Today we remember the martyrdom of William Tyndale

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!

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?

You have a wonderful zany sense of humor.

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

Thank you

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.

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”.)

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)

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?

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.

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."

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

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

Oops! There was none...

Amen, Brother.

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:

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

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.

Thanks.

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

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!