But we might note that reformers like Wycliffe were burned at the stake for translating it into the common language (English). This was a terrible policy and a terrible occurrence.Wow, if the claim was true it would have been horrific, but thankfully - like most anti-Catholic diatribes this is a fact free screed. It makes the rest of the claims by this poster suspect, like:
I did not visit an anti-Catholic website.Well, where did you get this falsehood then, a pro-Catholic website? And then there is this claim:
I have even seen posters at my public library, “Banned Books,” and the Bible has been listed on them as banned by the RC church.Wow, what scholarship, posters about "banned books"! Did it ever occur to you that the Bible has sometimes been banned by secular authorities? Maybe that is what the poster was warning about?
No, narses, the RC church during it history banned the translation and distribution of the Bible. It punished people, some with death, for doing so. Also, reading the Bible without permission from the RC church was forbidden.
It no longer does so, and I am happy to acknowledge that. I don’t think any Catholics I know would oppose Bible reading now. But to ignore its history is wrong.
Some “defenders of the church,” so-called (a “church” that burns people for Bible publishing, preaching salvation by faith, denying the insane doctrine of indulgences, etc. is not worthy of the title) on this thread reject documentaries, especially if they air on PBS, wiki isn’t ok, biographies are false, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is apparently all a lie, the poster at the library can’t be mentioned. . . there is no history at all that is apparently acceptable, unless it denies the gross murders perpetrated under “church” order and sanction.
Here’s from encyclopedia.com, no doubt to be dismissed as yet another impeachable source:
“Luther’s publication of three treatises in 1520 that called for revolutionary changes in late medieval German political, social, and religious life led to a papal bull excommunicating him in 1521; Luther publicly burnt the bull along with a copy of canon law and was called to the Diet of Worms for the purpose of recanting his teachings. He refused and was placed under the ban of the empire, which designated him an “outlaw” whom anyone could kill without legally committing murder.”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Martin_Luther.aspx#2
The history of Martin Luther, good and bad, is not a matter of debate. The denial on this thread is mind boggling. When I posted the information about Martin Luther I did so for the benefit of a few who may not have been familiar with it. Not to engage with people who simply deny history because it makes them uncomfortable.
As for my mistake between Tyndale and Wycliffe I already admitted it, it was an error. It was Tyndale, who:
” After months of imprisonment and many theological disputations he was condemned in August 1536 for persistence in heresy, and in October he was strangled to death and his body publicly cremated.”
Wycliffe, rather, enjoyed his bone burning after he was dug up from his grave, a fact which one poster on this thread finds praiseworthy!
Wow, what scholarship. Find an encyclopedia and read it. I don’t care which one you use. These facts are not in dispute.