Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Today we remember the martyrdom of William Tyndale
The King's English ^ | October 6, 2011 | Glen Scrivener

Posted on 10/07/2011 3:57:17 AM PDT by hiho hiho

In the 16th century, nowhere was as dangerous for a would-be Bible translator as England. In 1517 (the year of Luther’s 95 theses), seven parents were burnt at the stake for teaching their children the Lord’s Prayer in English.

Back in 1215AD, the Fourth Lateran Council declared:

“The secret mysteries of the faith ought not to be explained to all men in all places… For such is the depth of divine Scripture that, not only the simple and illiterate, but even the prudent and learned are not fully sufficient to try to understand it.”

Two centuries later the English church, under Archbishop Thomas Arundel, turned this “ought not” into a heresy punishable by burning. England was the only major European country where translation was banned outright.

It was in this English context that Tyndale, aged just 22, spoke his famous words to another clergyman:

“If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plow, shall know more of Scripture than thou doest.” (1522, Foxes Book of Martyrs)

Tyndale was fluent in eight languages, a genius of translation and a true reformer. It was this passion to make the “plow-boy” know the Scriptures that cost him his freedom and then his life. He moved to the continent and in 1525 he produced the first printed New Testament in the English language. His prologue was a combination of his own views on the gospel (he was an ardent believer in justification by faith alone) and a part translation of Luther’s forward to his 1522 New Testament.

The first print run was 3000 and they were smuggled into England in bales of cloth. This New Testament was incredibly popular despite the fact that, if found with a copy, you would be burnt along with your Bible.

Tyndale has been called the architect of the English language, and in many cases he invented words to better convey the original:

“atonement”

“scapegoat”

“Jehovah”

“mercy seat”

“Passover”

And scores of his phrases have proved impossible to better in the last five centuries…

“Let there be light”

“In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God”,

“There were shepherds abiding in the field”

“Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name”

“The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”

“Signs of the times”,

“Skin of your teeth”,

“In Him we live and move and have our being”

“Fight the good fight”

This year I have marvelled at the beauty of so many ‘King James phrases’. Yet on closer examination the great majority turn out to be Tyndale phrases. Only around 20 of the 365 phrases I have been considering this year are original to the King James Bible. And Tyndale has provided the bulk of the rest.

Computer analysis has revealed that more than three quarters of the King James Version can be traced directly to Tyndale (83% of the NT and 76% of the OT). Many times we can wish he was followed even more closely. Consider Tyndale’s matchless translation of Genesis 3:4. The serpent tempts Eve saying, “Tush, ye shall not die”!

By 1535 he had translated all of the Old Testament from Genesis to 2 Chronicles as well as the book of Jonah. But he was betrayed by a friend and imprisoned for 18 months. He was condemned as a heretic, degraded from the priesthood, strangled and then his body burnt. But not before he cried out a famous prayer: “O Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.”

He was 42 years old. He had been on the run for 12 years. He had never married and was never buried. But within three years his prayer was answered. In 1539 Henry VIII ordered an English translation (the Great Bible) to be placed in every pulpit in England. Miles Coverdale was responsible for the translation. He was not a linguist. So whose translation did he depend upon? Tyndale’s.

Between Tyndale and the King James Version there were another 5 English translations, but none of them could get away from the monumental work of this giant of the reformation.

The King James Version is sometimes called ‘the greatest book written by committee.’ And I suppose there is something to celebrate about that. Yet, for the most part, those 47 scholars, working in peace and prosperity, could not improve on the work of a young evangelical who gave his liberty and his life for the gospel.

Thank God for William Tyndale.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 10/07/2011 3:57:20 AM PDT by hiho hiho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

A great Christian. We owe a great debt to him since 80% of the KJB is from Tyndale.


2 posted on 10/07/2011 3:59:10 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

bump


3 posted on 10/07/2011 4:12:31 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

THE CHARGE of BURNING BIBLES

As the great Catholic scholar Thomas Ward stated “The nature of the holy scripture is such, that whosoever do voluntarily corrupt and pervert it, to maintain their own erroneous doctrines, cannot rightly be characterized by any less infamous title than that of heretics; and their false versions, by the title of heretical translations “ (Errata of the Protestant Bible 1688 Pg. 22)

 

       Ever since the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century, the Catholic Church has been accused of ignoring, opposing, hiding and even destroying the Bible in order to keep it from the people. Allegedly, copies of the Bible were chained to the walls of churches during the Middle Ages so that people could not take them home to read. Supposedly the Church during the Middle Ages also refused to translate the Bible into the various tongues of the common people, the vernacular languages, in order to further hinder personal Bible reading. Furthermore it is claimed that the Church even went as far as to burn vernacular Bibles.

After the 14th century when English finally became the popular language of England, vernacular Bibles were used as vehicles for heretical propaganda. John Wycliffe, a dissentient priest, translated the Bible into English. Unfortunately his secretary, John Purvey, included a heretical prologue, as noted by St. Thomas More. Later William Tyndale translated the Bible into English complete with prologue and footnotes condemning Church doctrines and  teachings.

In 1528, the Bishop of London wrote to Sir Thomas More, requesting that he examine the works of certain “sons of iniquity” and explain “the crafty malignity of these impious heretics” to “simpleminded people.” He sent More examples of the Lutheran writers. Tyndale was not mentioned in the letter, but his New Testament must have been among the books sent to More.

(1) St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. 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;” evangelist into “bearer of good news;” etc., etc. Many of his footnotes were vicious. For instance, Tyndale referred to the occupant of the Chair of Peter, as “that great idol, the whore of Babylon, the anti-Christ of Rome.”

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, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects.” (2) Protestant Bishop Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale’s Bible.

William Tyndale was executed for the charge of “heresy” by order of the Protestant King of England Henry VII in October 1536.
This wood cut is from the 1563 printing of John Foxe’s “Acts and Monuments”

Tyndale, along with many Protestant-leaning scholars, resided in Antwerp, a free city, but surrounded by territory under control of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and a relative of Catherine of Aragon. Early in 1535. Tyndale became friends with Henry Phillips, a visiting Englishman. Phillips presented himself to Tyndale as sympathetic to the Lutheran cause, but plotted with the emperor’s magistrates to arrest Tyndale. In May, 1535, Phillips invited Tyndale out to dinner and, upon leaving his residence, identified him to waiting guards who apprehended him. Although by this time, England had separated from the Catholic Church and Tyndale had some supporters in the government, the Church of England continued to fight against Lutheranism. Tyndale’s friends appealed to the English government to intervene, but to no avail. After a sixteen month imprisonment, an ecclesiastical panel convicted Tyndale of heresy in August, 1536 and turned him over to the secular authority. In October of the same year he was executed, being first strangled and then burned at the stake. 

Tyndale died not for the right to read the Bible, as many Protestants arrogantly claim. He was put to death by the civil judges of the father of the English Protestant Deformation, for doctrines subversive of law and order, which Dr. James Gardiner, Protestant, said “was intended to produce an ecclesiastical and social revolution of a most dangerous character. . .”(3)

It is love of the God-inspired books in the Bible that caused the Catholic Church to protect the people from counterfeit translations as ardently as the State endeavors to protect the people from counterfeit currency. The “right to read the Bible,” which is a moral right, does not include imbibing such a blasphemous and distorted translation as came from the contemptible ex-Catholic pen of Tyndale. His translation was ordered to be destroyed, not because it appeared in the English language, as you assume, but because it was a faulty, corrupted translation, which was a deliberate profanation of the Sacred Text. Does this action make the Church anti-Bible? First if the Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, why did her monks work diligently through the centuries making copies of it? Before the printing press (before 1450), copies of the Bible were hand written with beauty and painstaking accuracy. One reason for Bibles being chained to the walls of churches is because each copy was precious both spiritually and materially. It took a monk about a year to hand copy the entire Bible, so Bibles were scarce. Paper was not used during the Middle Ages, as the first paper mill was not built until the 15th century (in England). Every monastery had a scriptorium, a writing room, in those ages, where priests and monks diligently and lovingly transcribed Bibles. In that way the texts we have today were preserved. It is calculated to have taken 427 skins or parchments. It has been estimated that in 1518 the cost of a copy of the Bible wold work out at the 1952 rate of L218 (or about $1000),for material upon which to write a single Bible(4). Hence Bibles could not be distributed then as they are distributed today.

Those chained Bibles were Open Bibles. The people who could not afford to own a Bible stood at a desk, lectern or stall in the aisles and corridors of the Catholic Churches during those Middle Ages, for there were no Protestant Churches in those days, and read those valuable open chained Bibles, to their hearts’ content. Thus we see, that chained Bibles were Bibles used for educational purposes. the Protestant  misconception, gleaned no doubt from anti-Catholic sources, is as unreasonable as to conclude that telephone books, city directories and dictionaries are fastened to telephone booths, druggist counters and library tables in order to keep people ignorant of the numbers, addresses, and definitions in them.

The Church did not oppose faithful vernacular translations, Luther himself noted “it was an effect of God power, that the Papacy should have remained, in the first place, sacred baptism; secondly, the text of the Holy Gospels which it was custom to read from the pulpit in the vernacular tongue of every nation...” (5)

What the Church did oppose were heretical additions and distortions to the Bible. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ’s Gospel. As St. Peter in his Epistle (in the Bible) warns us, the ignorant and unstable can distort the Scriptures to their own destruction [2 Peter 3:16; see front panel].

The Catholic Church has always Protected the Bible against those who would destroy it. The great scholar G.K. Chesterton said “It was only the Roman Catholic Church that saved the Protestant truths. It may be right to rest on the Bible, but there would be no Bible if the Gnostics had proved that the Old Testament was written by the Devil, or had littered the world with Apocryphal Gospels. It may be right to say that Jesus alone saves from sin, but nobody would be saying it if a Pelagian movement had altered the whole notion of sin. Even the very selection of dogmas which the reformers decided to preserve had only been preserved for them by the authority which they Denied” (Upon this Rock)

The beginning of the 4th century A.D. witnessed the horrible persecutions of Diocletion, the Roman legionaries raided Catholic churches and libraries throughout the Empire destroying the Codexes of sacred scripture (6). In the 6th century A.D. the world was suffering under the plague of the Turkish and Arabian hoards led by the notorious outlaw Mohammed, in A.D. 614 Palestine was overrun, Jerusalem was captured; in 1009, the Caliph Hakim, began his devastating work in Jerusalem by ordering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. By 1014 some 30,000 churches in Palestine had been burnt or pillaged, with them went a vast number of ancient Bibles. (7)

As their conquests spread throughout northern Africa, In Alexandria was sacked (A.D. 642). The great Alexandrian library fell into their hands, it was the largest and most famous of the ancient collections of scrolls. It contained more than 400,000 scrolls and books. These book including many ancient Bibles, were distributed among the four thousand departments of the capitol, and served to feed the fires six months. yet through the protection of the Catholic Church the was preserved. Luther himself noted “it was an effect of God power, that the Papacy should have remained, in the first place, sacred baptism; secondly, the text of the Holy Gospels which it was custom to read from the pulpit in the vernacular tongue of every nation...” (8)

The 16th century witnessed vast confusion among the Protestants as to the nature of scripture. It was in this century that the Christian world witnessed the Protestants relegated the seven Sacred Deutero Canonical books of the Old Testament as “apocryphal works”, and as only worth being in the appendix in their Bible (9) Martin Luther developed a theory that only those books that taught his Dogma of Justification by Faith Alone should be accepted as part of the canon. However, he didn’t work out this theory until after he had lost a debate with a Catholic (either Cardinal Cajetan in 1518 or Johann Eck of Ingolstadt in 1519 AD), when 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 was quoted to refute Martin Luther’s “Faith Alone.” His subjective standards were also the given for his reason for claiming that Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation were also not to be considered as fully the Inspired Word of God. the early Lutherans followed him in this. In the 17th century the Lutherans of the put these New Testament books back into their canon (10) Zwingli said of Luther’s German version of the Bible ‘Thou corruptest award of God, O Luther; thou art seen to be a manifest corrupter of the holy scripture; how much are we ashamed of thee, who hitherto esteemed of thee beyond all measure, and prove thee to be such a man!’ To which Luther politely answered ‘Zwinglians are fools, asses and deceivers.’ Melanchthon, Gerhard, and Chemnitz went in the same direction, and Calvin denied the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Molinoeus complained Calvin “Uses violence to the letter of the gospel, and besides this, adds to the text,” Erasmus denied the apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, and the Apocalypse. (11) Beza condemned Castalio’s version; and of Beza said: ‘I will not note all his errors, for that would require too large a volume”. even Whitaker himself was guilty in this respect rejecting the sacred books of Tobias, Ecclasiasticus, and Machabees. (12)

In England Between the winter of 1537 and April 10,1540 over 318 Catholic monasteries and convents were destroyed including there vast libraries of religious texts encompassing many rare and old hand copied Catholic bibles (both ancient Greek and Latin) by the Protestant king of England Henry VIII (13)

The Anglicans in the English controlled sections of Ireland took the destruction of monasteries, churches, church libraries and schools to a new level, It became a passion. In 1544 Immense

amounts of ancient books and Vulgate Bibles were maliciously destroyed in giant bon fires. In an effort to reduce the Catholic Irish to ignorance Henry VIII decreed that in Ireland even the possession of a manuscript any subject whatsoever (including sacred Scripture) incurred the death Penalty.(14).  On January 5, 1541 by order of the king a English printer named Grafton was arrested and imprisoned for printing the Matthew and Great Bibles to which he had exclusive printing rights.(15) King Henry VIII held a great official burning of to “heretical” books in 1546, The Protestant Bibles of Tyndale, Coverdale and Matthew and the Catholic Latin Vulgate helped feed the fires (16)

In 1582 The Rheims Catholic New Testament in English was issued Needless to say, the appearance of this New Testament, with its annotations, at once aroused the fiercest opposition. Queen Elizabeth ordered the searches to seek out and confiscate and destroy every copy they could find. If a priest was found in possession of it, he was forthwith imprisoned. Torture by rack was applied to those who circulated it. (17) so strong indeed was the feeling—nay, the dread aroused by the The Rheims New Testament, that Elizabeth asked Beza to undertake a refutation. Beza, however referred her to a Puritan scholar named Cartwright. Elizabeth accepted Beza’s recommendation and Cartwright who was financed by Leicester and Walsingham not to work on This new challenging project. Cartwright got as far as Apoc. chapter 15 when Whitgift resenting Cartwright continuous attacks upon the church in England was forced to stopped the publication.(18)

Even from the very start many renowned Protestant scholars came out in opposition the King James Bible and to its inaccuracies some even called for it to be burned. for example In 1612 Dr. Hugh Broughton said in a critique addressed to the house of Lords stated:

“The late Bible (The 1611 King James version)... bred in me sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done... to his Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, then any such translation by my consent should be urged upon the poor churches...the new edition crosseth me. I require it to be Burnt”(The Bible Through the Ages copyright 1996 p. 318)

Several times The Anglicans themselves burned Copies of the King James Version, a example of this was the 1631 printing somtimes know as the “Wicked Bible” because of a error made by the Printer Robert Barker. The word “not” was left out of the 7th commandment say it said “Thou shalt commit adultery”. England’s King Charles I [a Anglican] was not amused by the mistake. He ordered the Bibles recalled and destroyed, took away Barker’s license to print Bibles and fined him 300 pounds([a lifetimes wages in those days]. Barker was out of business. By order of the King almost 1000 Bibles was put to the torch, only 11 of this printing are left today.

In 1642 Civil war broke out in England, [some call it the “Puritan Revolution”]. during the war Bible printing in England Ceased, but the desire for the Scriptures continued, and poorly executed, error-filled versions were imported from Holland. In Parliament these Bibles were labeled “corrupt and Dangerous to Religion... and should be burned” (22)

The 1782 Aitken’s edition of the Bible . This Bible is Part of the webmaster’s collection

The Title Page of The 1782 Aitken’s edition of the Bible.

There were even stipulations on the printing of sacred scripture, it was illegal in Anglican England or the American colonies to print the Bible in English. The Crown claimed a copyright on king James version, and printing of that version was a privilege accorded exclusively to the King’s printers and the universities of Oxford in Cambridge. Hence its published in English colonies appeared in languages other than English. It was not until after the outbreak of the American revolution that American presses began to publish the King James Bible. First came Robert Aitken’s edition of the new Testament printed in Philadelphia in 1777 against great odds. Not only was the work done on poor equipment, but on one occasion Aitken had to save his type and printing materials from destruction by the English red coats by sprinting them out-of-town and hiding them under a barn (19).

John Calvin in 1522, had as many copies as could be found of the Servetus Bible burned, since Calvin did not approve of it. Later Calvin had Michael Servetus himself burned at the stake for being a Unitarian. (20)

The Calvinists in France caused Ten wars between 1562 and 1628 [The Siege and fall of La Rochelle] In one year alone (1561), according to one of THEIR OWN estimates, the French Calvinists “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, with many others. (21)

The Anabaptists In 1534, seized control of Münster Germany calling it The “New Jerusalem” they embarked a reign of terror and indescribable orgies, communism and polygamy. Many Catholic and Lutheran Bibles, treasures of literature and art were burned in great fires held in the town squar. The Anabaptists atrocities came to a end on June 24, 1535 with a joint Catholic and Lutherans siege and capture of the town of Münster.

(1)The Jerome Biblical Commentary © 1968 Vol. II, pp. 586-588

(2) Where We Got The Bible © 1977 p. 128-130.

(3) what say you © 1955 p.62

(4) English Versions of The Bible © 1952 Pg. 63

(5) De Missa privata, ed by Jensen, VI, Pg 92

(6) The Bible Through the Ages © 1996 Pg 213

(7) The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary © 1977 Pg 423

(8) De Missa privata, ed by Jensen, VI, Pg 92

(9) Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible © 1963


4 posted on 10/07/2011 4:20:32 AM PDT by johngrace (1 John 4!- which is also declared at every sunday mass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

I have a Tyndale NT and have enjoyed using it for devotions.


5 posted on 10/07/2011 4:26:29 AM PDT by DeaconBenjamin (A trillion here, a trillion there, soon you're NOT talking real money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

Ping to myself to read later


6 posted on 10/07/2011 4:32:37 AM PDT by ReformedBeckite (1 of 3 I'm only allowing my self each day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

Thanks for the post. We owe so much to these braves souls.


7 posted on 10/07/2011 4:35:16 AM PDT by Pecos (O.K., joke's over. Time to bring back the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

Interesting, thanks for posting.


8 posted on 10/07/2011 4:43:49 AM PDT by agere_contra ("Debt is the foundation of destruction" : Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

Well said!


9 posted on 10/07/2011 5:01:30 AM PDT by RoadTest (For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

And there we have the Roman viewpoint.

Take your pick.


10 posted on 10/07/2011 5:04:30 AM PDT by RoadTest (For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
A few minutes research gives:

In Italy popular knowledge of the Bible in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was spread chiefly by the Franciscan and Dominican Friars. A complete version in the vernacular, a manuscript preserved in the National Library at Paris, was made by Nicholas de Nardò, O.P., in 1472.

...The first printed Bible (Venice, 1471) was due to Nicholas Malermi, O. Camald. A revision of this, with notes, rubrics, and résumés largely after the Biblical commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra, was made by Marine de Veneto, O.P. (Venice, 1477).
New Advent

Skipping over pre-Norman Conquest vernacular Bibles we come to

After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly "specimens" for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished.

We have proof of this in the words of Blessed Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says: "The whole Bible long before Wycliff's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read" (Dialogues III). Again, "The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as be already reproved for naught (i.e., bad, naughty) as Wycliff's was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff's days, they remain lawful and be in some folks' hand. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen's hands and women's too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion."
Veritas Bible

And:

In the 1500's in Italy, there were more than 40 vernacular editions of the Bible. France had 18 vernacular editions before 1547, and Spain began publishing editions in 1478, with full approval of the Spanish Inquisition.

In all, 198 editions of the Bible were in the language of the laity, 626 editions all together, and all before the first Protestant version, and all having the full approval of the Church. (Where We Got the Bible, TAN Publishers)
EARLY HISTORY OF THE BIBLE

From elsewhere:

Alfred the Great had a number of passages of the Bible circulated in the vernacular in around 900. These included passages from the Ten Commandments and the Pentateuch, which he prefixed to a code of laws he promulgated around this time. In approximately 990, a full and freestanding version of the four Gospels in idiomatic Old English appeared, in the West Saxon dialect; these are called the Wessex Gospels. Pope Innocent III in 1199 banned unauthorized [emphasis added] versions of the Bible as a reaction to the Cathar and Waldensian heresies. The synods of Toulouse and Tarragona (1234) outlawed possession of such renderings. There is evidence of some vernacular translations being permitted while others were being scrutinized.

The complete Bible was translated into Old French in the late 13th century. Parts of this translation were included in editions of the popular Bible historiale, and there is no evidence of this translation being suppressed by the Church.
Wikipedia

Interesting.
11 posted on 10/07/2011 5:05:12 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
William Tyndale was executed for the charge of “heresy” by order of the Protestant King of England Henry VII in October 1536.

Did you mean "Henry VIII"?

12 posted on 10/07/2011 5:10:34 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: johngrace; smvoice; metmom; 1000 silverlings; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; Diamond; ...
Let me add some balance

Supplement A: Roman Catholic hindrance of Biblical literacy, and its modern NAB interpretations.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29)

And the common people heard him gladly.” (Mk. 12:37)

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me." (John 5:39)

"And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me. {45} Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, " (Luke 24:44-45)

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15)

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Act 17:11)

"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." (1 Peter 2:2)

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. " (2 Timothy 2:15)

Preface:

That Rome did not overall promote Biblical literacy is true, and until recently little of the Bible was read in Mass, and today this is still not much. The average Catholic does not even get to Mass weekly, less alone daily as would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle, and it has already been established that historically Rome did not encourage Bible literacy among the laity, and even discouraged it. Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951. (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm) Also “at mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, just going to Mass will NOT give a functional knowledge of Scripture. TOC

While accusations of censure of the Bible by Rome are sometimes exaggerated, and while Roman Catholicism did print Bibles in the common (“vulgar”) tongue (and in a notable encouragement, Pius VI in his letter to Martini, commended the printing and reading of his translation of his Bible into Italian), yet for most of her history she evidences that she not only did not place a priority upon personal Biblical literacy among the laity, but she actually hindered it, including by requiring permission to privately read Scripture, or more rarely, in some places outright banning the laity from reading it. Translations in the language of the laity was typical judged as “doing more harm than good.” This suppression based upon the position of “sola ecclesia,” that the Roman church only is the supreme authority and sufficient infallible authority on faith and morals. As stated in 1528 by Dominican Johannes Mensing, "Scripture can deceive, the Church cannot deceive. Who does not perceive then that the Church is greater than Scripture and that we can entrust ourselves better to the Church than to Scripture." (“Gründliche vnterricht: Was eyn frommer Christen von der heyligen Kirchen, von den Vetern vnd der heyligen schrifft halten sol”)

However, while Rome infallibly declares she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula (but which does not insure infallible interpretation of her), Scripture is the only transcendent material authority on faith and moral that is infallible, being wholly God-breathed, and which was established as being so due the supernatural attestation given them from God, and their unique heavenly qualities, and conflation and progressive complementarity to what was previously established as being from God.

Moreover, while today Bible reading is somewhat encouraged in Roman Catholicism, its authority is yet impugned by inculcating the idea that what Rome says it means is all that really doctrinally matters, and by the overall liberal interpretive approach to exegesis of most of her modern scholars, such as is seen (below) in the approved commentary in the official Roman Catholic Bible for America.

    Historical view:

  • It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests (De Lazaro concio, iii, MPG, xlviii, 992; Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, lvii, 30, NPNF, 2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament (Hom. ix in Col., MPG, lxii, 361, NPNF, xiii, 301). The women also, who were always at home, were diligently to read the Bible (Hom. xxxv on Gen. xii, MPG, liii, 323). Jerome recommended the reading and studying of Scripture on the part of the women (Epist., cxxviii, 3, MPL, xxii, 1098, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 259; Epist., lxxix, 9, MPG, xxii, 730-731, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 167). The translations of the Bible, Augustine considered a blessed means of propagating the Word of God among the nations (De doctr. christ., ii, 5, NPNF, 1st ser., ii, 536); Gregory I recommended the reading of the Bible without placing any limitations on it (Hom. iii in Ezek., MPL, lxxvi, 968). — New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia

    The Middle Ages:

  • Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff�, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular...

  • With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. (Philip Schaff, Bible reading by the laity, restrictions on. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II: Basilica – Chambers)

  • There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us.” (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, The Catholic Publication Society, 1887, page 509)

  • Through most of the fourth century, the controversy with the Arians had turned upon Scripture, and appeals to past authority were few. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 6, page 2)

  • Our present convenient compendiums -- the Missal, Breviary, and so on were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed. [Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 9, page 296]

  • Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations (Canon 825 §1).

  • The Catholic dictionary states that, “In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people...New dangers came in during the Middle Ages...To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Terragona, (1234) [local councils], forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Toulouse was in response to the Albigensian heresy, and it is understood that when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France. http://www.lazyboysreststop.com/true_attitude.htm

  • Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14: "We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue" (Pierre Allix, Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213).

  • Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.” (Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1887, page 82).

  • During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times. Their history is chiefly connected with the names of medieval heretics like Berengarius of Tours, Abelard, John Wyclif, and John Hus. However, especially in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, there were also issued prohibitions of various kinds of superstitious writings, among them the Talmud and other Jewish books. In this period, also, the first decrees about the reading of translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigenses. What these decrees (e.g. of the synods of Toulouse in 1229, Tarragona in 1234, Oxford in 1408) aimed at was the restriction of Bible-reading in the vernacular. A general prohibition was never in existence. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, (v3, pg. 520; http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Censorship_of_Books)

The Council of Trent broadly prohibited all Latin translations of the New Testament coming from what she decreed were were heretics, and also prohibited “all their books, even those free from objection, i.e. not treating of religious questions, as well as future publications.” “Any person reading or keeping a book prohibited for other reasons commits a grievous sin and is to be punished according to the bishop's discretion. The ten rules remained in force until Leo XIII abrogated them by the Constitution "Officiorum ac Munerum" (January 25, 1897) and replaced them by new general decrees.” However, consistent with other hindrances, Trent did allow reading of Scripture, that of “reading of Latin translations of the Old Testament edited by heretics, and for the use of Bible-versions in the vernacular written by Catholics,” but only after a license in writing was obtained from the proper ecclesiastical authority:

Council of Trent

  • Session XXV: Rule IV of the Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books Drawn Up by The Fathers Chosen by the Council of Trent and Approved by Pope Pius:

  • Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with English Translation (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1955), p. 274-75. http://teachers.sduhsd.net/mmontgomery/world_history/reformation/trent.htm

  • The most stringent censorship decree after the Reformation was the Papal bull “Inter Solicitudines,” issued by Pope Leo X, December 1516, which Leo X ordered censorship to be applied to all translations from Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Chaldaic into Latin, and from Latin into the vernacular. (Hirsch, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450-1550 [1967] 90).

  • In addition to the printed books being seized and publicly burnt , payment of a hundred ducats to the fabric of the basilica of the prince of the apostles in Rome , without hope of relief , and suspension for a whole year from the possibility of engaging in the printing , There Is To be imposed upon anyone presuming to act otherwise the sentence of excommunication . Finally , if the offender 's contumacy Increases , he is to be punished with all the sanctions of the law , by His bishop or by our vicar , in Such a way That others will have no incentive to try to follow His example. Papal Bull, Inter Sollicitudines (December 1516) [Wiki Translation].

  • Between 1567 and 1773, not a single edition of an Italian-language Bible was printed anywhere in the Italian peninsula. “When English Roman Catholics created their first English biblical translation in exile at Douai and Reims, it was not for ordinary folk to read, but [primarily] for priests to use as a polemical weapon.—the explicit purpose which the 1582 title-page and preface of the Reims New Testament proclaimed. Only the Jansenists of early seventeenth-century France came to have a more positive and generous attitude to promoting Bible-reading among Catholics" (Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History, 2003, p. 406; p. 585.)

  • Douay-Rheims

  • The Douay–Rheims Bible...is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English undertaken by members of the English College, Douai in the service of the Catholic Church.

  • Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all, or could be easily understood by every one that readeth or heareth them in a known language; or that they were not often through man's malice or infirmity, pernicious and much hurtful to many; or that we generally and absolutely deemed it more convenient in itself, and more agreeable to God's Word and honour or edification of the faithful, to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages.

  • Not for these nor any such like reasons do we translate this sacred book, but upon special consideration of the present time, state, and condition of our country, unto which diverse things are either necessary or profitable and medicinable now that otherwise, in the peace of the Church, were neither much requisite, nor perchance wholly tolerable.

  • In our own country, notwithstanding the Latin tongue was ever (to use Venerable Bede's words) common to all the provinces of the same for meditation or study of Scriptures, and no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church,..

  • Which causeth the Holy Church not to forbid utterly any Catholic translation, though she allow not the publishing or reading of any absolutely and without exception or limitation, knowing by her Divine and most sincere wisdom, how, where, when, and to whom these her Master's and Spouse's gifts are to be bestowed to the most good of the faithful. http://www.bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html

INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS:

  • The Index of Prohibited Books was first published in 1544, and the Inquisition in Rome prepared the first Roman Index, issued by Paul IV in 1559. It contained more than a thousand interdictions divided into three classes: authors, all of whose works were to be prohibited;...

  • The number of writers and works placed on the Roman Index from the mid-sixteenth century to the end of the eighteenth amounted to about four thousand...

  • The defense against Protestantism always remained a major pre-occupation of Roman censors. Protection of the political and juridical rights and privileges of the church, the pope, and the hierarchy also find a notable echo in the Index. Thus, writings favoring Gallicanism and those advocating the right of civil authorities to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs appear prominently, alongside polemical works dealing with the political intervention of the Holy See, such as during its conflict with the Republic of Venice in 1606–1607, or the oath of loyalty in England during the pontificate of Paul V (1605–1621).” http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eemw_03/eemw_03_00542.html

The Bull Unigenitus, published at Rome, September 8, 1713, as part of its censure of the propositions of Jansenism*, also condemned the following as being errors:

  • 79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.

  • 80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.

  • 81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.

  • 82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.

  • 84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.

    85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication. (INNOCENT XIII 1721-1724 BENEDICT XIII 1724-1730, CLEMENT XII 1730-174, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm)

INTER PRAECIPUAS (On Biblical Societies) of Pope Gregory XVI, MAY 8, 1844:

  • 1. Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that We now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels. Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided.

  • In the many translations from the biblical societies, serious errors are easily inserted by the great number of translators, either through ignorance or deception. These errors, because of the very number and variety of translations, are long hidden and hence lead the faithful astray...

  • 3. For this end the same biblical societies never cease to slander the Church and this Chair of Peter as if We have tried to keep the knowledge of sacred Scripture from the faithful. However, We have documents clearly detailing the singular zeal which the Supreme Pontiffs and bishops in recent times have used to instruct the Catholic people more thoroughly in the word of God, both as it exists in writing and in tradition.

  • 5. ..the school of Jansenius. Borrowing the tactics of the Lutherans and Calvinists, they rebuked the Apostolic See on the grounds that because the reading of the Scriptures for all the faithful, at all times and places, was useful and necessary, it therefore could not be forbidden anyone by any authority...

  • 11. Therefore, taking counsel with a number of Cardinals, and weighing the whole matter seriously and in good time, We have decided to send this letter to all of you. We again condemn all the above-mentioned biblical societies of which our predecessors disapproved. We specifically condemn the new one called Christian League founded last year in New York and other societies of the same kind, if they have already joined with it or do so in the future. Therefore let it be known to all that anyone who joins one of these societies, or aids it, or favors it in any way will be guilty of a grievous crime. Besides We confirm and renew by Our apostolic authority the prescriptions listed and published long ago concerning the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/g16inter.htm)

  • "A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church...We must also keep in mind that whenever or wherever reading endangers the purity of Christian thought and living the unum necessarium it has to be wisely restricted." — A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953) pp. 11-12.

  • Modern era

Providentissimus Deus: On the study of Holy Scripture, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII , November 18, 1893,

  • 6. It is in this that the watchful care of the Church shines forth conspicuously. By admirable laws and regulations, she has always shown herself solicitous that "the celestial treasure of the Sacred Books, so bountifully bestowed upon man by the Holy Spirit, should not lie neglected."25 She has prescribed that a considerable portion of them shall be read and piously reflected upon by all her ministers in the daily office of the sacred psalmody. She has ordered that in Cathedral Churches, in monasteries, and in other convents in which study can conveniently be pursued, they shall be expounded and interpreted by capable men; and she has strictly commanded that her children shall be fed with the saving words of the Gospel at least on Sundays and solemn feasts.26 Moreover, it is owing to the wisdom and exertions of the Church that there has always been continued from century to century that cultivation of Holy Scripture which has been so remarkable and has borne such ample fruit. (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm)

Comment:

While the above encyclical was partly motivated by the rise of the historical-critical method of analyzing Scripture, which impugns its authority, yet liberal scholarship reigns in Roman Catholicism. See below for more.

  • Officiorum ac Munerum, Encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII. The prohibition and censorship of books Apostolic Constitution, January 25, 1897

  • 5. Editions of the Original Text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in Theological and Biblical Studies, provided also that the Dogma of Catholic Faith are not impugned in the Prolegomena or Annotations.

  • 6. In the same manner, and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible, whether in Latin or in any other dead language, published by non-Catholics, are permitted. 5. Editions of the Original Text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in Theological and Biblical Studies, provided also that the Dogma of Catholic Faith are not impugned in the Prolegomena or Annotations.

  • 6. In the same manner, and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible, whether in Latin or in any other dead language, published by non-Catholics, are permitted.

  • 23. Those only shall be allowed to read and keep books prohibited, either by Special Decrees or by these General Decrees, who shall have obtained the necessary permission, either from the Apostolic See or from its delegates.

  • 41. All the faithful are bound to submit to preliminary Ecclesiastical Censorship at least those books which treat of Holy Scripture, ..

  • 48. Those who, without the Approbation of the Ordinary, print, or cause to be printed, books of Holy Scripture, or notes of commentaries on the same, incur ipso facto excommunication, but not reserved.

  • 49....We Decree that these presents and whatsoever they contain shall at no time be questioned or impugned for any fault of subreption, or obreption, or of Our intention, or for any other defect whatsoever; but are and shall be ever valid and efficacious, and to be inviolably observed, both Judicially and extra-Judicially, by all of whatsoever rank and pre-eminence. And We declare to be invalid and of no avail, whatsoever may be attempted knowingly or unknowingly contrary to these, by any one, under any Authority or pretext whatsoever; all to the contrary notwithstanding. http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/Censorship.htm

  • Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920: "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, with the veneration due the divine Word, make a spiritual reading from the Sacred Scriptures. A plenary indulgence is granted if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour."

  • DeI Verbum Pope Paul vi on November 18, 1965: Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful...But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. [Note: The ecumenical Council of Trent declared that the Catholic Church, "ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever (Council of Trent, fourth Session)", and restricted access to it.] And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.[Note also that the NAB notes (below reflect very liberal scholarship.]

Vatican Two: With Vatican came a marked difference in the Roman Catholic stance toward general Bible reading.

  • The Second Vatican Council, 1966, under Pope Paul VI abolishes the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which was founded in 1557.

  • The Catholic Study Bible: At mid-century the Scripture were read in Latin at Mass. There were few selections from the Old Testament, and a rather small number of New Testament passages dominated... Since Vatican 2...the Old Testament is very prominent and almost the entire New Testament...is represented...At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts...Now the texts of the Bible form the primary resource for Catholic religious education at all levels. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16)

  • "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due to the divine word make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture. A plenary indulgence is granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour." (Enchiridion of Indulgences. Authorized English edition. 1969. Catholic Book Publishers. New York. Page 68. # 50) TOC

* a distinct movement within the Catholic Church from the 16th to 18th centuries. It opposed Pelagianism (and semi-Pelagianism), and what is saw as the "relaxed morality" of Jesuitism and its frequent communion, and it followers identified themselves as rigorous followers of Augustinism, and it thus shared some tenets of Calvinism (though its pious Catholic founder, Jansen, rejected the doctrine of assurance). Its key conflict with Roman Catholic soteriology is that it denies the role of free will in the acceptance and use of grace.

The Bull condemns 101 propositions which are taken verbatim from the last (and enlarged edition of Pasquier Quesnel's book entitled Abrégé de la morale de l'Evangile ("Morality of the Gospel, Abridged") , first published 1671. The work was approved by the French bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne, and the last edition of 1693 was highly recommended by the new bishop of Châlons, Gaston-Louis de Noailles.

Pope Clement XI condemned it in a brief, July 13, 1708, but Noailles, who had become Archbishop of Paris and cardinal, was not prepared to withdraw his approbation of it. This resulted in the Pope issuing the Bull Unigenitus, and later the Bull "Pastoralis officii" on 28 Aug., 1718, excommunicating all that refused to accept the Bull "Unigenitus," as Noailles, who did withdraw his approval of Morality of the Gospel, worked to prevent unconditional acceptance of the Bull "Unigenitus," but relented shortly before his death. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenist)

The 101 propositions were overall “Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.”

Among the condemned propositions were that: grace works with omnipotence and is irresistible; without grace man can only commit sin; Christ died for the elect only; every love that is not supernatural is evil; without supernatural love there can be no hope in God, no obedience to His law, no good work, no prayer, no merit, no religion; the prayer of the sinner and his other good acts performed out of fear of punishment are only new sins, etc. http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/11/alleged-errors-of-paschasius-quesnel.html TOC


13 posted on 10/07/2011 5:11:06 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

No! Read both versions then decide. The foxes book of martyrs is so biased. Just make sure you read both. I read the foxes book years ago what a heavy handed bias. I use to go to christian bookstores that acted like there was no history before 1500’s. Also there are 3 sides to a story. One side and the other side then the total truth. Words of wisdom for both of us.


14 posted on 10/07/2011 5:13:30 AM PDT by johngrace (1 John 4!- which is also declared at every sunday mass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

Well mr astute reader. Yes!! LOL!! Usually when talking about Tyndale these type of articles have some people who are dead when they killed Tyndale. Thomas More.


15 posted on 10/07/2011 5:17:40 AM PDT by johngrace (1 John 4!- which is also declared at every sunday mass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. 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;” evangelist into “bearer of good news;” etc., etc. ”

These are not errors, but often closer to the original, especially in the case of Bishop into “Overseer,” and Priest into “Elder. Meanwhile, as stated, the official Roman Catholic Bible for America is quite liberal in its notes, along with certain omissions (fornication), and is the angst of conservative Roman Catholics, many of whom prefer to the Douay Rheims, which is very similar to the KJV, which is very similar to the Tyndale.

For all the murderous hyperventilating of Rome in the past, i do not think the Tyndale would really be found objectionable today except for archaic words and spelling.

Losing her unScriptural temporal power under which she advocated torture and death for theological enemies, made changes necessary.

Be back later

16 posted on 10/07/2011 5:28:03 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

I like the rsv myself.


17 posted on 10/07/2011 5:36:13 AM PDT by johngrace (1 John 4!- which is also declared at every sunday mass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Just remember to read both sides of the story. Then try to weed out the biases. But remember there is your view ,my view and then the truth. We are talking about written recorded accounts with all types of biases. This all happened many moons ago. I posted to show we need to check all sources and by the grace of God we can figure something out.

Freeper Regards!

18 posted on 10/07/2011 5:43:19 AM PDT by johngrace (1 John 4!- which is also declared at every sunday mass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
These are not errors, but often closer to the original, especially in the case of Bishop into “Overseer,” and Priest into “Elder.

Not sure how you figure that those are "closer," since the Greek words for "overseer" and "elder" are the direct ancestors of our English words "bishop" and "priest".

Tyndale was not indicted or tried for translating the Bible, as the OP seems to imply, nor was he indicted or tried by Englishmen, but by Belgians under Spanish rule.

The bill of indictment against him is available in translation on the Internet; "translating the Bible" is not on the list of his offenses.

His Bible contained his own heretical commentary in addition to Scripture. I'm not sure why anyone would expect the Catholic Church to approve such a translation, full of venomous rejection of her doctrines.

However, it is true that his translation was the ancestor of the KJV, which is not only a very influential piece of literature, but was a reasonably good Bible translation in its own right. And for that he deserves some honor.

The Bible I use for private devotion is the RSV-Catholic Edition, which is a revision of the KJV. So ironically, pride of place on this Catholic's bookshelf goes to a Bible which is a second-generation descendant of Tyndale's.

19 posted on 10/07/2011 5:46:07 AM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

You make some very good points.


20 posted on 10/07/2011 5:58:51 AM PDT by Larry Lucido (I can only be series in a parallel universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
Usually when talking about Tyndale these type of articles have some people who are dead when they killed Tyndale. Thomas More.

Coming soon to a theatre near you:

ZOMBIES of the HOUSE of TUDOR!

21 posted on 10/07/2011 6:12:39 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
If you look at history. It really is the conquerors who write their version of history which will be very biases at times. I think it is very interesting that foxes book of martyrs comes from a period where he was in favor to write the way he did. When he wrote it. It was during a favorable period middle 1500's, which became poplar to praise people and also prejudice people. It is filled with half truths. How much can it be on the other side too.

You would need The objective Truth. The only way you come close is to read both views. But then we have our biases whether we want to admit it or not.

What 's that argument about history. The conquerors bias?

22 posted on 10/07/2011 6:35:11 AM PDT by johngrace (1 John 4!- which is also declared at every sunday mass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

You have a wonderful zany sense of humor.


23 posted on 10/07/2011 6:37:00 AM PDT by johngrace (1 John 4!- which is also declared at every sunday mass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

Don’t be deceived. Just because an establishment is old and big doesn’t make it right.


24 posted on 10/07/2011 6:45:28 AM PDT by RoadTest (For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Thank you


25 posted on 10/07/2011 7:15:18 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
This suppression based upon the position of “sola ecclesia,” that the Roman church only is the supreme authority and sufficient infallible authority on faith and morals. As stated in 1528 by Dominican Johannes Mensing, "Scripture can deceive, the Church cannot deceive. Who does not perceive then that the Church is greater than Scripture and that we can entrust ourselves better to the Church than to Scripture." (“Gründliche vnterricht: Was eyn frommer Christen von der heyligen Kirchen, von den Vetern vnd der heyligen schrifft halten sol”)

I rather trust what does not change with the prevailing views of the day. The martyrdom of Tyndale is a great lesson in why Christians should never look to churches as their final authority on Christianity. The church-state model the RCC so successfully exploited led to all kinds of heresy that we see today.

26 posted on 10/07/2011 7:25:29 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Everyone forgets that there was several commonly used English language Bibles after Tyndale, but BEFORE the King James Bible was in general use. Right before the KJV was the Geneva Bible.

From Wikipedia:
The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into the English language, preceding the King James translation by 51 years. It was the primary Bible of the 16th century Protestant movement and was the Bible used by William Shakespeare, Oliver Cromwell, John Milton, John Knox, John Donne, and John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress.[1] It was one of the Bibles taken to America on the Mayflower, it was used by many English Dissenters, and it was still respected by Oliver Cromwell's soldiers at the time of the English Civil War.

The KJV was a government publication meant to replace the Geneva Bible because of marginal notes of the Reformers did not support King Jame's view of “divine right of kings”.

Here are some Geneva Bible links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible

http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html (go to bottom to see chapters with the notes)

http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/en.htm (short history)

http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/igb.htm (long history)

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=geneva_bible_selections&PagePosition=47 (Gensis 3:7 - “...they sewed fig leaves together, made themselves breeches”.)

27 posted on 10/07/2011 7:54:05 AM PDT by A. Patriot (Have we lost our Republic? Do the majority of Americans care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A. Patriot

Timeline of English Bibles Translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text)

1525 Tyndale
1535 Coverdale
1537 Matthews
1539 Great (Chain) Bible (chained in the church to prevent theft)
1560 Geneva
1568 Bishops
1611 Authorized

From: http://biblicalscholarship.com/400th.htm (I don’t necessarily vouch for opinions on this site)


28 posted on 10/07/2011 8:15:26 AM PDT by A. Patriot (Have we lost our Republic? Do the majority of Americans care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Salvation
The Bible I use for private devotion is the RSV-Catholic Edition, which is a revision of the KJV. So ironically, pride of place on this Catholic's bookshelf goes to a Bible which is a second-generation descendant of Tyndale's.

Don't tell me . . . J, E, P, and D, right?

29 posted on 10/07/2011 8:16:33 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: johngrace; Salvation
You have given a very thorough and detailed explanation for why the Catholic Church (quite logically) would not approve a bible translation that included commentary and notes opposed to its teachings. All well and good. But I have a question to ask and I most sincerely hope you will respond.

Why is it that this same church today grants the nihil obstat and imprimatur to bible translations that teach the blasphemous documentary hypothesis, that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are derived from ancient Babylonian and Canaanite mythology? Furthermore, this theory is the creation of nineteenth century liberal German Lutherans. Why is it that the church that so zealously objected to distortions by people like Wycliffe and Tyndale now promotes the evil documentary hypothesis throughout the entire world?

Please respond.

30 posted on 10/07/2011 8:22:06 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Campion; daniel1212
Not sure how you figure that those are "closer," since the Greek words for "overseer" and "elder" are the direct ancestors of our English words "bishop" and "priest".

Except the NT was NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH ..it was written in GREEK

There is a word for priest in greek and it is NEVER USED FOR THE NEW CHURCH. That word is "hiereus", the greek word for elder is presbyteros''', IT never translates as PRIEST

The defination for elder/ Presbyteros is
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews 1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)


2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice

b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches)

The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably


c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
[Elders is a leadership role, not a roll of sacrificer .with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.

The priests were not elders and the elders were not priests

Act 4:5 ¶ And it came to pass on the morrow] that their rulers ( archōn), and elders ( presbyteros), and scribes (grammateus),

Act 4:6 And Annas the high priest (archiereus), and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest (archiereus), were gathered together at Jerusalem.

Young's Literal Translation


Acts 4:5 And it came to pass upon the morrow, there were gathered together of them the rulers, and elders, and scribes, to Jerusalem,
Act 4:6 and Annas the chief priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the chief priest,

Even the Douay-Rheims Bible does not translate that as priests.. Acts 4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their princes (,archōn) and ancients, (presbyteros) and scribes,(grammateus) were gathered together in Jerusalem;

As you see the latin translation from the Greek is CORRECT ... presbyteros /Elders are ancients that is the actual translation.. to the Jews the presbyterors were the older members of the community.. the wisdom of the community so ancients is correct..

The ORIGINAL latin translation did not try to make elders Priests..completely different roles to the Jews

There was NO PRIESTHOOD in the church is later than 300 AD..

Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

"A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, 'overseer'). In English this came to be translated as 'bishop' (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community's Eucharistic assembly."

"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."

31 posted on 10/07/2011 10:23:44 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

The Catholic Church tried, as a matter of policy, to stop the spread of vernacular translations for commoners. Trusted wealthy patrons were permitted, but the Catholic Church actively opposed vernacular translations for the masses.

That was why they were opposed to Tyndale’s work. His first NT was published with no commentary or footnotes, just text - and well translated text at that. Yet the Catholic Church fought to stop it, as they had Wycliffe’s translation before.


I. The Ancient Church:

It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read (John v, 47; Acts viii, 28; xvii, 11; II Tim. iii, 15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests (De Lazaro concio, iii, MPG, xlviii, 992; Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, lvii, 30, NPNF, 2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament (Hom. ix in Col., MPG, lxii, 361, NPNF, xiii, 301). The women also, who were always at home, were diligently to read the Bible (Hom. xxxv on Gen. xii, MPG, liii, 323). Jerome recommended the reading and studying of Scripture on the part of the women (Epist., cxxviii, 3, MPL, xxii, 1098, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 259; Epist., lxxix, 9, MPG, xxii, 730-731, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 167). The translations of the Bible, Augustine considered a blessed means of propagating the Word of God among the nations (De doctr. christ., ii, 5, NPNF, 1st ser., ii, 536); Gregory I recommended the reading of the Bible without placing any limitations on it (Hom. iii in Ezek., MPL, lxxvi, 968).

II. The Middle Ages:

Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff?, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular.

With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary. “We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue” (Harduin, Concilia, xii, 178; Mansi, Concilia, xxiii, 194). The Synod of Tarragona (1234) ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned. James I renewed thin decision of the Tarragona synod in 1276. The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). The order of James I was renewed by later kings and confirmed by Paul II (1464-71). Ferdinand and Isabella (1474-1516) prohibited the translation of the Bible into the vernacular or the possession of such translations (F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen B?cher, i, Bonn, 1883, 44).

In England Wyclif’s Bible-translation caused the resolution passed by the third Synod of Oxford (1408): “No one shall henceforth of his own authority translate any text of Scripture into English; and no part of any such book or treatise composed in the time of John Wycliffe or later shall be read in public or private, under pain of excommunication” (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vi, 984). But Sir Thomas More states that he had himself seen old Bibles which were examined by the bishop and left in the hands of good Catholic laymen (Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England, 4th ed., London, 1878, i, 505). In Germany, Charles IV issued in 1369 an edict to four inquisitors against the translating and the reading of Scripture in the German language. This edict was caused by the operations of Beghards and Beguines. In 1485 and 1486, Berthold, archbishop of Mainz, issued an edict against the printing of religious books in German, giving among other reasons the singular one that the German language was unadapted to convey correctly religious ideas, and therefore they would be profaned. Berthold’s edict had some influence, but could not prevent the dissemination and publication of new editions of the Bible. Leaders in the Church sometimes recommended to the laity the reading of the Bible, and the Church kept silence officially as long as these efforts were not abused.

III. The Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation:

Luther’s translation of the Bible and its propagation could not but influence the Roman Catholic Church. Humanism, through such men as Erasmus, advocated the reading of the Bible and the necessity of making it accessible by translations; but it was felt that Luther’s translation must be offset by one prepared in the interest of the Church. Such editions were Emser’s of 1527, and the Dietenberg Bible of 1534. The Church of Rome silently tolerated these translations.

1. Action by the Council of Trent.

At last the Council of Trent took the matter in hand, and in its fourth session (Apr. 18, 1546) adopted the Decretum de editione et usu librorum sacrorum, which enacted the following: “This synod ordains and decrees that henceforth sacred Scripture, and especially the aforesaid old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever on sacred matters without the name of the author; or in future to sell them, or even to possess them, unless they shall have been first examined and approved of by the ordinary.” When the question of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular came up, Bishop Acqui of Piedmont and Cardinal Pacheco advocated its prohibition. This was strongly opposed by Cardinal Madruzzi, who claimed that “not the translations but the professors of Hebrew and Greek are the cause of the confusion in Germany; a prohibition would produce the worst impression in Germany.” As no agreement could be had, the council appointed an index-commission to report to the pope, who was to give an authoritative decision.

2. Rules of Various Popes.

The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264). In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: “Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.” Regulations for booksellers follow, and then: “Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without special license from their superiors.”

Sixtus V substituted in 1590 twenty-two new rules for the ten of Pius IV. Clement VIII abolished in 1596 the rules of Sixtus, but added a “remark” to the fourth rule given above, which particularly restores the enactment of Paul IV. The right of the bishops, which the fourth rule implies, is abolished by the “remark,” and the bishop may grant a dispensation only when especially authorized by the pope and the Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 333). Benedict XIV enlarged, in 1757, the fourth rule thus: “If such Bible-versions in the vernacular are approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations derived from the holy fathers of the Church or from learned and Catholic men, they are permitted.” This modification of the fourth rule was abolished by Gregory XVI in pursuance of an admonition of the index-congregation, Jan. 7, 1836, “which calls attention to the fact that according to the decree of 1757 only such versions in the vernacular are to be permitted as have been approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations,” but insistence is placed on all those particulars enjoined by the fourth rule of the index and afterward by Clement VIII (Reusch, ut sup., ii, 852).

3. Rules and Practice in Different Countries.

In England the reading of the Bible was made by Henry VIII (1530) to depend upon the permission of the superiors. Tyndale’s version, printed before 1535, was prohibited. In 1534 the Canterbury convocation passed a resolution asking the king to have the Bible translated and to permit its reading. A folio copy of Coverdale’s translation was put into every church for the benefit of the faithful, and fastened with a chain.

In Spain the Inquisitor-General de Valdes published in 1551 the index of Louvain of 1550, which prohibits “Bibles (New and Old Testaments) in the Spanish or other vernacular” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 133). This prohibition was abolished in 1778. The Lisbon index of 1824 in Portugal prohibited quoting in the vernacular in any book passages from the Bible. In Italy the members of the order of the Jesuits were in 1596 permitted to use a Catholic Italian translation of the Gospel-lessons. In France the Sorbonne declared, Aug. 26,1525, that a French translation of the Bible or of single books must be regarded as dangerous under conditions then present; extant versions were better suppressed than tolerated. In the following year, 1526, it prohibited the translation of the entire Bible, but permitted the translation of single books with proper annotations. The indexes of the Sorbonne, which by royal edict were binding, after 1544 contained the statement: “How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed (of whom there are many in our times) may be seen from the Waldensians, Albigenses, and Poor Men of Lyons, who have thereby lapsed into error and have led many into the same condition. Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 151).

The rise of Jansenism in the seventeenth century, and especially the appearance, under its encouragement, of Quesnel’s New Testament with moral reflections under each verse (Le Nouveau Testament en fran?ois avec des reflexions moroles sur chaque vers, Paris, 1699), which was expressly intended to popularize the reading of the Bible, caused the renewal, with increased stringency, of the rules already quoted. The Jesuits prevailed upon Clement XI to publish the famous bull Unigenitus, Sept. 8, 1713, in which he condemned seven propositions in Quesnel’s work which advocated the reading of the Bible by the laity (cf. H. J. D. Denzinger, Enchiridion, W?rzburg, 1854, 287). In the Netherlands, Neercassel, bishop of Emmerich, published in 1677 (in Latin) and 1680 (in French) a treatise in which he dealt with the fourth rule of the Tridentine index as obsolete, and urged the diligent reading of the Bible. In Belgium in 1570 the unlicensed sale of the Bible in the vernacular was strictly prohibited; but the use of the Antwerp Bible continued. In Poland the Bible was translated and often published. In Germany papal decrees could not very well be carried out and the reading of the Bible was not only not prohibited, but was approved and praised. Billuart about 1750, as quoted by Van Ess, states, “In France, Germany, and Holland the Bible is read by all without distinction.” In the nineteenth century the clergy took great interest in the work of Bible Societies. Thus Leander van Ess acted as agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society for Catholic Germany, and the society published the New Testament of Van Ess, which was placed on the Index in 1821. The princes-bishop of Breslau, Sedlnitzki, who afterward joined the Evangelical Church, was also interested in circulating the Bible. As the Bible Societies generally circulated the translations of heretics, the popes?Leo XII (May 5, 1824); Pius VIII (May 25, 1829); Gregory XVI (Aug. 15, 1840; May 8, 1844); Pius IX (Nov. 9, 1846; Dec. 8, 1849) issued encyclicals against the Bible Societies. In the syllabus of 1864 “socialism, communism, secret societies, . . . and Bible Societies” are placed in the same category. As to the effect of the papal decrees there is a difference of opinion within the Catholic Church. In theory the admonition of Gregory XVI no doubt exists, but practise often ignores it.

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm


32 posted on 10/07/2011 10:35:23 AM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
A copy of Tyndales first translation, published and fought against by the Catholic Church. Notice the heretical commentary:

Oops! There was none...

33 posted on 10/07/2011 10:40:32 AM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Amen, Brother.
34 posted on 10/07/2011 11:15:04 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Campion; smvoice; metmom; wmfights; boatbums; caww; Forest Keeper; Gamecock; Quix; RnMomof7; ...
p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY">These are not errors, but often closer to the original, especially in the case of Bishop into “Overseer,” and Priest into “Elder.

Not sure how you figure that those are "closer," since the Greek words for "overseer" and "elder" are the direct ancestors of our English words "bishop" and "priest."

That is because of attempts to conform the Bible to Roman Catholicism and Anglicism, as the Greek word translated “elder,” presbuteros,” (Titus 15 etc.) or bishop, “episkopos,” is not the same as the one for priests, “archiereus,” or “hiereus,” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) While Roman Catholics try to make texts as such as 1 Tim 4:14 refer to priests, the word there is not the one for priest or priesthood, but is the word “presbuterion” and is used in distinction to priests in Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5, and which comes from “presbuteros” which denotes maturity, and specifically such those in the Jewish Sanhedrin (Mt. 5:22) or order of elders (and ancient political and judicial Jewish), with “bishop” denoting “overseer,” that being the general function of an elder.

A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but the two were not the same formal class. Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins, (Heb. 5:1) which Rome's separate class of sacerdotal priests is modeled after, while the only priesthood (hierateuma) of the church is that of all believers as they function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)

Thus while the Bible uses Elder, Presbyter, Overseer, Bishop, they all refer to the same shepherding, pastoral office in the church, (Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:17,28) and the splitting of these is something that took place later, and are not formally called priests.

Tyndale was not indicted or tried for translating the Bible, as the OP seems to imply, nor was he indicted or tried by Englishmen, but by Belgians under Spanish rule.

I did not say he was tried for translating the Bible. As for waging war after the flesh against theological enemies, that was often pushed by Rome and those trained by her, but this was not the manner of the New Testament church. (Jn. 18:36; 1Cor. 5:13; 2Cor. 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12). I have little doubt that if Rome had not lost her secular power then the sword would still be used against God-fearing men who theologically oppose Rome, while many things of Vatican Two would be seen as treasonous.

His Bible contained his own heretical commentary in addition to Scripture.

Heretical according to an authority which infallibly declares she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and content-based) formula, thus rendering her own declaration to be infallible, while Tyndale must appeal to the weight of Scriptural warrant. And as for heretical commentary, apparently that does not apply when written by Catholics (see next).

I'm not sure why anyone would expect the Catholic Church to approve such a translation, full of venomous rejection of her doctrines.

My statement did not refer to his notes, but to the translation.

However, it is true that his translation was the ancestor of the KJV, which is not only a very influential piece of literature, but was a reasonably good Bible translation in its own right. And for that he deserves some honor.

The Bible I use for private devotion is the RSV-Catholic Edition, which is a revision of the KJV. So ironically, pride of place on this Catholic's bookshelf goes to a Bible which is a second-generation descendant of Tyndale's.

That is what i meant, and for all of Rome's statements about being zealous to provide a safe and faithful translation and commentary, i think few conservative Roman Catholics today will defend Rome's official Bible for America as being such, despite the stamps. Especially this one:

35 posted on 10/07/2011 11:23:30 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Good question, and which is why what constitutes RC teaching varies from Catholic to Catholic.


36 posted on 10/07/2011 11:26:21 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

I did help provide both sides, and rather than biases, much of it was from official RC sources. The issue is not whether Rome provided Bible’s in the vernacular, but whether she overall allowed free access as she does now, having lost her unScriptural power to coerce obedience by carnal force (which early Prots also had to unlearn), and overall promoted the ability to read and fluency in the Bible. And the answer to that question is decidedly no.


37 posted on 10/07/2011 11:26:21 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

Thanks.


38 posted on 10/07/2011 11:37:09 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Or more:

Legacy

The legacy of Tyndale’s Bible cannot be overstated. His translations laid the foundations for many of the English Bibles which followed his. His work made up a significant portion of the Matthew Bible which was the first authorized version of the English Bible.[29] The Tyndale Bible also played a key role in spreading reformation ideas to England which had been reluctant to embrace the movement. His works also allowed the people of England direct access to the words and ideas of Martin Luther whose works had been banned by the state. Tyndale achieved this by including many of Luther’s commentaries in his works.[30] The Tyndale Bible’s greatest impact on society today is that it heavily influenced and contributed to the creation of the King James Version, which is one of the most popular and widely used Bibles in the world today. Scholars tell us that around 90% of the King James Version is from Tyndale’s works with as much as one third of the text being word for word Tyndale.[31] Many of the popular phrases and Bible verses that people quote today are mainly in the language of Tyndale. An example of which is Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers.”[32] The importance of the Tyndale Bible in shaping and influencing the English language is paramount. According to one scholar Tyndale is “the man who more than Shakespeare even or Bunyan has moulded and enriched our language.”[33]

Tyndale used thou and never you as the singular second-person pronoun in his work (usage that was later reflected in the very influential King James Version), which had the double effect of rescuing thou from complete obscurity and also imbuing it with an air of religious solemnity that is antithetical to its former sense of familiarity or disrespect.[34][In addition to separating it from the plural use by “ye”.]
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible#Legacy


39 posted on 10/07/2011 11:40:46 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; johngrace; Campion; Salvation
Good question

I know. That's why it hasn't been answered.

and which is why what constitutes RC teaching varies from Catholic to Catholic.

Now, now . . . they're united in "essentials." You know . . . evolution and higher criticism!

40 posted on 10/07/2011 1:01:39 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The Catholic Church tried, as a matter of policy, to stop the spread of vernacular translations for commoners. Trusted wealthy patrons were permitted, but the Catholic Church actively opposed vernacular translations for the masses.

Good research.

I think we're coming up on something the BIG rubric of which is, "the devil is in the details," and the smaller rubric of which is, what buzzackly do we mean by the Catholic Church?

And in a larger and vaguer sense, there HAS been the result which our side feared. I'm thinking especially of groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses. They CLAIM to be solidly Biblically based. And they marshal arguments about, say, the use of the definite article in Koine Greek that are exhausting in their number and challenging in their obscurity.

To sum up so far,n (1) despite your evidence, there were still devout and sort of 'official' Catholics producing translations, verse paraphrases, and the rest. The Vatican and some bishops may not have been happy with it, but the junior offices seem to have been operating on the principle that it is easier to get forgiveness than permission.

(2) If we assume the impossible, that the Church was right that the Albigensians really were wicked, and that while they did have a legitimate beef against the luxury and irreligion of the prelates, still (and we would say something similar of Luther) they went too far.

(3) And (new point) I am reading (skimming) a book whose thesis is that Shakespeare was a Catholic sympathizer, if not actually Catholic. And the author mentions in a footnote that one had to have evens secular plays "registered." So the cultural mindset was one in favor of control.

I don;t think it will turn out to be as simple as either side makes it out to be.

41 posted on 10/07/2011 7:14:57 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Don't tell me . . . J, E, P, and D, right?

Just for you, ZC, I checked.

The DH is not mentioned. At all.

42 posted on 10/07/2011 7:33:46 PM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
On page 166 he states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

Greg Dues has never actually read Ignatius, or Justin Martyr, or any of the other Apostolic Fathers, has he? He's just blissfully ignorant of everything that took place in "the first generation of Christianity," and nevertheless thinks he's entitled to pontificate (and I choose the word deliberately) on it.

43 posted on 10/07/2011 7:37:09 PM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
That is because of attempts to conform the Bible to Roman Catholicism and Anglicism, as the Greek word translated “elder,” presbuteros,” (Titus 15 etc.) or bishop, “episkopos,” is not the same as the one for priests, “archiereus,” or “hiereus,”

I think we're not understanding each other. The English word "priest" undisputably comes from the Greek word "presbyter". The English word "bishop" undisputably comes from Greek word "episcopos". Any dictionary will demonstrate that; it's not a matter of "attempts to conform the Bible to Roman Catholicism" (??), it's a simple fact of the development of language.

To this day, when official Catholic documents wish to refer to priests (as distinct from priests and bishops, or the clergy in general), the words they use in Latin are derived from presbyter.

Now, hieraeus does not mean the same thing as presbyter. It would be nice if we had a different English word for hieraeus, but we don't.

The NT is ambiguous about episcopoi and presbyteroi being the same office. They don't say flatly that they are, nor that they are not.

The writings of Ignatius of Antioch (died AD 107-110, knew at least Peter, Paul, and John personally) are not ambiguous. They clearly show an episcopos as one man having authority over the church in a (large) town or region, with his presbyteroi, under obedience to him, ministering to the needs of the people, primarily by presiding at the Eucharistic celebration. I did not say he was tried for translating the Bible.

No, but the OP and lots of Protestant Tyndale hagiography either says it outright or implies it.

Heretical according to an authority which infallibly declares she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and content-based) formula, thus rendering her own declaration to be infallible

Circular word games aren't really required: Tyndale's notes were heretical according to Catholic teaching, which hasn't changed on these issues before or since.

44 posted on 10/07/2011 7:51:20 PM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Oops! There was none...

Better take it up with the people at tyndale-bible.com, whose website states quite clearly:

Besides translating the Bible, Tyndale also held and published views which were considered heretical, first by the Catholic Church, and later by the Church of England which was established by King Henry VIII. His Bible translation also included notes and commentary promoting these views.

45 posted on 10/07/2011 7:56:58 PM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Campion

I posted a reproduction of his first translation, which the Catholic Church tried to stop & burn. His revised edition, a few years later, DID have notes...and the Catholic Church ALSO tried to suppress it.

However, since they tried with equal vigor to suppress his translation, both with and WITHOUT notes, it seems pretty obvious it was the TRANSLATION they objected to, not the notes!


46 posted on 10/07/2011 8:08:08 PM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

I will grant that the intentions of the Catholic Church was to stop heresy. That it tried to do so by suppressing vernacular translations is both a symptom of the times (medieval folks believed in control by the state), and a symptom of what the Catholic Church feared would happen if folks read scripture for themselves. And the latter is, I think it obvious, NOT a high note of Catholic history.


47 posted on 10/07/2011 8:10:33 PM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
New and improved editions of the New Testament were constantly being prepared by Tyndale, many containing marginal notes, some of which were directed against the papacy.
From the book "Portraits of Faithful Saints" at the website of the "Protestant Reformed Churches in America"
48 posted on 10/07/2011 8:10:37 PM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
it seems pretty obvious it was the TRANSLATION they objected to, not the notes!

If by "they" you mean the English church, they objected to both. But merely translating the Bible didn't make one a heretic. If done without approval, it made one an unauthorized translator.

If by "they" you mean the people in Belgium who put him on trial, they didn't care about his translation into a language they didn't speak one way or the other ... and that was reflected in his indictment.

49 posted on 10/07/2011 8:14:01 PM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
That it tried to do so by suppressing vernacular translations is both a symptom of the times (medieval folks believed in control by the state), and a symptom of what the Catholic Church feared would happen if folks read scripture for themselves.

Then why did the Catholic church support countless vernacular translations before the Reformation? Even the translators' foreward to the KJV makes note of that fact.

For example, Wikipedia notes:

In total, there were at least eighteen complete German Bible editions, ninety editions in the vernacular of the Gospels and the readings of the Sundays and Holy Days, and some fourteen German Psalters by the time Luther first published his own New Testament translation

It's true that the possession of vernacular Bibles was looked at with suspicion in England during this time period (although many people had vernacular "primers" containing excerpts of and commentaries on Scripture), largely because it was viewed as a sign of latent Protestant sympathies.

50 posted on 10/07/2011 8:21:29 PM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 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