GRPL HISTORY THREAD: "The Place of the Printing Press in the Reformation"

unpublished doctoral paper | drstevej

[drstevej]

This paper examines the impact of the printing press on the Reformation contrasting the usage of the press by Protestants and Catholics.

The paper was written by your truly (drstevej) in 1978 for a doctoral course at Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia) entitled "The Cultural Setting of the Reformation."

[drstevej]

GRPL Historical Thread PING

[drstevej]

PING

[CARepubGal]

Nice paper. Thanks for posting this. ;-)

[irishtenor]

Very interesting.

[ahadams2]

thanks for the ping - interesting to see the Reformed slant on this.

[drstevej]

The Catholic Caucus might be interested in this paper

I wrote. Salvation... Ping them if you wish. I'll ping a few anyway.

[xzins]

I had the good fortune to visit the Gutenberg museum in Mainz, Germany. We were stationed about 30 minutes from Mainz and made a day of it. It was the celebration of Hildegaard of Bingen (a Catholic monastic nun famous for a variety of wheat, chants, and being the founder of the Benedictine nuns.) Her display was in the Mainz Cathedral which was next door to the Gutenberg Museum.

To see "the" Gutenberg bible we had to go into a time-locked vault where it is under extremely tight security.

Other parts of the process are not so nearly controlled. There were about 3 floors of presses, processes, and papers.

REally impressive, AND right down the street in the middle of Mainz we found a TEXMEX restaurant...Mexico Lindo....which had some really fine food. So we had fajitas, benedictines, and printing presses all in one afternoon. Not a bad day at all.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Wonderful work, DrSteve. Bookmarked.

I started working years ago at a daily newspaper that still used linotype machines. It was thrilling to watch the muscled print-setters pour heavy vats of molten lead into the printing plates, page by page.

I think it was A&E's Biography a few years ago that gave the nod to Gutenberg as the most influential person (besides Christ) in history.

All things work for the glory of God.

[HarleyD]

Great article Dr. Steve.

It appears from some of my discussions with our Catholic friends here the Vatican still controls much of the published content. It has been my experience, over and over, whenever a source is used by a Catholic it is always from a Catholic source. I understand their belief that anything other than a Catholic source is developed from the “heretic” point of view. But sometimes this even extends to bibliographies and historical information. Information, no matter how objective, if it is not from the Vatican is ignored.

This attitude seems to me to be an extension of the Vatican still trying to control views and doctrine. I wonder if the emphasis on the Pope over the Bible as the authoritative word wasn’t a direct result of the concern the Vatican had with the spread of the Bible. It would be a great extension of this article to trace how information is viewed and assimilated by Protestants and Catholics from the Reformation to current times.

[drstevej]

Here is an interesting interchange: (Note the comments on the KJV at the bottom of this citation.

 

Q: Hi. I would like comments on what to do when a priest teaches that some parts of the bible are just stories to inspire us and did not really happen. Also when confronted with the catechism states that there are many things wrong with the catechism. He is coming next week to our parish. What do I say, do? Thanks, God bless you all. Eileen.

A: Eileen, first I need to define what an Imprimatur is. "Imprimatur • Literally, 'let it be printed,' the imprimatur is required for the publication of certain religious or scriptural texts. Publication of catechisms, prayer books, and books about morals, Scripture, theology, Church history or canon law that will be used as textbooks are to receive the approval of the bishop or other competent ecclesiastical authority before being published."¹ Hand-in-hand with the Imprimatur is the Nihil Obstat. "Nihil Obstat • This Latin term, which literally means 'nothing obstructs,' refers to the approval granted by the officially appointed censor of books to a written work that requires the permission of Church authorities for publication. The nihil obstat precedes and is required for the imprimatur, which is the permission of the competent authority to publish it."² "2. In undertaking the office, the censor, laying aside any respect for persons, is to consider only the teaching of the Church concerning faith and morals as it is proposed by the ecclesiastical magisterium. 3. The censor's opinion must be given in writing; if it is favorable, the ordinary (bishop) in his own prudent judgement, is to grant the permission to publish, giving his own name and the time and place of the granting of the permission."³ The Council Fathers (Vatican II) remind us that in Scripture God speaks in human fashion. From this it follows that 'the interpreter of Scripture, if he is to ascertain what God has wished to communicate to us, should carefully search out the meaning which the sacred writers really had in mind. The Council further specified that the task of giving an authoritative interpretation of the Word of God, whether it is in written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone (my emphasis.)"⁴ "The signature of a bishop in your Bible assures you that opinions, expressed in footnotes and introductions, reflect what is generally accepted as sound doctrine in the Catholic tradition."⁵

So, when you read a bible make certain it is one with an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. This will insure that the cover-to-cover contents, including teaching footnotes and introductions explaining the scriptures, are accurate teachings approved by Holy Church. For example, The New American Bible - St. Joseph Edition says in The Book of Jonah that Jonah disobeyed the Lord so he was swallowed by a whale for three days before being disgorged and sent on his mission. In the introduction to the Book of Jonah, the censor tells us that this 'story' is a sublime lesson telling us that, "Jonah stands for a narrow and vindictive mentality, all too common of the Jews of that period".⁶ With the previous explanation in mind concerning the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, we know that the introduction just quoted about the Book of Jonah is an approved and accepted teaching of the Church. In the situation of Jonah being swallowed by a whale, this is a 'story' used to teach about the mentality of the Jews at that time.

A King James Version of the bible will not have either an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat as it has many translation errors and cannot be approved by the Catholic Church. I am not saying that a KJV of the bible is totally inaccurate as it does contain some truths.

 

[SoothingDave]

It appears from some of my discussions with our Catholic friends here the Vatican still controls much of the published content.

Baloney.

It has been my experience, over and over, whenever a source is used by a Catholic it is always from a Catholic source.

And this is wrong because?

How often do Protestants quote Catholic works?

I understand their belief that anything other than a Catholic source is developed from the “heretic” point of view. But sometimes this even extends to bibliographies and historical information. Information, no matter how objective, if it is not from the Vatican is ignored.

I am aware of many Protestants who refuse to accept any histories that deviate from their own special theories. Furthermore, many will simply refuse to acknowledge commonly-accepted facts of history simply because they are not found in Scripture and/or are only sourced in "Catholic" works.

The door swings both ways. All too often what one considers "objective" history is colored by ones own theology.

As for the imprimitur and nihil obstat, these are markings that let us know that what is being read is authentic Catholic thought (or at least not in conflict with such thought). It is nothing more than a "truth in advertising" thing. The Vatican can not "control" what I read, but I do have a way of knowing what is authentic and what may not be. This is not bad.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Here is an interesting interchange: (Note the comments on the KJV at the bottom of this citation.

Surely it's not news to you that the KJV is not a Catholic Bible?

SD

[drstevej]

***A King James Version of the bible will not have either an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat as it has many translation errors and cannot be approved by the Catholic Church.***

SD: *** Surely it's not news to you that the KJV is not a Catholic Bible?***

So is the Catholic Bible a PERFECT translation ???

[SoothingDave]

So is the Catholic Bible a PERFECT translation ???

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "perfect translation." An old proverb says "the translator is a liar" or something similar.

Luckily, the standard to be met is not perfection but rather the much lower standard of Nihil Obstat -- nothing obstructs.

SD

[HarleyD]

“Baloney”

Well, perhaps I should have said that anything with the stamp of imprimatur and nihil obstat is consider correct. According to Catholic websites everything else should be suspect. This is more than a Good Housekeeping seal.

”And this is wrong because? How often do Protestants quote Catholic works?”

There is nothing wrong with it if the information is correct. However if there is a disagreement of facts, Catholics will rely strictly upon the published views of the Vatican and totally disregard any outside sources. (Please see my diatribe on Thomas More.)

As for Protestants quoting Catholic works, I believe Augustine was Catholic last I checked. I use him extensively along with other early church fathers. I don’t recall the Pope quoting Calvin, or for that matter, Billy Graham, lately.

”I am aware of many Protestants who refuse to accept any histories that deviate from their own special theories. Furthermore, many will simply refuse to acknowledge commonly-accepted facts of history simply because they are not found in Scripture and/or are only sourced in "Catholic" works. “

Well, that may be true of some Protestants but not this one. I spend a great deal of time on the Catholic web sites to understand the history and positions of the church. I’m not there to prove anyone wrong-just to increase my understanding about many of the issues you Catholics bring up. I’m flexible and if I think I’m wrong I’ll change. To me it is very important that I understand God for who He is and not for what I would like Him to be.

[SoothingDave]

Well, perhaps I should have said that anything with the stamp of imprimatur and nihil obstat is consider correct. According to Catholic websites everything else should be suspect. This is more than a Good Housekeeping seal.

Well, yes. The Church places the stamp of truth on things that do not obstruct our understanding of truth. This is bad because?

There is nothing wrong with it if the information is correct. However if there is a disagreement of facts, Catholics will rely strictly upon the published views of the Vatican and totally disregard any outside sources.

It depends. On religious matters, of course the Vatican is the arbiter of truth. This is what it means to be Catholic.

And naturally in the history of sectarian matters, we would be inclined to believe the history told by our side of the various wars. The Brits don't learn our version of the Revolution.

As for Protestants quoting Catholic works, I believe Augustine was Catholic last I checked. I use him extensively along with other early church fathers. I don’t recall the Pope quoting Calvin, or for that matter, Billy Graham, lately.

This pope may very well have. We don't believe that non-Catholics speak 100 per cent wrong. The Pope would not praise Billy Graham's theology, but he might his devotion and sense of mission.

Well, that may be true of some Protestants but not this one. I spend a great deal of time on the Catholic web sites to understand the history and positions of the church. I’m not there to prove anyone wrong-just to increase my understanding about many of the issues you Catholics bring up.

Then I don't really have a beef with you. I just wanted to point out that some Protestants are just as rigidly closed to Catholic thought as some Catholics are to Protestant thoughts.

SD

[Ephesians210]

Re: I think it was A&E's Biography a few years ago that gave the nod to Gutenberg as the most influential person (besides Christ) in history.

Just recently a wide group of historians were polled for the top technological advancement with the most impact on the world, and Gutenburg's printing press was the landslide winner.

[Ephesians210]

Great work steve, thanks.

[Ephesians210]

Interesting comment on the KJV:

I am not saying that a KJV of the bible is totally inaccurate as it does contain some truths.

I guess Ephesians 2:8-10 isn't one of them.