The History of the Reformation...The Little Red Bible Chained to the Wall (Part 5)

Arlington Presbyterian Church ^ | November 28, 2004 | Tom Browning

[Conservative til I die]

Well stated, brother. You have a grasp of historical context that is lacking in many.

[HarleyD]

You can understand the concern of authorities that some uneducated people might misuse parts of the bible.

I have no doubt that Luther and others feared this may happen. Luther and others simply stood by the truth wherever that was bound to take him. I don’t think Luther was too concerned about this even though he must have realized it could happen.

Much of this was taking place during the Renaissances where there was great emphasis on knowledge and learning. I’m sorry the author doesn’t speak to this more. The Renaissance by this time had been going on for almost 300 years. It was a time when great emphasis was placed upon learning and knowledge. This, no doubt was probably also one of the reason Luther’s father scraped together what little he had and sent Luther off to school. While the rest of society was experiencing this, including the hierarchy of the Church, the masses in the Church were not.

The reactions of the Puritans (and other Protestants) most likely were an overreaction to the environment they found themselves free of. Regrettably, Protestant laws (e.g. burning heretics) were established somewhat like the Catholic Church since that was the only basis the early Protestant had to compare against. It became a tit-for-tat. This is not to condone Protestants action, simply to state some of them might have been somewhat like the Corinthians in taking their liberations too far.

BTW-I like your picture.

[HarleyD]

Harley, c'mon. You can read plain English. Your last paragraph from Trent says the it is those who would "turn and twist," for "profane usages," that are "scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, etc." Further down in the paragraph, it says plainly that "all people of this kind be restrained" from disseminating false versions of Scripture.

You know and I know that the "twist and turns" mentioned by Trent is a subtle way of saying anyone who disagrees with the "official view" of the Church. Anyone who doesn't agree with the Church's view is putting scripture to "profane use".

[HarleyD]

As is typical, the author leaves out most of the story. The reason Bibles were chained up was because before the printing press, Bibles were very expensive to produce,

I don't think the author left out "most of the story". Everyone knows before the printing press Bibles were expensive. I feel the author should talk more about the Renaissances and the humanism that was sweeping the Church but so far he hasn't. This is a 20 page article and there is only so much one can talk about at this time.

[HarleyD]

Addedum: It should be also pointed out in the eight century the Catholic Church mandated Bibles be only in the Latin Vulgate format. Latin was only taught through the Church. Even if the Bible would have found its way into the hands of the masses, many of them wouldn't have been able to read it.

[jude24]

It should be also pointed out in the eight century the Catholic Church mandated Bibles be only in the Latin Vulgate format. Latin was only taught through the Church. Even if the Bible would have found its way into the hands of the masses, many of them wouldn't have been able to read it.

If a vernacular Bible found its way into the hands of the masses, most of them couldn't read that either.

Universal literacy is an outgrowth of the Reformation (e.g. the "Old Deluder Satan" laws in Massachusetts Colony). Before that late date, if you could read, you could read Latin. It was only after the Reformation that vernacular written languages took hold.

[HarleyD]

Good point. What is interesting is how desperately poor people were during this time. People rarely could afford food. Even if they could read and the Bible was available in their language, people would have spent their money on food.

For some of us, we have become so accustomed to having disposable cash that it is difficult to fathom the hard choices of the poor.

[vladimir998]

Harley,

Get a clue. Nothing that you posted in any way goes against what I said:

Your first point has exactly nothing to do with Martin Luther's myth.

Your second point also has absolutely nothing to do with Martin Luther's myth.

Your third point doesn't say what you claim. Catholic printers printed many Bibles. They just need the usual nihil obstat and imprimatur marks to do it. The decrees of Trent in no way stopped orthodox Bible production. If it did then you would have a heck of a time explaining how the Douay-Rheim was published in 1582/1609 AFTER TRENT. Also, in case you didn't know (and why would you know anything about what you are talking?), anathema is a canonical term when used in a decree. It doesn't mean accursed when used in a decree. All Trent era anathemas were lifted in the 1960's by the way. You didn't know that did you? No, of course not.

Your fourth point also proves nothing about Martin Luther and his myth.

Your fifth point shows you to be either dumb or dishonest. Read the underlined passages again. Notice the phrase "for these and similar purposes"? What were those purposes? Well, they're listed a few lines above: "whereby the words and sentences of the Holy Scriptures are turned and twisted to all kinds of profane usages, namely, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, godless and diabolical incantations, divinations, the casting of lots and defamatory libels, to put an end to such irreverence and contempt."

So the Church didn't want people to abuse scripture for their own illegitimate purposes? Oh, the humanity!

[vladimir998]

Low German is an old term for the dialects of German spoken in some parts of Germany and among Mennonites.

Here's an example:

http://members.tripod.com/~rjschellen/LowGermanNums.htm

[vladimir998]

Harley,

Again, writing about what you don't know, you wrote: "Addedum: It should be also pointed out in the eight century the Catholic Church mandated Bibles be only in the Latin Vulgate format. Latin was only taught through the Church. Even if the Bible would have found its way into the hands of the masses, many of them wouldn't have been able to read it."

Untrue. There was no such mandate regarding Bibles in the 8th century from the Catholic Church. There may have been such a mandate regarding gospel books, lectionaries used in the liturgy, however. We have plenty of examples of Biblical texts being copied IN THE VERNACULAR throughout this time period. Want some evidence? Look at what you can get by going to this one source (scroll down): http://www.asu.edu/clas/acmrs/publications/mrts/asmmf.html

England was really only converted in the 7th century. You're making a claim about the 8th century. Clearly most surviving Old English (that is, Anglo-Saxon) docs. were produced before the Norman Conquest of 1066 and after monasteries were built up, many with it's own scriptorium, in the 8th century. The decree you claim was never issued and never followed.

Please get a clue.

You're embarrassing yourself.

[aimhigh]

I would think it to be a rather thin tome ..

Actually, the book is 1660 pages. Perhaps you should read the book rather than speak on subjects where you remain ignorant.

[Petronski]

Bravo to your #16 too!

[Petronski]

I don't think he meant physically thin.

I think that figuratively he meant thin, like the phrases "a thin reed" or "thin gruel."

[hiho hiho]

"This is not to condone Protestants action, simply to state some of them might have been somewhat like the Corinthians in taking their liberations too far."

Somehow I suspect that if I showed up at your church and smashed your PowerPoint projectors (and other such dispensers of graven images) you would think that I am doing more than taking my "liberations too far."

BTW, paper was very expensive long after the printing press was available. Have you seen a real printing press at work. Using a printing press was quicker than hand copying, but it was still very slow!

[jude24]

The Reformation was a major reason vernacular written language took hold.

[hiho hiho]

"The Reformation was a major reason vernacular written language took hold."

Change "Reformation" to Renaissance. (The Reformation was the religious expression of the Renaissance.)

[Conservative til I die]

Addedum: It should be also pointed out in the eight century the Catholic Church mandated Bibles be only in the Latin Vulgate format. Latin was only taught through the Church. Even if the Bible would have found its way into the hands of the masses, many of them wouldn't have been able to read it.

Again, you are totally ignoring historical context. The "Dark Ages" were not a time of 95% literacy in any language. Latin was the equivalent of English as a world language.

[HarleyD]

Catholic printers printed many Bibles. They just need the usual nihil obstat and imprimatur marks to do it.

Yes, yes. I know. The Catholic Church just past the extra Bibles around during Mass in the 15th century for everyone to follow along.

And I'm the one who doesn't have a clue about history???

All Trent era anathemas were lifted in the 1960's by the way. You didn't know that did you? No, of course not.

It depends on which Catholic you talk to.

[Mr. Lucky]

Your fifth point shows you to be either dumb or dishonest.

May I suggest you polish your skills relating to civil discourse?

Martin Luther entered the seminary at age 21, yet you seem apoplectic at his claim to have been 20 when he first read the Bible. Is there a reason?

[vladimir998]

Harley,

You wrote: "Yes, yes. I know. The Catholic Church just past the extra Bibles around during Mass in the 15th century for everyone to follow along."

So passing out genuine Christianity is judged by that standard? Suddenly the Apostles are in great danger of being called unchristianby you. LOL

"And I'm the one who doesn't have a clue about history???"

No, there are plenty of Protestants.