John Wycliff – Everybody Should Have a Bible

Or perhaps you could read history and realize that at this time, there was still no printing press (not for almost another hundred years), so only the wealthy would have been able to afford a hand-copied Bible (have you ever tried to do that?). And, you might note that the Bible was already available in multiple vernacular langauges about this time. Again, hand-copied, because it was an ordeal to get a Bible produced.

Of course, if you went to Mass every day, you got to hear the Word of God everyday. But instead, Wycliff wanted things his way, because, surely he knows best.

Was John Wycliff sincere? I have no doubt about it. I think Martin Luther and John Calivn and every other reformer were sincere. But that's like the difference in precision and accuracy. These guys were precise, but they weren't accurate.

God bless,

Grant

 

And that only worked if you could understand Latin.



John Wycliff was sent by God to get the Bible out to common lay people. It has been said that we didn't need to read it for ourselves. I find that interesting.

God Bless.

 

Just a quick count, I have 75 printed whole Bibles (could be more, some may be hiding right this second). This is not counting New Testaments, computer Bibles, or handheld Bibles. It is my hobby to collect Bibles.

Neal

 

1) Exaclty why do you need to know Latin to read Scriptures in the vernacular langauge? I fail to follow the logic there.

2) Did Wycliff invent the printing press? Because last I checked, that's what got the Bible into mass production so that the common man could own a copy.

3) Please do not say "it has been said" if you aren't going to provide a quote. Provide me with an official quotation from the Church saying that, and I'll give you credence. Otherwise, your statement holds no weight.

God bless,

Grant

P.S. How do you know that he was sent by God. Was John Calvin also sent by God? And Martin Luther? How about Joseph Smith? Were they all sent by God, even though they fundamentally disagree with one another? Or was he sent by God simply because you agree with him?

Be honest.

 

I had the honor of being a Eucharistic Minister for the first time in my life at the 7am Mass today. I was able to share the Blood of Christ with others, which is a powerful and humbling experience.

Oh, yeah. Wycliff was wrong.

 

VULGATE means language of the common man (I think). The Roman version of Catholicism originated in Latin speaking countries and is still strong in Latin type countries today. In the non-Latin world protestantism and Orthodoxism developed most strongly.
It is true (as the old testament points out), language does cause divisions. The first division was between the Greeks and the Latins and then it was the Germanics and Latins.
Christianity is tending towards reuniting as the world is getting smaller and the English tongue is getting more universally understood. It is just a tendancy - not strong as yet. There was nothing particularly wrong with Latin bibles apart from Germanic and Greek peoples, quite rightly, felt it foreign and therefore a foreign religion and therefore wrong.

 

I don't know about that. We had a guy working here in Mississippi who was from England. I still haven't figured out half of what he said.

"The Americans and the British are two people separated by a common language" Will Rogers (I think that is who said it)

 

I don't know about that. We had a guy working here in Mississippi who was from England. I still haven't figured out half of what he said.

"The Americans and the British are two people separated by a common language" Will Rogers (I think that is who said it) </font>[/QUOTE]He probably says the same about you! I don't understand half the stuff my husband says and he is only from Louisiana. If you are from the DEEP south you probably sounded like you were speaking German to him.

 

...lol and lets not even talk about the english and the irish (or scottish or Australians for that matter).

 

Is it that time again to defuse the false propaganda bomb AdoptedByGod has planted on this forum?

Myth: During the Middle Ages the Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin so no one could understand it, and it forbid people to translate the Bible into their own language.

Truth: Today Latin is a dead language, but that was not always true. For centuries it was the universal language of Europe. Don’t forget that during this time most people were illiterate; they couldn’t read any language at all. But whoever could read, read Latin. Thus, the Church did not propagate the Bible in Latin in order to keep people from understanding it, but quite the opposite, they wanted to make sure that any literate person, from any country, could understand it. Pope St. Gregory I, who died in 604, wrote, "The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage and yet you neglect to read them eagerly. Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys." Obviously, the Catholic Church wanted the Bible to be read by anyone who could read.

But didn’t the Church forbid translating the Bible into the vernacular? No, not at all. Contrary to the modern myth, translating the Bible into vernacular languages was not a Protestant innovation.

For instance, between 1466 and the onset of the Protestant Reformation in 1517 at least fourteen editions of the Bible appeared in High German, and five in Low German.

From 1450 to 1550, there were more than forty Italian editions or translations of the Bible and eighteen French editions, as well as others in Bohemian, Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian.

Spain published editions starting in 1478. A total of 626 editions appeared, of which 198 were in the vernacular languages, with the permission of the Catholic Church, before any Protestant version saw the light of day.

In the preface to the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, the translators (though they blasted the Catholic Church) acknowledged that translating the Bible into the common language was no new invention, but had been the common practice for centuries before the Reformation:

To have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up . . . but hath been . . . put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.

The truth is, during the Dark Ages the only thing that kept the Bible from disappearing along with the rest of Western civilization was the faithful Catholic monks who tirelessly copied the Scriptures by hand. If the Catholic Church had not diligently and reverently preserved the Bible, you would not have it today. Even Martin Luther grudgingly conceded as much when he wrote, "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we would have no knowledge of it whatsoever.” If the Catholic Church wanted to suppress the Bible, why did it single-handedly preserve it during the Dark Ages? Why not just let it disappear?

Gary Hoge
Former Atheist
Former Baptist
Current Catholic

taken from http://www.catholicoutlook.com/objbible4.html

 

MOre of the same horsebiddlydung....

Don't you guys EVER git tired of puttin' out this nonsense?

Most church leaders felt that they were wasting their time trying to teach the Bible to the common people. But Wycliff believed that people had a hard time understanding the Bible because incompetent and ignorant people were teaching it so poorly.

Maybe so. But eternal life is found in the eating Flesh and Blood of Christ (John 6: 53 -54) NOT in understanding every nuance of the Scriptures. To have eteranal life, all you must do is acknowledge your sinfulness, confess your sins (repent) and recieve the Eucharist for cleansing. Being university degreed is not necessary.

For this reason, Wycliff put a lot of emphasis on preaching the word, and doing it well.

Maybe. And maybe it was pride and the works of the flesh. YOU don't know. Neither do I, for that matter. But let's stop making a hero out of a rebel. People like him are the reason we are so splintered and schizmated today.

While at Oxford, he attracted many enthusiastic supporters through his energetic preaching and teaching. While other preachers told stories about the saints and interesting fables, Wycliff taught the Word of God.

So speaking of the saints and their lives lived in holiness for Christ is wrong? How is that any different than the fables you are telling about your hero, Mr. Wycliff?

His reputation for exegetical teaching - for letting the Bible speak for itself - spread across the land.

I imagine much the same was said about Jim Jones or a more modern day "prophet" Harold Camping (who seems to have lost his mind recently).

His sermons were powerful.

Eloquence is not necesarily holiness.

His vigorous pamphlets were widely distributed. He organized a group of priests to preach throughout the land.

PRIESTS? OH, he must have been an Anglican then, right? One of the members of the Church of Henry's Hormones. Splendid foundation upon which to base a "church" -- a fornicating and lying king. Nice.

Yeah, and I also note that he took issue with the teachings of the Early Fathers, particularly on the Eucharist.

Well, everyone has their heroes. If this is yours, good for you. Just don't expect a standing "O" from me.

Brother Ed

 

Fact: The catholic church engaged in burning many thousands of Bibles that were in the "hands of the people" and "in the language of the people".

Fact: With Luther's German translation - the multi-varied dialects of German in Germany FINALLY began to "standardize" on the set we see today - DIRECTLY as a result of the Bible - ONE version being made available to the people for the first time.

(But HOW could that be if nobody could read???! !) and yet.. it is so.

The "other German" translations that the RCC DID allow in Germany - were NOT available to the common people. IN FACT one of the KEY arguments AGAINST Luther's translation was that the PEOPLE were too ignorant to be trusted with direct access to scripture. That they would fail to interpret it correctly without careful molding by the RC higher schools of education. That only the priests were capable - competent for the job. And how often do you hear the SAME complaint today when arguing AGAINST The Bible and the Bible alone as the SOLE judge of all faith and practice?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Hi there, I picked this up of another website. I do not know if it is accurate or not, maybe Carson or someone could look at the details and respond?

The Bible was placed on Rome's Index of Forbidden Books list by the Council of Toulouse/Toledo in the year 1229. It remained there until the index was discontinued at Vatican Council II. Anyone reading or owning a 'forbidden' book was anathematized, or cursed and remanded to hell for doing so.

Cannon 14 from the Council of Toulouse says that the Roman Catholic Church:

"Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament.... and most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue."

Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating confirms this fact when he writes that, "the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the [Albigensian] heresy was ended." (Page 45, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating). The peculiar thing is that the Bible remained on the Index of Forbidden Books for another 730 years! In his dance with truth, Mr. Keating takes care to omit this little fact.

Still More Evidence. This teaching was confirmed at the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8, 1546 Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures). The Council of Trent went further, stating that anyone who dared study Scriptures on their own must "be punished with the penalties by law established." With incredible audacity, the Council of Trent went so far as to forbid even the printing of and sale of the Bible! Anyone daring to violate this decree was anathematized, or cursed and damned to Hell for it. (Dogmatic Cannons and Decrees of the Council of Trent..., pages 11-13; Copyright 1977, 1912, with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. Tan Books and Publishers, P.O. Box 424, Rockford, IL 61105)

Still More Evidence Liguori, the most respected of Cannon Lawyers in the Roman Catholic Church, wrote that, "The Scriptures and books of Controversy may not be permitted in the vulgar tongue, as also they cannot be read without permission."

And Yet Even More Evidence Pope Clement XI (1713), in his bull Unigenitus, wrote that "We strictly forbid them [the laity] to have the books of the Old and New Testament in the vulgar tongue."

FACT 2: Since Vatican Council II (1965) The Roman Catholic Church now permits her people to read the Bible, and even offers an 'indulgence' of three hundred days off of Purgatory time for doing, if they read in for at least fifteen minutes at one sitting. (The Holy Bible, Douay-Confraternity version Title Page overleaf.)
FACT 3: Vatican Council II confirmed all pronouncements of the Council of Trent, which, as we see above, forbade the Bible to the people.

 

If the Bible's were free for the reading, why were they chained to the Monastery walls?

 

Australian Baptist Student:

I have seen all of that before too, only not in that order. What happened to fact #1?

We see facts 2 and 3, but 1 is awol!

There are plenty of interesting 'records' of the things that Papal Rome did during the dark ages and early years. I have a collection of them myself.

Seriously, was there a fact #1?

 

Because if somebody just decided to pick up the Bible up and run off with it under their coat, there would likely not be another Bible to replace it. Printing press...wasn't around....hello?

God bless,

Grant

 

Before the printing press a Bible printed by hand was worth about three years worth of wages. If the Bible your Church used was worth $150,000 and it was very difficult to replace this Bible with another(pretend Amazon.com didn't exist) would your Church take reasonable measures to protect it?

Regarding burning Bibles. If I see a jehovah's witness Bible in a used book store I would have no problem buying it and then burning it so its distortion of the Word did not reach others. While I respect the KJV and the RSV there other protestant Bible translations which I would forbid my family to read and maybe they should be burned.

Also of historical interest is Calvin he didn't care for the Sevetus Bible so he would burn them on a regular basis. he didn't stop there when he found Sevetus, Calvin decided to burn Sevetus at the stake.

 

So do you advocate the government censoring our reading materials, and other medias ?

 

Certainly somethings (ie child porn etc), religous books no.

But I would have no problem encouraging men to turn over all their pornagraphic material and burning it up in some big voluntary communal bonfire if they wanted to add all their new age material and distortions of the Bible i would not have a problem.