Skip to comments.Why Catholics Have More Fun Than Protestants While Studying Early Church History
Posted on 01/05/2009 2:54:13 AM PST by GonzoII
WHY CATHOLICS HAVE MORE FUN THAN PROTESTANTS WHILE STUDYING EARLY CHURCH HISTORY
Catholics admire evangelical Protestants for their courage to stand up on life issues and many other truths of moral law. Catholics also admire their Protestant brethren for their devotion to reading the Word of God and their willingness to stand up for what they believe and bring others to knowledge of Christ's saving work. Catholics see the grace of Christ at work in these Christians and often depend on their generous prayers in time of need.
So, Catholics feel badly for Protestants who oftentimes feel crushed upon embarking on studies of the Early Church only to discover the Early Church did not believe what they had envisioned.
Students of Protestantism hear it repeated on a regular basis that the 16th century Reformation "restored" doctrine to how things used to be in the Early Church. So it is not surprising that hearers of the above statement mistakenly take this to mean that Christians in the first few centuries held to the Reformers' doctrines of "faith alone" or "Scripture alone."
Naturally, they are not happy when they discover that not a single Christian between the Apostles and the next thousand years or so believed in these doctrines. In fact, the early Christians not only did not believe Luther's doctrines, they actually believed doctrines that sharply clashed with Luther's "faith-alone" theology of the 16th century.
What we find is that the early Christians vociferously defended Church authority, believing the Church and Scripture went hand in hand, and that Jesus had promised the Holy Spirit would guide His Church into "all the truth." (Jn 16:13). The early Christians vociferously defended the true Church as the one in union with the direct successor of St. Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom (Mt 16:19). The bishop who held this ongoing chief office was said to sit in the "Chair of Peter." Peter was directly succeeded by Linus, who was directly succeeded by Anacletus, who was directly succeeded by Clement of Rome, who . . . 261 men later, was directly succeeded by Pope Benedict XVI.
On Baptism, evangelical Protestants are taught the sacrament does not remove any sin from the soul. They are taught it is merely a sign. So, they are crushed when they find out the Early Church unanimously taught that Baptism was indeed regenerative, removing original sin, as well as personal sin. Catholics continue to believe that babies receive the free gift of salvation, becoming a child of God, when they are baptized and washed clean of original sin. Only mortal sin can separate them from eternity with Christ.
BIBLE: Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
The early Christians were very aware that being "born of water and the Spirit" was a reference to Baptism. They knew the Bible was telling them that one could not enter heaven unless they were baptized.
BIBLE: Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name (Acts 22:16)
BIBLE: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (1 Pet 3:21)
St. Augustine echoes the early Church belief that sins are forgiven in Baptism: "There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized" (Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15 395 A.D. ).
Regarding the Eucharist, evangelical Protestants are taught the Bible's instruction to "eat" Christ's "flesh" are not literal. But, after perusing a library full of early Christian writings, they eventually realize the Early Church did take a literal interpretation. In fact, all Christians from the Apostles to the 16th century took a literal interpretation. The Early Church Fathers were unanimous on teaching the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. The early Christians accepted the literal message about the necessity of eating Christ's flesh for one's salvation in the Gospel of John (Jn 6:35-71). They accepted the literal definition of "is" when the Lord held up the host and said "This is my Body" (Mt 26:26). The early Christians celebrated the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.
In St. Ignatius of Antioch, the third bishop of Antioch, wrote: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins
In 151 A.D., Church Father Justin Martyr wrote the Eucharist "is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"
In 405 A.D., St. Augustine wrote: "Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, This is my body [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [ 405 A.D.]).
Most Christians today do believe in the literal presence of the real Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. (but not evangelical Protestants)
Evangelicals know that Reformation theology states one cannot lose one's salvation (i.e. lose justifying grace once one has received it). So, naturally, they are surprised to find that not a single Christian believed this doctrine in the Early Church or at any time prior to the 16th century. In fact, the early Church Fathers agreed that serious sins (mortal sins) would result in a loss of God's grace. They all believed justification could be received, and then lost.
St. Augustine ponders the enigma of two men who are justified, yet one perseveres until the end and one loses his justification: Of "two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, Gods judgments are even more unsearchable. . . . had not both been called and followed him that called them? And had not both become, from wicked men, justified men, and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration?" (The Gift of Perseverance 9:21 [428 A.D.]).
Fortunately, as St. Ignatius of Antioch pointed out, those who fall still have the possibility of repenting and rising again: "And pray without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the repentance, that they may attain to God. For cannot he that falls arise again, and he may attain to God?" (Letter to the Ephesians 10 [A.D. 110]).
Where did the early Christians get the idea that one could fall from grace? From the Bible!
BIBLE: You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace (Gal 5:4)
BIBLE: Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. (Rom. 11:22)
BIBLE: Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1 Cor 10:11-12)
The Bible tell us some sins are deadly and some are not. If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. (1 Jn 5:16-17)
Many evangelical Protestants are not even familiar with the doctrines of apostolic succession (all bishops of the Church must be successors of the College of Apostles) and Petrine succession (the head bishop of the Church must be a direct successor of St. Peter), so it comes as a surprise when they find these two things were MAJOR and NON-NEGOTIABLE doctrines of the Early Church.
The early Christians, by definition, were in union with the Chair of Peter. St. Jerome, for example, declared "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter (Against the Luciferians 23 [383 A.D.]).
This Chair of Peter has continued for almost 2,000 years, with Pope Benedict XVI being the current occupant of the Chair. Protestants cut themselves off from communion with this Chair in the 16th century. But now that the ancient concerns Luther had in the 16th century have long been eradicated in the Church, we hope Protestants will come back.
ANOINTING OF THE SICK
Catholics have always anointed the very sick or very injured with oil if a person's life could be in danger. We call this sacrament, which involves anointing and special prayers, the Anointing of the Sick or Extreme Unction. So, Protestants are disappointed when they hear why the Reformers in the 16th century eliminated this sacrament. The new theology of the Reformers said no sacrament could be remotely connected to forgiveness, so they had to get rid of it. The Bible shows Christians should anoint their sick, that it is connected to forgiveness, and the sacrament can heal people spiritually and even physically at times.
BIBLE: So they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them (Mk 6:12-13)
BIBLE Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. (James 5:14-15)
Confirmation, which involves being sealed with the Holy Spirit, has always been a Sacrament of the Catholic Church. Some of the Protestant Churches got rid of it in the 16th century, while others completely changed its meaning and its true spiritual effect. So, it is disappointing for some Protestants to find the Bible clearly shows apostles confirming people with the Holy Spirit with the laying on of hands as a separate action from Baptism. In the early Church, many people got baptized and confirmed on the same day since they were already adults when they entered the Christian community.
BIBLE: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama'ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17)
BIBLE: On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:5-6)
BIBLE: But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us; he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee (2 Cor 1:21-22)
Protestants are trained not to mention "relics" unless they tie it to the word "medieval" in order to conjure up terrible scary images of Catholics, who respect God's holiest friends. By constantly labeling relics as a "medieval" thing, most students of Protestantism mistakenly infer that relics were not a part of Christianity until medieval times. So, it is with much chagrin that they learn that the Early Church had just as much respect for relics (body parts, tiny pieces of bone, or clothes or things that touched a holy saint) as the Catholic Church has today.
Even in 156 A.D., Christians of Smyrna reverently took up the relics of their bishop Polycarp after he was martyred. According to the ancient writings: We took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together. [The Martyrdom of Polycarp]
In 419 A.D., St. Augustine testifies that even in his time, miracles were still being worked by God through the relics of saints. In his famous City of God, he wrote: For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by his sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints
The relics of St. Januarius, a bishop and martyr of the early 4th century, were known by the Early Church to be responsible for many miracles, including the halting of eruptions of Mt. Vesuvious. Christians always preserved the relics of the holiest saints and placed them in churches for Christians to venerate. That includes the relics of St. John the Baptist, the relics of St. Stephen (the first Christian martyr), the relics of St. Peter and Paul, the relics of St. Brigid of Ireland (died 525 A.D.), S.t Nicholas (bishop of Myra), Even the Christians who learned straight from the Apostles did this. If someone tries to tell you it's "medieval," don't believe it! In 386 A.D., St Ambrose (bishop of Milan and mentor of St. Augustine) was told in a dream where to excavate and find the relics of St. Gervasius and St. Protasius. The next bishop of Milan placed the relics of St. Ambrose in the same church with Saints G & P. Many miracles occurred while the relics of St. Monica (mother of St. Augustine) were being brought to Rome. You may have seen the news reports that in 2004, the relics of St. Augustine were brought to Rome for veneration
The Catholic Church today has the same attitude toward relics that the Early Church had. In the words of St. Jerome: "We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are." (Letter to Riparius, 420 A.D.)
Where did the Early Church get the idea that God could work through the relics of his saints? The Word of God!
BIBLE: And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them (Acts 19:11-12)
BIBLE: so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed (Acts 5:15-16)
BIBLE: So Eli'sha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Eli'sha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Eli'sha, he revived, and stood on his feet (2 Kings 13:20-21)
Truthfully, most Catholics don't know much about relics or indulgences. They only start looking them up when Protestants keep telling them about them. In fact, the first few people who told me about indulgences were all Protestant/non-denominational and I was already an adult at the time. After 12 years of Catholic school, approximately 1,460 religion classes, and decades of going to Sunday Mass, I still had never heard of Indulgences. So I found it very ironic to learn that Protestants who take even one class on Catholicism at their own church hear all about indulgences!
It blows my mind that these classes, which are supposedly about the Catholic faith, never seem to teach these sincere students one of our most basic, basic doctrines: that our pope is and has for 2,000 years been a direct successor of St. Peter in an unbroken line back to the first century. These teachers refuse to bring up the second pope Linus, the third pope Anacletus, the four pope Clement of Rome, etc. It's like this major doctrine didn't even exist. These teachers mysteriously fail to mention the basic Scripture passages Catholics offer for where Jesus hands over His awesome authority to his Church (Mt 28:18-20, Mt 16:18-19, Mt 18:17-18), or gives his Church His own authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23), or where the Bible refers to the Church as the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). It's almost like attending a class at Iceland University on the United States, and the Icelandic teacher mysteriously "forgets" to mention that the U.S.A. is led by a president or that we've had presidents in succession since George Washington.
MORE BIBLE STUFF
Finally, Protestants who have memorized the phrases such as "justification is by faith alone" are disappointed when they learn, sometimes not until old age, that the phrase "faith alone" appears in the Bible only one time (James 2:24), and it says the opposite of what they have memorized. ("Justification is by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24).
Similarly, Protestants who have memorized the phrase "Confess straight to God, not to men!" are disappointed when they come across the part of the Gospel of John where Jesus, instills in His representatives (who are men!) His awesome power to forgive sins. (John 20:23) This bestowing of the power to forgive or to withhold forgiveness occurs during one of those few sacred moments where Jesus actually breathes the Holy Spirit into his Apostles.
Don't be sad, Protestants. You have been blessed with faith and a loving family who instilled in you a love of Scripture. But Jesus really did build a Church on Peter and promise it truthful guidance by the Holy Spirit. He intended this Church to guide all of his flock and most importantly, to give us the personal gift of Himself through the sacraments. All of your ancestors were part of this Church. We have an assurance from Jesus Himself that this Church will still be here when Christ comes again. Even though some of our members may sin, we have a promise from Jesus that our Church will still proclaiming truthful doctrines (Jn 16:13). We have an assurance that when you take Communion, you will be allowing the living God to enter you, transform you, and refine you. It is hard for devout Catholics to imagine not having this personal encounter with our Savior. We can hardly live without Him.
John 6:56: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him"
John 16:13: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth"
Mt 16:16-18: And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Mt 18:18: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
If Protestants were correct that the original, true Church ceased to be the true Church at some point in time, then that would mean that Jesus did not tell the truth! Jesus promised that not even the powers of hell could prevail against His church (Mt 16:17). When his Church spoke, it would be Christ himself speaking (Lk 10:16).
He also promised to be with the teaching mission until the END OF THE AGE! Jesus said: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Mt 28:20)
Catholic Answers has compiled QUOTES from the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. Check them out!
Church Fathers on the Church and Papacy
Church Fathers on Salvation, Baptism and Mortal Sin
Church Fathers on the Sacraments
Church Fathers on Scripture and Tradition
Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Baptism, Sacrament of Penance, Sin, Summa Theologica on Confession, Sacrament of Confirmation, Priest, Apostolic Succession, Sanctifying Grace, Infallibility, Relics, Miracles, Church Fathers on Infused Righteousness, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Calvinism, , The Reformation, The Counter-Reformation, Papacy, Sacrament of Confirmation (Aquinas) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Other stuff: Faith Alone: Luther's Discovery?, Do We Contribute to Our Salvation?, A Tiptoe through the TULIP, Justification by Faith, Justification in Catholic Teaching, Thomas Aquinas, Relics, Do Miracles Still Happen?, Salvation (Early Church Fathers), Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura article, Perspicuity of Scripture, Ask Any Question!
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (The Lutheran-Catholic Agreement!)
Stuff on Peter, Petra, Petros, and the Papacy Respected Protestant scholars on Peter, Petra and Petros More on Peter, "Petra" and "Petros" Debate on "Petra" "Petros" and "Peter" Peter the Rock The Pebble Argument Goes Down Peter, Aramaic and Greek Scott Hahn on the Papacy
Suggested reading: The Salvation Controversy by Jimmy Akin, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie, Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn
Bibliography: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic Answers, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3),
Back to www.stillcatholic.com
Burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English.
Henry VIII’s law against reading the Bible. He wanted to keep the “lower sort” from reading it.
Who did Jesus minster to again? ;)
Conservapedia is a joke. Being anti science isn't conservative it is being a fundamentalist reactionary.
It’s more serious than that. Perhaps you didn’t know that you could not post an article on FR with wiki as a source.
I don't defend wiki’s politics or their practices or even their model; but I do know that both of these events took place in history, and I am fairly confident that wiki has the dates and spelling of names correct, while my memory is unreliable for such things.
A poster asked another poster if he could explain ... “Were those bans on personal reading of the Bible or on specific translations? Please document. Can you?”
I sought to enrich the debate by citing factual evidence relevant to the discussion, not get into a debate about the politics or reliability of wikipedia.
“Both Catholics and Protestants have sought to control access to the Bible and authorized translations and forbidden translations and sought to determine who was allowed to read it or read it aloud to people.”
There was no “authorized” or for that matter “mandated” English translation mandated by the Catholic Church. Only Protestants produced such a thing in English. So EXACTLY what are you talking about. Please don’t make sweeping generalization without specific evidence.
The Douay Rheims Bible was issued a Cum Privilegio as were all Catholic books approved by the local ordinary. It was never mandated by the Vatican or the Catholic Church in council as the necessary or obligatory Catholic Bible for English readers, however. There was also no English hierarchy of bishops to mandate such a thing until at least a full century and a half after its publication and I have no idea if that ever even happened.
“Burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English.”
Incorrect. Many poorly educated Protestants believe that Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the scriptures, but such is an impossibility.
1) Translating the scriptures was not a crime where and when Tyndale was arrested, tried or executed.
2) All records of the trial of Tyndale show the making of the translation in itself was not an issue.
3) Tyndale had a long record of heresy and had been accused of heresy YEARS before he even began his translation.
4) The myth that Tyndale’s execution had something to do with his translating the Bible is part and parcel of a more extensive myth that says John Wycliffe was executed for translating the Bible. In reality Wycliffe wasn’t executed by anyone for any reason. He died of a stroke while serving a small country parish (after essentially being banished from Oxford) and the actual act of translating the Bible had nothing to do with accusations of heresy against Wycliffe either.
5) Translations most definitely got Tyndale into trouble - but not of the Bible - at least not with the judges who tried him. As Daniells points out, Tyndale’s translation of Luther’s works and Latin translations of his own controversial works got him into trouble!
All that I said above is rather clearly borne out by Protestant David Daniell’s fine biography of Tyndale called William Tyndale: A Biography published by Yale University press in 1994.
It should be pointed out that Tyndale was tried and executed on the CONTINENT of Europe but his translation was into English. No one who tried Tyndale could even read his translation - thus, it simply wasn’t an issue. All the records we have - as Daniell attests - show that Tyndale was tried as a heretic for his stance on faith alone, denial of purgatory, etc. There is no evidence at all that his act of translating the Bible mattered at all in his trial. The way he translated words may have mattered (i.e. incorporating or intimating heresy in the text or notes), but again, who on the continent could even read it?
Don’t feel bad. Your mistake is a common one made by many sincere, but poorly educated Protestants who know little or nothing about the History of Christianity.
If you read William Tyndale by R. Demaus and Richard Lovett (which is online through google books) you’ll see page 422 and 423 where some of the charges against Tyndale are listed. Demaus and Lovett’s book is NOT friendly to the Catholic Church (it was published by a Protestant press or publishing house) and yet they never once say in the chapter on the trial that the actual act of translating the Bible played ANY role in Tyndale’s trial. Again, who among the judges could even read English in the 1520s or 30s?
“Henry VIIIs law against reading the Bible. He wanted to keep the lower sort from reading it.”
Passed in 1543 - AFTER Henry VIII became Protestant by the way.
“Who did Jesus minster to again?”
Everyone. And no Protestants would exist for 1500 years afterward either.
Yes, Henry VIII was to show that neither side was exactly innocent of this charge of wanting to restrict or limit the dissemination or translation of the Bible, I was well aware that it was an attempt to reign in the Protestant fervor that the royals of England had unleashed and that would soon consume them.
“The Tyndall translation was forbidden by the Church.”
Please show me where the Catholic Church forbade Tyndale translation? At best it was the Church in England was it not? After all, this was an English language Bible was it not? Also, whether Tyndale’s translation was immaterial as to whether or not he was tried for translating the Bible or even if laypeople were allowed to own and read vernacular translations. You realize that, of course, right?
“The authorized translation was into Latin.”
Incorrect. In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.
The Vulgate only became an authorized translation or edition at the time of Council of Trent (about 1546) as a response to Protestant heresy. By that time, Tyndale was dead for years.
“Yes, Henry VIII was to show that neither side was exactly innocent of this charge of wanting to restrict or limit the dissemination or translation of the Bible, I was well aware that it was an attempt to reign in the Protestant fervor that the royals of England had unleashed and that would soon consume them.”
I have no reason to believe you were “well aware” from what you have written so far.
Was rarely thought of as a translation? And that means that it wasn’t a translation? Latin is a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew.
Tyndall fled England and was hunted down by those “faithful to the Church” because of his translations. The official charges are meaningless, his fame was as a translator and it was his infamy that led to him being a hunted fugitive brought up on charges of heresy.
It was obvious that I said “both Catholics and Protestants” and then gave an example of each, Henry VIII being so famously Protestant that I thought it went without mention, but perhaps you hail from Rio Linda?
Back in about 1970 I had a visitor in my high school Sunday class that asked:
“Tell me what sin is, and don’t give the list; don’t dance, don’t go to the movies, don’t curse, but what does the Bible say what sin is.”
I was not ready for that question! So I said come back next week and I will have the answer. He did, and here is the answer:
1)A high look, and a proud heart and the plowing of the wicked is sin. (Proverbs 21:4)
2)The thought of foolishment is sin....(Proverbs 24:9a)
3).......for whatsover is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)
4)Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)
5)Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)
6)All unrighteousness is sin..... (1 John 5:17)
7)For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
8)Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin, when is finished, it bringeth forth death. (James 1:15) That is the Bible L.S.D.=Lust,Sin and Death)
9)For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
A couple of questions
What did Christians believe in place sola scriptura prior to the Bible being put together in the fourth century?
Why do the Greeks not believe pentecostal/protestant translations of the original greek text, and actually have dogmas almost identical to “Latin” Catholic dogmas?
Who compiled the books of the bible?
How do we know that each book of the Bible is inspired? Did an angel drop it in a nicely wrapped package one day in England in the 1600’s?
“Was rarely thought of as a translation?”
Yes, it was ancient don’t forget.
“And that means that it wasnt a translation?”
No, it was a translation, but it had existed already for 11 centuries by the time of the Protestant Revolution.
“Latin is a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew.”
Yes, it was - but it was 11 centuries old and was the only Bible in continuous use in the West for all that time. The fact that it was a translation itself was rarely if ever an issue. This is not a difficult issue to understand. You seem to be struggling with these basic facts.
“Tyndall fled England and was hunted down by those faithful to the Church because of his translations.”
As Daniell points out it was not because of his Bible translation, however. He was already accused of heresy BEFORE he began his translation of the Bible and his translation of the Bible - the act of translating it - was NEVER an issue at his trial. Again, this is clear from Daniell’s work and well as Demaus’. You’ve never read either one of those, right?
“The official charges are meaningless, his fame was as a translator and it was his infamy that led to him being a hunted fugitive brought up on charges of heresy.”
1) The official charges meant everything for those were the reasons he was tried. Bible translation was not a crime in Holland or to the Dutch Church or the Inquisition.
2) He had no “infamy” as a Bible translator on the continent because those were not English speaking lands. His Bible would essentially be a closed book to them - rather ironic when you think about it!
3) His other - non-Biblical - translations certainly got him into trouble and those were much more widely distributed in Latin and English then his Bible at that time.
“It was obvious that I said both Catholics and Protestants and then gave an example of each,...”
Uh, no. You gave no specific example of Catholic suppressing the Bible. Tyndale is not an example of that at all. Those are just the facts. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is.
“Henry VIII being so famously Protestant that I thought it went without mention, but perhaps you hail from Rio Linda?”
The best you can do to defend your error and poorly put together post is borrow from Rush Limbaugh? So, Rush for your comebacks and Wikipedia for your citations? You don’t stand a chance here on this topic with that backdrop.
I suggest you actually read a BOOK.
Present some actual examples of what you claim.
The Bishop of Rome (the word "Pope" was invented much later) could not appoint Bishops in the territory in which the Bishop of Alexandria had jurisdiction.
There was no such thing as primacy of the "Pope" at the time.
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.
“Latin is a translation of the Bible.”
No, Latin is a language. The Vulgate is a translation of the Bible.
“The antiquity of the translation may fool the credulous into thinking it was the original language, but it always was and always will be a translation.”
Agreed. Have I ever stated otherwise? Let’s take a look shall we?
Post # 53: “No, it was a translation, but it had existed already for 11 centuries by the time of the Protestant Revolution.”
Post #53: “Yes, it was [a translation] - but it was 11 centuries old and was the only Bible in continuous use in the West for all that time.”
And again, in post #53: “The fact that it was a translation itself was rarely if ever an issue.”
So, there are three separate comments from me stating the obvious to us both - that the Vulgate was a translation. Yet you respond - ignoring everything I said - wrote this:
“If you cannot even keep that salient fact straight in your head there is obviously no ground for discussion with you.”
So, you have no proof about Tyndale then, right?
Tyndall was tried and executed by Catholics for “heresy”. His most famous heresy, and the one that had him flee England, was the translation of the Bible into English.
Many translations of the Bible have been forbidden by the Church's index of forbidden books.
You can read all about it here:
"Let me, at the risk of being tedious, state, first of all, my understanding of the passage. The supremacy of the Bishop of Alexandria had been contested by the Meletian bishops. They had, asked him, if not in words at least in facts, upon what warrant he based his claim to rule over and depose his fellow-bishops. If he had a title let him produce it. Now the Alexandrian prelate had no written document of any kind to produce. The Council of Nicaea, therefore, came to his assistance, by decreeing that the Patriarch's  authority must be respected, and that for two reasons: first, because it was (archaia), immemorial, aboriginal; and second, because it was sanctioned by constant recognition on the part of the Roman Pontiff. Two very good reasons".......A quote from the above.
There was no "Pope". The Bishop of Rome did not have Primacy over the whole Church.
In fact The First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325)was called by Constantine. If there was any Primacy over the whole Church it was his.
“Your lame defense was that people didn’t think of the Latin Bible as a translation.”
I have never made a lame defense in my life. I merely stated a fact. Here is EXACTLY what I wrote: “In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.”
Notice, I used the past tense. To assume that people were stupid because the ancient Bible they used was rarely thought of as a translation is wrongheaded. They knew no other Bible commonly.
“Despite what stupid people think of the Latin translation of the Bible, it is a translation of the Bible.”
They weren’t stupid, not are you helping to prove your original erroneous point about Tyndale. Nice dodge though.
“Your quibble that it wasn’t thought of as a translation makes either you or the people doing the thinking sound pretty stupid.”
No, actually it doesn’t. It would be insipid not to realize that it is part of history that many readers of the Vulgate had it so thoroughly a part of their culture that its standing as a translation was all but forgotten by them. That’s the reality of history. I acknowledge that historical fact, while you dismiss it because you think the original historical reality shows stupidity. Whether or not people were stupid for believing it is irrelevant as to whether or not they believed it. I think people were stupid for voting for Obama. That doesn’t mean that I deny that they did it or that I think it is stupid for mentioning the historical reality that millions voted for Obama. Yet, that is exactly the sort of thing you are doing.
“Tyndall was tried and executed by Catholics for heresy.”
And not for translating the Bible into English.
“His most famous heresy, and the one that had him flee England, was the translation of the Bible into English.”
No. Translating the Bible was never considered heresy by any inquisition, or canon lawyer. No one can be accused of a heresy that isn’t a heresy.
The fact of that is shown in your every post as you UTTERLY FAIL to present even a single example of what you claim from a reputable source.
“Many translations of the Bible have been forbidden by the Church’s index of forbidden books.”
So? That does not mean producing a vernacular translation is heresy. You do think oranges and apples are the same thing don’t you?