Zoo hay...
Posted on 05/08/2009 3:35:50 PM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
You wrote:
“Interesting opinion... not a fact though..”
No, it is a fact. 1) Foxe knew it was propaganda and wrote it with the purpose of attacking the Catholic Church. 2) All Protestant cathedrals and Protestant dignitaries in England were ORDERED by the Protestant government to have a copy on hand so that people could be continuously inculcated with the propaganda.
As the old Catholic Encyclopedia points out:
The Convocation of the English Church ordered in 1571 that copies of the “Book of Martyrs” should be kept for public inspection in all cathedrals and in the houses of church dignitaries. The book was also exposed in many parish churches. The passionate intensity of the style, the vivid and picturesque dialogues made it very popular among Puritan and Low Church families down to the nineteenth century. Even in the fantastically partisan church history of the earlier portion of the book, with its grotesque stories of popes and monks and its motley succession of witnesses to the truth (including the Albigenses, Grosseteste, Dante, and Savonarola) was accepted among simple folk and must have contributed much to anti-Catholic prejudices in England. When Foxe treats of his own times his work is of greater value as it contains many documents and is but largely based on the reports of eyewitnesses; but he sometimes dishonesty mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence. He was criticized in his own day by Catholics such as Harpsfield and Father Parsons and by practically all serious ecclesiastical historians.
“The RCC has been tryinh to re-write church history for hundreds of years..”
Nope. The truth is that Protestants invented a fantasy history of the Church which they successfully passed off to their deluded and ignorant adherents. The proof of this is that even Protestants and secularists now recognize facts which their forefathers denied. This is true even in Biblical studies. Hence, DA Carson, who is most definitely a Protestant, can so easily admit that it is just Protestant bigotry which prevents Protestants from admitting that Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16. Times have changed. Just as we now know that the liberals have been lying to us for decades in newspapers and on TV, we now know that Protestants (the fathers of liberalism) were lying about history.
“There is just too much (valid) church history for that to happen though..”
Unlike you, I’m a Church Historian. I studied it on a professional level - and it doesn’t support your fantasies in the least.
Yes, it is my choice. Just as it is my choice to interpret Jesus as I understand and interpret Him without someone claiming the franchise and calling the rules.
Hay-seuss
Thanks for your scriptural citations showing complete concurrence with my views. That was very generous of you.
Zoo hay...
I like to cut to the chase.
But folks will STILL argue over the meaning of EVERY word in verse 29!
I like to cut to the chase.
But folks will STILL argue over the meaning of EVERY word in verse 29!
Anyone who claims to have the only correct view is selling something I won't be buying. The seeking of the meaning is probably or perhaps possibly the real value anyway.
I would call that defaming John Foxe..
Talk about propaganda.. The RCC running from its misdeeds is one thing..
Denying them is another..
Telling the truth is not an attack..
Many ex-priests have exposed the RCC for wrong doing...
Martin Luther is not the only one..
Roman catholic church history is a re-write.. and not a subtle one either..
You buy RCC history instead of the real stuff.. your choice..
I post mainly for the lurker.. and seeker allied with no side..
An honest seeker can Google himself and determine what he "will buy"..
and REJECT what appears to fluff and boondoggle..
Exactly..
Reading to others about how God changes your heart indeed did cause quite a few problems, not limited to forfeiting your life through fire at the stake.
Other Bibles were fine specifically because the uneducated people could not understand the language in which they were written.
The translation of scripture is an active issue even to this day. Rome has not exactly established itself today in using scripture that is a strict translation. For example..The King James is not a strict translation. This would by definition of your previous justifications, make Rome today guilty of heresy.
It seems to take less mental gymnastics to simply admit that men utilized the fear of eternal judgment in the political arena and this cost those in the way of that their lives.
No, again, no one was ever burned at the stake for reading the Bible since reading the Bible was not a crime. Reading the Bible aloud was not a crime either.
__________________________________________
English Protestants and French Huguenots were burnt at the stake, etc for reading the Bible...
Reading the Bible, even owning own was a crine...
Only the Catholic Church, and the nobility had Bibles...If the nobility were Protestants, or if anyone else had a Bible they were murdered...
In the 1680s 200,000 Huguenots fled from France...
Plus the thousands who left in the earlier pogroms...
They hid their Bibles by baking them inside loaves of bread...
If they were caught with a Bible they were murdered...
In one episode in 1572, alone, the St Batholomews Day Massacre, 30,000 French Huguenots were murdered ..
You wrote:
“I would call that defaming John Foxe..”
Telling the truth about Foxe is not defaming him.
“Talk about propaganda.. The RCC running from its misdeeds is one thing..”
The Catholic Church committed no misdeeds. People did. The Church didn’t.
“Denying them is another..”
I deny no truth. You just haven’t presented any.
“Telling the truth is not an attack..”
No, what you’re doing is.
“Many ex-priests have exposed the RCC for wrong doing...”
No, actually none have. Again, people do things that are wrong. The Church doesn’t. SUVs don’t kill people either - in case you didn’t know.
“Martin Luther is not the only one..”
He never was one. He also invented things. He also denied that Revelation and James were scripture. What does that tell you?
You wrote:
“Roman catholic church history is a re-write.. and not a subtle one either..”
No, actually Catholic History is simply history: accurate and truthful.
“You buy RCC history instead of the real stuff.. your choice..”
No, I studied history and I know history, and you simply don’t. You’ve already proven that by going belly up.
“I post mainly for the lurker.. and seeker allied with no side..”
No, you post for the anti-Catholic.
You wrote:
“English Protestants and French Huguenots were burnt at the stake, etc for reading the Bible...”
Nope. Not one. Reading the Bible was not a crime. How could what happened every day in every church and every monastery and in many homes be a crime?
“Reading the Bible, even owning own was a crine...”
Nope. Not even remotely. Show me the law from the Vatican that says so. Show me the national law from any nation-state of the Middle Ages or Early Modern Period that says so.
“Only the Catholic Church, and the nobility had Bibles...If the nobility were Protestants, or if anyone else had a Bible they were murdered...”
Again, nonsense. The truth of the matter is simply this: few people outside of the clergy or nobility had the education necessary to read Latin or even the vernacular. As time went on, and medieval society became more stable, wealthy and educated, even the middle class, and yes, even shepherds read books - including the Bible. Not surprisingly, you are unaware of the following: http://www.geocities.com/militantis/biblechp11.html (Graham was a former Protestant by the way).
And S.R. Maitland was never anything but a Protestant, but he still had the courage to tell the truth unlike so many of his fellows. In his classic work, The Dark Ages, he tells us about the numerous cases of Bible reading in the Middle Ages that he encountered in sources. Of course, those cases time and again, were about priests, monks, nuns, bishops, abbots and nobles. After all, how many other could read until late in the Middle Ages? The fact that few had the money to buy an education does not mean that the Church either killed anyone for reading the Bible, nor that it kept the Bible from anyone. Look at the third world today. Missionaries can hand out all the bibles they want to illiterate people, but they still won’t be able to read them. IS that such a difficult concept to grasp? In America, who is more likely to be literate today? The well off or the poor? Clearly the well off.
“In the 1680s 200,000 Huguenots fled from France...”
So what? In the 1840s, 1,000,000 Catholics fled from Ireland...
So what?
“Plus the thousands who left in the earlier pogroms...”
Again, so what? None of that - NONE OF IT - says anything about the Bible, or literacy, etc.
“They hid their Bibles by baking them inside loaves of bread...”
1) I have no reason to believe a LeFevre-like baking story. 2) If the French were looking for Huguenot bibles then that was French policy - not CATHOLIC policy. The French also granted the Huguenots toleration, and then they rescinded it. Again, the French did what they did.
“If they were caught with a Bible they were murdered...”
1) What the French did to their citizens has nothing to do with the Church. 2) Show me the French law that says having a Huguenot bible meant death. Remember the The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, October 22, 1685, was by the king, the grandson of the Protestant king of Navarre who abandoned his heresy in a heartbeat to become king of France and once issued the Edict of Nantes. This was all FRENCH policy. It was not conducted or insisted on by the Church.
“In one episode in 1572, alone, the St Batholomews Day Massacre, 30,000 French Huguenots were murdered ..”
Nope. The number that most scholars agree on is much closer these days to 5,000 than 30,000. And it is irrelevant in any case since that too was a French decision and had nothing to do with the Church. For the death tolls at the low end see: Philip Benedict, “The Saint Bartholomew’s Massacres in the Provinces,” The Historical Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 1978), pp. 205-225. For the toll at the high end see: F. Fernández-Armesto and D. Wilson, Reformation: Christianity and the World 1500 - 2000, Bantam Press, London, pp. 236 - 237.
No one really knows.
What we do know is this - the Church had nothing to do with it.
No as John ch 10 suggests I'm not for the protestants either(or roman catholic)..
Sheep pens are not heresy.. but merely denominations (you know->schisms)..
I'm for the catholic(<-universal) church..
The roman catholic church is NOT "THE church" merely "A church"..
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.