Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bible-Burners (build it yourself bibles)
New Oxford Review ^ | February 2004 | Dwight Longenecker

Posted on 03/16/2006 5:51:01 AM PST by NYer

Tales continue to circulate about how the Catholic Church opposed translating the Bible into the vernacular. But the Church has never opposed that. After all, the Vulgate was originally translated by St. Jerome to make the Bible available in the vernacular of the day, Latin, which continued to be the lingua franca of educated Europe up to the late 18th century and beyond. Nor were the Reformers the first to translate the Bible into more modern European languages. The Catholic Church approved of Gutenberg's German Bible in 1455. The first printed Flemish edition came out in 1477. Two Italian versions of the Bible were printed in 1471, and a Catalan version came out in 1478. A Polish Bible was translated in 1516, and the earliest English version was published in 1525. Most of these were editions of the entire Bible. Individual books had appeared in the vernacular centuries earlier. The first English-language Gospel of John, for example, was translated by the Venerable Bede into Anglo-Saxon in the year 735.

The Church didn't object to William Tyndale's translating the Bible into English. Rather, she objected to the Protestant notes and Protestant bias that accompanied the translation. Tyndale's translation came complete with prologue and footnotes condemning Church doctrines and teachings. Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people…."

Protestant Bishop Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible. Tyndale translated the term Baptism into "washing," Scripture into "writing," Holy Ghost into "Holy Wind," bishop into "overseer," priest into "elder," deacon into "minister," heresy into "choice," martyr into "witness," etc. In his footnotes, Tyndale referred to the occupant of the Chair of Peter as "that great idol, the whore of Babylon, the anti-Christ of Rome."

The Catholic response was not to burn the Bible, but to burn Tyndale's Bible. This was an age when making your own version of the Bible seemed to be all the rage. The Reformers cut out the Deuterocanonical Books, Luther wanted to get rid of the Epistle of James as well as Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation because they didn't agree with his theory of justification. The Reformers themselves fought about which version of the Bible was best. Zwingli said of Luther's German version of the Bible, "Thou corruptest the word of God, O Luther; thou art seen to be a manifest corrupter of the holy scripture; how much are we ashamed of thee…!" To which Luther politely answered, "Zwinglians are fools, asses and deceivers." At the same time Molinaeus, the French Reformed theologian, complained that Calvin "uses violence to the letter of the gospel, and besides this, adds to the text."

The Protestant Reformers may have been revolutionaries, but their revolution was extremist, not unlike that of the Taliban. This is exemplified by their zeal for destruction. Catholics burnt some Bibles, but the Protestants burned books on a scale that makes the Catholic fires look like the odd candle flame. In England, when the monasteries were suppressed, their libraries were most often destroyed as well. So the vast monastic libraries of religious texts encompassing many ancient, rare, and hand-copied Catholic Bibles were put to the flames. In 1544 in the Anglican controlled sections of Ireland, the Reformers put an immense number of ancient books, including Vulgate Bibles, onto the bonfires as they ransacked the monasteries and their libraries. In an effort to reduce the Catholic Irish to ignorance, King Henry VIII decreed that in Ireland the possession of a manuscript on any subject whatsoever (including sacred Scripture) should incur the death penalty.

King Henry VIII even burnt the Protestant Bibles of Tyndale, Coverdale, and Matthew, with the Catholic Latin Vulgate helping to feed the fires.

In 1582 The Rheims Catholic New Testament in English was issued. This Catholic version, with its accompanying notes, aroused the fiercest opposition in Protestant England. Queen Elizabeth ordered searches to seek out, confiscate, and destroy every copy. If a priest was found in possession of it, he was imprisoned. The Bible-burning wasn't limited to England. In 1522 Calvin had as many copies as could be found of the Servetus Bible burned, and later Calvin had Michael Servetus himself burned at the stake for being a Unitarian.

Sadly, the destruction was not limited to the burning of Bibles. Sixteenth-century England and Ireland witnessed the most monumental pillage of sacred property and destruction of Christian architecture, art, and craftwork the world has ever seen. In England between the winter of 1537 and spring 1540 over 318 monasteries and convents were destroyed. Parish churches were ransacked. Beautiful paintings and carvings were smashed. Sacred vestments and altar hangings with rich embroidery were confiscated and recycled into curtains and clothes. Vessels of the altar were stolen, melted down, and sold. The Protestants destroyed a religious heritage with the zeal and fury of terrorists, and what was left by the iconoclasts during the reign of Henry VIII was smashed further during the Puritan regime of Oliver Cromwell.

In France the Calvinists, in one year alone (1561), according to one of their own estimates, "murdered 4,000 priests, monks and nuns, expelled or maltreated 12,000 nuns, sacked 20,000 churches, and destroyed 2,000 monasteries" with their priceless libraries, Bibles, and works of art. The rare manuscript collection of the ancient monastery of Cluny was irreparably lost, along with many others.

Living in England, as I do, the legacy of this mindless destruction by anti-Catholic forces is present everywhere. A map of the countryside marks countless bare ruins of medieval monasteries, abbeys, and convents. Visit the medieval parish church in any village and you will notice the empty niches, the whitewashed walls, the side chapels turned into store-rooms, the stained-glass windows once riotous with pictures of the saints and stories from Scripture, now merely plain glass windows. The iconoclasm was followed by a campaign which, for three hundred years, continued to persecute Catholics relentlessly, while it concealed the destructive fury of the Protestant forces and continued to paint the Catholic Church as the incarnation of evil.

The final irony is that the very forces that pulled down and smashed the images of the saints in the medieval churches soon filled those same churches with carved memorial stones and statues of the rich and famous of their day. The figures of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints and angels are now replaced by figures of English military heroes, prime ministers, and forgotten landed aristocrats. The church which exemplifies this most is Westminster Abbey. Any Catholic visitor to London will be amazed at how this once proud Benedictine Abbey has been turned into a museum of English civil heroes. At every turn one finds statues of statesmen, kings, and politicians, while the heroes of the Christian faith are relegated to the margins.

Time does not heal all wounds. Terrible and violent events cannot simply be forgotten. Telling ourselves that certain things never happened is a lie. Saying that they don't matter now after so many years is another form of the same lie. Terrible events need to be faced, acknowledged, repented of, and forgiven. The violent events and terrible persecution of both Catholics and Protestants can only be put right through repentance and mutual forgiveness.

Catholics must own up to their own faults and sins of the past. In the Jubilee Year, Pope John Paul II took an amazing step forward with his historic mea culpa for the sins of Catholics. On Ash Wednesday in the year 2000 he led the Catholic Church in a public act of repentance. However, this admission of guilt and act of repentance has been met here in England and throughout the Protestant world with stony silence. Not one Protestant leader has offered a similar corporate examination of the past. Isn't it time that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Queen of England took the lead as international Protestant leaders, and offered their own reassessment of the past? If they did so, maybe others would follow and the process of healing could begin.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach; Orthodox Christian; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: bible; calvin; deuterocanonical; luther; scripture; tyndale; vulgate; zwingli
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last
Dwight Longenecker is the editor or author of five books, among them, The Path to Rome, a book of British conversion stories. He is co-author of Challenging Catholics: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate and the author of More Christianity.
1 posted on 03/16/2006 5:51:08 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...


2 posted on 03/16/2006 5:52:18 AM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Thanks for the heads up!


3 posted on 03/16/2006 5:56:03 AM PST by Bitter Bierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Good reason for why you don't see Protestants doing this is Protestants got rid of most of the hierarchy ~ and many Protestant groups have no hierarchy at all.

In fact, numerous Protestant groups in America weren't even around at the time.

Pentecostals, for example, are probably totally mystified by what the Pope did in the way of an apology ~ Fur Shur it wasn't directed at them.

The Pope is a good man ~ he can apologize for whatever he wants.

4 posted on 03/16/2006 6:00:54 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The Catholic response was not to burn the Bible, but to burn Tyndale's Bible.

The Protestant Reformers may have been revolutionaries, but their revolution was extremist, not unlike that of the Taliban.

****

You agree with this? That it was a correct response to destroy "Tyndale's Bible" and that these reformers were not "unlike the Taliban"?
5 posted on 03/16/2006 6:17:44 AM PST by Esther Ruth (On CHRIST The solid rock I stand..... All other ground is SINKING sand!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Esther Ruth
You agree with this? That it was a correct response to destroy "Tyndale's Bible" and that these reformers were not "unlike the Taliban"?

Did you read the article?

Catholics burnt some Bibles, but the Protestants burned books on a scale that makes the Catholic fires look like the odd candle flame. In England, when the monasteries were suppressed, their libraries were most often destroyed as well. So the vast monastic libraries of religious texts encompassing many ancient, rare, and hand-copied Catholic Bibles were put to the flames. In 1544 in the Anglican controlled sections of Ireland, the Reformers put an immense number of ancient books, including Vulgate Bibles, onto the bonfires as they ransacked the monasteries and their libraries.

Sadly, the destruction was not limited to the burning of Bibles. Sixteenth-century England and Ireland witnessed the most monumental pillage of sacred property and destruction of Christian architecture, art, and craftwork the world has ever seen. In England between the winter of 1537 and spring 1540 over 318 monasteries and convents were destroyed. Parish churches were ransacked. Beautiful paintings and carvings were smashed. Sacred vestments and altar hangings with rich embroidery were confiscated and recycled into curtains and clothes. Vessels of the altar were stolen, melted down, and sold. The Protestants destroyed a religious heritage with the zeal and fury of terrorists, and what was left by the iconoclasts during the reign of Henry VIII was smashed further during the Puritan regime of Oliver Cromwell.

SD

6 posted on 03/16/2006 6:26:39 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Esther Ruth
You agree with this? ... that these reformers were not "unlike the Taliban"?

The reformation in England was a very violent and nasty affair, and the English reformers had a lot in common with the Taliban. Beautiful churches and shrines were desecrated all over the country, and their jewels and furnishings were either destroyed or, if they had monetary value, confiscated by -- who else? -- the King. The Church's lands were confiscated by the nobility. Religious houses were forcibly closed, the buildings themselves either destroyed or put to some other use, and those monks and nuns who objected sometimes ended up dead. Catholic decorations in churches were destroyed or defaced as "idols". (Having a picture of a saint was "idolatry"; destroying that picture and replacing it, not with anything remotely Christian, but with the royal coat of arms and a slogan commanding loyalty to the crown, was "patriotism".)

Read Eamon Duffy's Stripping of the Altars for details. Duffy is a Catholic, but he's also a competent medieval historian.

7 posted on 03/16/2006 6:33:30 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Esther Ruth

8 posted on 03/16/2006 6:34:11 AM PST by bahblahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The church which exemplifies this most is Westminster Abbey. Any Catholic visitor to London will be amazed at how this once proud Benedictine Abbey has been turned into a museum of English civil heroes. At every turn one finds statues of statesmen, kings, and politicians, while the heroes of the Christian faith are relegated to the margins.

England had long wanted to subordinate Church to the State. This goes back at least to William of Occam. Sadly, we are the child of England and have to a lesser degree, followed suit. The only difference being that The English government endorsed the Anglican Church while we endorse no church, merely a secular ideology which conveniently has no "organized" church.

9 posted on 03/16/2006 6:34:59 AM PST by TradicalRC (No longer to the right of the Pope...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

bookmark


10 posted on 03/16/2006 6:38:35 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Gamecock
The Protestant Reformers may have been revolutionaries, but their revolution was extremist, not unlike that of the Taliban.

Another day, another flamebait thread....

11 posted on 03/16/2006 6:45:05 AM PST by Alex Murphy (Colossians 4:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe (on 4 May 1415) a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books be burned and his remains be exhumed. The latter did not happen till twelve years afterward, when at the command of Pope Martin V they were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the river Swift that flows through Lutterworth.

Objectively-speaking (and I'm a Catholic), what the Council and the Pope ordered was wrong. The guy was a heretic, but to desecrate the remains of a dead person is outrageous.

12 posted on 03/16/2006 6:45:46 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
The Protestant Reformers may have been revolutionaries, but their revolution was extremist, not unlike that of the Taliban.

Outside that line, is there anything that is inaccurate?

13 posted on 03/16/2006 6:47:26 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC

"Sadly, we are the child of england?" You've got to be kidding me.

"Conveniently has no 'organized' church" Ya know, with comments like these no wonder there were a lot of anti-Catholicism in the early days of America.


14 posted on 03/16/2006 6:49:58 AM PST by bahblahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
Ya know, with comments like these no wonder there were a lot of anti-Catholicism in the early days of America.

So you think it was justified?

15 posted on 03/16/2006 6:51:58 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah; TradicalRC
"Sadly, we are the child of england?" You've got to be kidding me.

I believe he was specifically referring to the State trying to subordinate the Church. The State is still trying to do it, centuries later.

16 posted on 03/16/2006 6:54:11 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Outside that line, is there anything that is inaccurate?

The whole article is Catholic revisionism. The Nazis try to deny the Holocost. Turkey denies the Death march. It's not surprising to see Catholics rewrite the Inquisition.

17 posted on 03/16/2006 7:11:19 AM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Here are some good links to biographys on Tyndale.
http://store.thebereancall.org/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=B08808
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=647370&netp_id=338364&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=01422X&event=CFN
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=50556&event=CFN


18 posted on 03/16/2006 7:14:01 AM PST by Esther Ruth (On CHRIST The solid rock I stand..... All other ground is SINKING sand!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
The whole article is Catholic revisionism ... It's not surprising to see Catholics rewrite the Inquisition.

The article concerns the Reformation in England and France. There was no Inquisition in England, and the only Inquisition in France concerned the Cathars, and was over centuries before the Reformation.

In other words, you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

19 posted on 03/16/2006 7:14:26 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Esther Ruth
I'm familiar with Mr. Tyndale.

My namesake, St. Edmund Campion, was a Jesuit priest who was hung, drawn, and quartered under Queen Elizabeth under a charge of "high treason". His "treason" consisted in saying Mass and hearing confessions.

Evelyn Waugh wrote a very fine biography of St. Edmund; it's available through Sophia Press.

BTW, do any of your sources mention that Tyndale was "fingered" to the ecclesiastical courts in Belgium by an agent of the (Protestant) King Henry VIII?

20 posted on 03/16/2006 7:16:54 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
"Conveniently has no 'organized' church" Ya know, with comments like these no wonder there were a lot of anti-Catholicism in the early days of America.

???

There were "organized" (I think he means "established") churches in most of the U.S. in the early days, though the First Amendment forbade such an establishment at the Federal level. In fact, until the 1870's, a person standing for election to the state legislature in New Hampshire was required by law to be a Protestant. (I'm pretty sure that law wasn't enacted by Catholics.)

21 posted on 03/16/2006 7:20:05 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Outside that line, is there anything that is inaccurate?

Seems to be a pretty one sided picture...I see no mention of Catholics burning Protestants at the stake, cutting the stomachs of pregnant Protestant women and ripping out the babies while the mother was still alive, by the thousands, etc...

As I understand it, the violent actions of the Protestants was in response to the murderous, heineous crimes perpetrated by the Catholics in England and throughout Europe AND in the period known as the dark ages; 500-1500 A.D. where the Catholic church murdered anything that moved that wouldn't bow down to the pope...

And, as I understand it, the Catholic church has for centuries claimed anyone outside the church to be anathema and worthy of death (council of Trent (?)), and although not discussed in public, that accusation is still valid today...

22 posted on 03/16/2006 7:23:07 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
It's not surprising to see Catholics rewrite the Inquisition.

The Inquisitition isn't even the subject of the article!! No serious Catholic denies the Inquisition, but we don't buy the overblown post-Luther description of it.

23 posted on 03/16/2006 7:27:05 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Campion
There was no Inquisition in England, and the only Inquisition in France concerned the Cathars, and was over centuries before the Reformation.

More revisionism.

24 posted on 03/16/2006 7:27:18 AM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Tyndale translated the term Baptism into "washing," Scripture into "writing," Holy Ghost into "Holy Wind," bishop into "overseer," priest into "elder," deacon into "minister," heresy into "choice," martyr into "witness," etc.

Those happen to be the literal meanings of the Greek words.

25 posted on 03/16/2006 7:29:24 AM PST by Rytwyng (...and the hurster says, less guvmint.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

Eye-roll


26 posted on 03/16/2006 7:29:35 AM PST by Jaded (The troof shall set you free, but lying to yourself turns you French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
More revisionism.

LOL. That's simple historical fact, and nobody with any knowledge of the time denies it.

27 posted on 03/16/2006 7:32:06 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Campion; All

This seems as good a place as any to ask this question:

Does any remember the chart that was posted more than once some time back, showing the development of Protestant denominations and subgroups from Henry 8th and Luther down through the 19th century?

My Sunday School class asked me about the differences between Protestant churches and ours, and I'd like to do a class covering the history and general variations in doctrine.

Any suggestions on a one-stop resource for this would be appreciated!

Vlad, the Ravenous Maw, says HEY! to his namesake, Fr. Campion :-).


28 posted on 03/16/2006 7:33:27 AM PST by Tax-chick (Death is perishable. Faith is eternal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
As I understand it, the violent actions of the Protestants was in response to the murderous, heineous crimes perpetrated by the Catholics in England and throughout Europe AND in the period known as the dark ages; 500-1500 A.D. where the Catholic church murdered anything that moved that wouldn't bow down to the pope

Concerning England, Henry VIII started it when he imprisoned and executed Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher, who are both now recognized to be saints by the Catholic Church. Even up to the reign of Elizabeth I, there a great number of Catholic who wanted nothing but the right to have spiritual care from priests, who risked their lives for the sake of these people. Many of them were executed for just doing this.

In terms of "murder" of heretics, this was carried out by national or local governments, not by the Church. Heresy was a crime that was punished by the state. Oh, by the way, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really "dark" at all at many points during those years.

29 posted on 03/16/2006 7:33:34 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
I see no mention of Catholics burning Protestants at the stake, cutting the stomachs of pregnant Protestant women and ripping out the babies while the mother was still alive

You mean like St. Margaret Clitherow, a pregnant lady crushed to death under rocks for the "crime" of concealing a priest?

As I understand it, the violent actions of the Protestants was in response to the murderous, heineous crimes perpetrated by the Catholics in England and throughout Europe AND in the period known as the dark ages; 500-1500 A.D. where the Catholic church murdered anything that moved that wouldn't bow down to the pope...

Is this that famous principle of Christian morality that two wrongs make a right?

You've heard one side of the story. Now you have the other. Neither side was very pretty.

30 posted on 03/16/2006 7:35:26 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Some other good links ...
http://history.hanover.edu/early/prot.html
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0reformationtimeline.htm
http://cat.xula.edu/tpr/movements/english/


31 posted on 03/16/2006 7:35:31 AM PST by Esther Ruth (On CHRIST The solid rock I stand..... All other ground is SINKING sand!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
It seems only fair that we look at both sides of the issue both sides of the issue.
32 posted on 03/16/2006 7:43:03 AM PST by Gamecock (I’m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it. (Machen on his deathbed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
We weren't even talking about the Inquisition here . . . unless you can provide some facts it just looks like random Catholic-bashing. (Maybe there ought to be a corollary to Godwin's Law, concerning people who bring up the Inquisition out of the blue . . . )

As a matter of historical fact, there was no Inquisition in England. Mary Tudor along with her husband-in-name-only had a shot at trying and executing Protestants, but Rome had nothing to do with it. And Edward, Elizabeth and their mutual daddy participated wholeheartedly in the opposite direction.

Much of the conflict in England was political. Henry VIII wanted the monasteries' wealth to shore up his debased currency . . . the wanton destruction was a side-effect of stirring up the masses against the Catholic church. The problems with the succession and Henry's failure to produce an heir created still more political conflict and dragged the religious issues in again because of the refusal of Rome to annul Henry's first marriage just because his sons by her failed to survive to grow up.

. . . I was an Episcopalian for years before I became a Catholic, and as my undergraduate degree was in history I have more than a passing familiarity with the English situation. The article seems to hit the nail on the head -- if you have any historical fact to the contrary, please provide.

33 posted on 03/16/2006 7:55:37 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Religion of peace?


34 posted on 03/16/2006 7:58:42 AM PST by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

BTTT! Good and ACCURATE information there!


35 posted on 03/16/2006 8:10:13 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Bible Burnnig How bout Dog burnnig

An example of the cruelty meted out is that of Mr Collins in 1538. Collins was a Catholic and mentally subnormal. He was known as an idiot without common sense. In the terms of the day, a madman. He had no religious affiliations other than being a Catholic. During mass at a church in London, when the priest lifted up the host, Collins lifted up his dog. He was arrested, along with his dog and taken immediately to Smithfield’s. Both were burnt alive. People recognised that he was wrong; the feeling at the time being that he should have been tied to a cart and whipped, or sent to the madhouse. But people felt that there was no excuse for the scene of cruelty that took place. Questions were asked which the Catholic Church has never answered. For the dog to be burnt under Church law it had to be excommunicated first, but before you can excommunicate a dog, it would have to have been baptised! Equally the same applied to poor Collins, whilst he was baptised into the Catholic Church, he was not excommunicated before burning. His burning was murder by the laws of the time, yet the church was so evil and so powerful it could murder in this way without trial and laugh at the questioning of this illegal act.

After torture, victims would be taken to a public place and either hung for slow strangulation or chained to a stake and burnt alive.

http://homepages.enterprise.net/sisman/burningandpersecutions.html
36 posted on 03/16/2006 8:22:27 AM PST by bremenboy (if any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bremenboy
His burning was murder by the laws of the time, yet the church was so evil and so powerful it could murder in this way without trial and laugh at the questioning of this illegal act.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Church couldn't execute anyone. It was the state that did this.

If you want to bring up executions, how about the Martyrs of England?



37 posted on 03/16/2006 8:29:12 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bremenboy

Today's culture is so much more civilized. We would have had pre-natal tests that determined he was mentally sub-normal. Then he would have aborted. Thus sparing the dog, for PETA's sake.

(big sarcasm of course)


38 posted on 03/16/2006 8:29:35 AM PST by Nihil Obstat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Dwight's post demonstrates that the Reformation was the religious justification for the political rise of the Nation-State and cannot be understood outside this context.

The religious ideas of the Reformation accompanied political actions and had political consequences.

Thankfully, Christianity was able to seperate politics from theology (not morality from theology). America is the result of this division and has prospered from it.


39 posted on 03/16/2006 8:40:11 AM PST by sanormal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bremenboy
If your choice of religion is based upon polemical fantasies about how evil other religions are, you might want to try some introspection.

SD

40 posted on 03/16/2006 8:51:44 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

In order to establish a pattern of "papish" abuses before the widespread massacres of nuns and priests, your source relies on identifying Albigensians as Reformed Christians, since the Catholic Church did use violence to suppress the Albigensian movement.

This is quite a desperate tactic, very surprising to me, since the Albigensians' beliefs are so anti-Christian that they are not even referred to as a heresy by the Catholic Church, but an apostasy. The closest comparison the Albigensians have to a modern cult is that of Wahabbism, but even that does not approach the fanatical zealotry of the Albi, who commended people starving themselves to death as the only sure way of earning salvation.

Nonetheless, the Catholic Church was concerned that the suppression of such heresies and apostasies by secular authorities, falsely claiming clerical authority, was dangerous to Christianity. Attempts at selectively blessing certain kings (Holy Roman Emporers, such as Charlemagne) while excluding their rivals was only marginally successful, and bred disloyalty among those kings who would not be so blessed. Further, Kings regularly claimed "divine right," in defiance of the Church's lack of blessing.

Hence, the Inquisition was founded. Unfortunately, Protestant sources such as yours conflate the Inquisition with precisely the barbaric practices it was intended to prevent.

The Inquisition was charged with a difficult task; it represented the Church, so it had to be a sense of forgiveness, redemption, and charity; yet it also had to be effective at suppressing revolt, to maintain credibility with the kings and to fulfill its basic functions.

Whereas secular authorities imprisoned and killed with very little evidence, often on assertions they were "defending the faith," the Inquisition looked to the bible for rules of conducting a trial, introducing such notions as corroborative evidence, concurrence of witnesses, etc. It also found that torture was widely used by kings as a means of terrifying their population, rather than intelligence-gathering. Therefore, sustained torture, although very common among Protestant movements, even in the American colonies was forbidden; Inquisitors realized if an accused terrorist didn't talk in the first fifteen minutes, he wasn't going to talk; they successfully implemented practices recognizing this.

Tragedies such as Bartholomew's Massacre (wildly exaggerated in many sources) demonstrate not the sadism of the Inquisition, but that a desperate public found the Catholic Church's official actions wholly inadequate, and took matters into their own hands.


41 posted on 03/16/2006 8:53:14 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bremenboy

Ah, the tragedies of misunderstood dyslexia.

(No, no, no, Mr. Collins, the bread becomes GOD!)

Are you suggesting that the corruption behavior of a civil authority in 1538 somehow justifies the slaughter of thousands of nuns by another corrupt civil authority a century later? As you point out, the dog was not hung under Church law, since church law doesn't apply to dogs. He was hung under civil law.


42 posted on 03/16/2006 9:01:03 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sanormal

>> Thankfully, Christianity was able to seperate politics from theology (not morality from theology). America is the result of this division and has prospered from it. <<

America was an attempt to see if religious distinctions could be brushed under the rug and the religious values held in common could alone be sufficient for maintaining a state. We'll see how long it works for. So far, in the 5,000-year history of Yahvistic governance, America's secularism has survived for about 200 years. Fortunately, the truly brilliant concept behind America's governance isn't merely ecumenism, but self-correction. As Europe's radical-secular ecumenism falters, we'll see if ours is made more resilient by our self-corrective mechanisms.


43 posted on 03/16/2006 9:06:46 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dangus
The dog wasn't hung the dog was set to fire

maybe that how we got the word Hot Dog
44 posted on 03/16/2006 9:08:45 AM PST by bremenboy (if any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dangus; Gamecock

>> introducing such notions as corroborative evidence <<

You might ask, "Where does the bible establish such legal principles as corroborative evidence?" In the book of Daniel, there is a passage of three men who conspire and rape a young woman of great virtue. Fearing consequences, they conspire to accuse HER of trying to seduce THEM. Alone to face three accusers, Mosaic law seems certain to condemn the woman.

Using interrogation tactics that seem straight from "Law and Order," Daniel is able to establish to establish the falseness of their testimony, nullify the authority of their claims, vindicate the woman, and prosecute the offenders.

Protestants accept most of the Book of Daniel as cannonical and authoritative. But for some strange reason, this story seems to have been very threatening to the "reformers," who frequently denounced it. I wonder why.


45 posted on 03/16/2006 9:15:46 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
You wrote: "The whole article is Catholic revisionism.... It's not surprising to see Catholics rewrite the Inquisition."

Dear aimhigh. I re-read this article just to make sure my mind wan't playing tricks on me, and sure enough: it isn't about the Inquisition. The Inquisition is not mentioned, not even once, nor is it alluded to.

Would you care to list things that DO appear in this article which you think are factually untrue?

46 posted on 03/16/2006 9:21:59 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bremenboy; NYer

Actually, as I read this carefully, it is a perfect example of the wicked defamation of the Body of Christ practiced by so-called "reformers."

While I am unfamiliar with Bremenboy's case, his explanation of it yields sufficient detail to exonerate the Church from this wicked deed. He plainly notes that the man was NOT excommunicated for his offense. This plainly indicates that the man was the victim of the State, not the Church.

It is standard operation procedure for all enemies of Christianity to blame Christianity for the actions of civil leaders. We see that today in the Middle East, where Catholic Priests in retaliation for President Bush and agnostic and Lutheran cartoonists. In the "reformation," and, on this thread, today, brutal massacres of nuns and priests were justified because of the actions of kings.

The irony is that in 1538, the King of England was none other than Henry VIII. By this time, King Henry, one of the history's most notoriously violent, anti-Catholic maniacs, had already divorced his first wife and MURDERED his 2nd, and COMMITTED FULL APOSTASY by proclaiming himself de-facto Pope over England.

Yet this bizarre little tale of Mr. Collins, so insignificant among the horrors of his day, is remembered to this day...


47 posted on 03/16/2006 9:32:22 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Face it, the Church is wrong no matter what, just ask half the posters on this thread.

Oh, how these people hate authentic Christianity in favor of their own perversions. 'Tis no wonder our society is in the shape it's in.


48 posted on 03/16/2006 9:34:57 AM PST by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
***If you want to bring up executions, how about the Martyrs of England? ****

I am not the one who brought up executions that was in the article that was posted that you read

***As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Church couldn't execute anyone. It was the state that did this. **

If I recall my U.S History. One of the main reason people left England to come here was to get away from all the religious persecution. In England there was very little difference between the church and the state just depended on who the King or queen was at the time. First it was the Catholic Church then the church of England then the Catholic church then the Church of England this was the reason behind the separation of Church and State in our bill of Restriction's

as far as the church of england repenting for the sins of killing catholics I think it would be a good idea to do as the catholics have done but I think that would be like me saying I am sorry for slavery or the Holocaust I wasn't there I didn't do or support and of it.
49 posted on 03/16/2006 9:38:46 AM PST by bremenboy (if any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
***If you want to bring up executions, how about the Martyrs of England? ****

I am not the one who brought up executions that was in the article that was posted that you read

***As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Church couldn't execute anyone. It was the state that did this. **

If I recall my U.S History. One of the main reason people left England to come here was to get away from all the religious persecution. In England there was very little difference between the church and the state just depended on who the King or queen was at the time. First it was the Catholic Church then the church of England then the Catholic church then the Church of England this was the reason behind the separation of Church and State in our bill of Restriction's

as far as the church of england repenting for the sins of killing catholics I think it would be a good idea to do as the catholics have done but I think that would be like me saying I am sorry for slavery or the Holocaust I wasn't there I didn't do or support and of it.
50 posted on 03/16/2006 9:38:52 AM PST by bremenboy (if any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson