quote.
Second know that it was a false allegation. They burned his bibles because they did not want the Bible in the hands of the common person--in their own language so they could understand it.
--Get it right Tyndale's translation is the first translation in the English language from the Greek and Hebrew. It was done in the 14th century. IT WAS THE FIRST ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

Again, it was the civil authorities that brought the end to Tyndale.

Civil authorities ordered by the RCC.

 

[lori4dogs]

DHK said: "Not even the RCC had an English Bible at that time. You do not know what you are talking about."


http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/translations/english.htm

 

[DHK]

DHK said: "Not even the RCC had an English Bible at that time. You do not know what you are talking about."


http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/translations/english.htm

Try real history. This is garbage and propaganda. It is not true to fact at all. I challenge you to google the history of the Bible and not Catholic apologetic sites. Find out the history of the Bible. Look at the misinformation here:

The Coverdale Bible based, as protestants rightly say, on Tyndale's translation, was "the forerunner of the Authorized Version (1611)." But protestants fail to realize that this "Authorized Version" contains evidence that positively refutes there assertion that the translation of the Bible into English is of Wycliff-Tyndale origin.

Yes, of course. We all realize that the work of Wycliffe and Tyndale was instrumental in the laying the groundwork for the KJV. That is common knowledge. You don't score any points there.

After enumerating the many converted nations that had the Scriptures in their own language, the world was told in the preface of that Protestant Bible, that "much about the time (1360), even in King Richard the Second's days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated..., so that to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up and out in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation."

This is about the most ridiculous and concocted propaganda that I have heard!
Do you even bother to google or look up in an encyclopedia who these people are?
First, Trevisa lived at the same time as Wyclif, and even after Wyclif.
Second, he was one of those that contributed in helping Wyclif, and that is all. He didn't do the translation. Wyclif did, and he assisted him. What kind of propaganda are you reading--lies, lies, and more lies. Search it out for yourself.
The RCC has a history of lies.

Learn again:
Wyclif made the first English translation but it was not from the Greek and Hebrew. It was from Latin.

Tyndale made the first English translation from the Greek and Hebrew languages.

Those are the historical facts. They are indisputable.

 

[Trotter]

Lori's quote looks to be edited...

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543 -- after his break with Rome -- Henry VIII 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.”

However, the quote is only found from Catholic sources which condemn Tyndale completely. No surprise there since his translation was completely at odds with the ring-kissers and the malarkey they fed the people from their Latin mass.

 

[BobRyan]

Your cut & paste rants will, of course, be followed by BobRyans. Oh, well . . .

Step 1 - if you find the Catholic Cardinals and sources that I quote to be in error "show it".

Step 2. - I am quoting Catholic sources to make the Protestant case (a measure of objectivity by every standard so far). You are simply complaining that the quotes exist - and then sticking to Catholic sources to make Catholic arguments about those against whom the Catholic church comitted crimes.

That is like going to the accused criminal to find an unbiased character reference about the victim. Surely you can see the lack of objectivity in your methods so far.

First, you Protestants usually ignore the fact that many English versions of the bible were around even before Wycliff. These were acceptable, authorized and legal.

Pray tell - which complete Bible translations into english were "commonly available" in english before Wycliff

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 1382 to 1395.[1] These Bible translations were the chief inspiration and chief cause of the Lollard movement, a pre-Reformation movement that rejected many of the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Wyclif's Bible is credited as the first full translation into middle english - and this did not happen until very late in the 14th century.

There was no known complete Bible translation into english prior to that time - no not even into old english.

Main article: Coverdale Bible
The first complete printed translation into English, and the first complete translation into Modern English, was compiled by Myles Coverdale and published in 1535. It was much influenced by Tyndale

Secondly, if the Holy Catholic Church needed a new 'authorized' English version of the bible, Tyndale was certainly not the man. He was, at best, a mediocre theologian who constantly hurled insults at people and was known to have bouts of violence.

Do you have that from an "objective source"?

If so - I would like to know the source.

So full of errors was Tyndales translation that after Henry's break from Rome he 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."

Question - How is it that even Henry believes that the english translations are from Tyndale - when in fact you claim that Tyndale is merely one of many english transalations by that date?

Again, it was the civil authorities that brought the end to Tyndale.

I would say that your Protestant 'gender inclusive' NIV bible or the JW New World Translation is a good example of why you don't want buy into just any translation like Tyndales.

1. Both the JW "NWT" and the Catholic "Douay" translations are examples of a translation done by "one denomination only" and reflecting the bias of that one denomination. Is it your claim that Protestants here prefer the Douay translation?

2. It is one of your own Catholic Cardinals that puts the cabash on the idea that the civil authorities acting at the command of the RCC justifies the excuse you are using above.

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said, opening the conference.

The inquisitors went after Protestants, Jews, Muslims and presumed heretics. They persecuted scientists like Galileo. They banned the Bible in anything but Latin, which few ordinary people could read.

The Inquisition began in the 13th century and lasted into the 19th. An index of banned books endured even longer, until 1966. And it was 1992 before the church rehabilitated Galileo, condemned for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

The symposium, which gathers experts from inside and outside the church, is the Vatican's first critical look at the church's record of repression.

Among other things, it will give scholars a chance to compare notes on what they've found in the secret Vatican archives on the Inquisition, which the Holy See only recently opened.

``The church is not afraid to submit its past to the judgment of history,'' said Etchegaray, a Frenchman who leads the Vatican's Commission on the Grand Jubilee.

Closed to the public and press, the symposium is not expected to produce any definitive statement from the Vatican on the Inquisition. That is expected in 2000 as part of the grand ``mea culpa'' at the start of Christianity's third millennium.

The great question is whether the pontiff will ask forgiveness for the sins of the church's members, as it did with the Holocaust, or for the sins of the church itself. Unlike the Holocaust, the Inquisition was a church initiative authorized by the popes themselves.

Etchegaray on Thursday swept aside the idea that it can be seen a series of local campaigns whose excesses might be blamed on secular authorities. There was only one Inquisition, he said, and it was undeniably an ecclesiastical institution.

(Again - a high level of objectivity in evidence that so far you are reluctant to adopt)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BillySunday1935]

Try real history. This is garbage and propaganda. It is not true to fact at all. I challenge you to google the history of the Bible and not Catholic apologetic sites. Find out the history of the Bible. Look at the misinformation here:

Yes, of course. We all realize that the work of Wycliffe and Tyndale was instrumental in the laying the groundwork for the KJV. That is common knowledge. You don't score any points there.
This is about the most ridiculous and concocted propaganda that I have heard!
Do you even bother to google or look up in an encyclopedia who these people are?
First, Trevisa lived at the same time as Wyclif, and even after Wyclif.
Second, he was one of those that contributed in helping Wyclif, and that is all. He didn't do the translation. Wyclif did, and he assisted him. What kind of propaganda are you reading--lies, lies, and more lies. Search it out for yourself.
The RCC has a history of lies.

Learn again:
Wyclif made the first English translation but it was not from the Greek and Hebrew. It was from Latin.

Tyndale made the first English translation from the Greek and Hebrew languages.

Those are the historical facts. They are indisputable.

Hang on a minute there DHK. When you say “English” what exactly do you mean? Middle English? Modern English?

The preface to the KJV 1611 1st edition includes references that the scripture DID exist in the vernacular long before Wycliffe.

Here are some examples:

In the 7th Century a Roman Catholic Monk named Kademan from the town of Whitby in Yorkshire, translated a very large portion of the bible into the language spoken in England at the time.

In the 8th century, the Beed of Jaro (sp?) made another English translation.

At about the same time, the Bishop of Edhilm in Sherborg, Goothloc the Hermit, and Bishop Egbert of Holy Island each produced their own translations into the common language of the English Isles.

Was this the same English spoken during Wycliff’s day? Clearly not. But that does not diminish the FACT that there existed earlier translations into the English vernacular that predate Wycliff by as much as 700 years.

Now - lay there and wallow in it!

Peace!

 

[lori4dogs]

Bob, I don't object to the sources or that they exist. I object to your focus on the Inquisition no matter what the topic of discussion relating to the Catholic Church.

"``The church is not afraid to submit its past to the judgment of history,'' said Etchegaray, a Frenchman who leads the Vatican's Commission on the Grand Jubilee."

 

[targus]

Bob, I don't object to the sources or that they exist. I object to your focus on the Inquisition no matter what the topic of discussion may be relating to the Catholic Church.

"``The church is not afraid to submit its past to the judgment of history,'' said Etchegaray, a Frenchman who leads the Vatican's Commission on the Grand Jubilee."

Lori, you need to remember that bobryan is SDA so he has been taught to use their extensive cut and paste library.

A typical tactic of the SDA is to answer with large cut and paste responses - including the bolding, underlining, font colors, italicized lettering, and superfluous quotation marks.

SDA's love to throw in off topic charges and accusations to keep the topic off of their own beliefs.

Don't ever expect much in the way of a reasoned on topic response from an SDA.