Burned at the stake for the Bible

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

My questions go unanswered.

No, you have already decided the issue — you have accepted what you saw on TV, it was on TV so it must be true — no other answer will suffice if it does not affirm what you saw on TV.

Let me recall your original post:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I was especially amazed by how the Catholic and Episcopal churches forbid the Bible to be written in English, and forbid its members to read the Bible all by themselves.

The obvious implication being that this was news to you.

I have demonstrated — with historical data — that the Catholic Church did not forbid the Bible in English, it's been producing texts since the 9th century, nor did it forbid its members to read the Bible all by themselves. In short, that the PBS programme was ill-researched and opted for a sensationalist presentation of its material.

So your question have in fact been answered. The answers are not what you want to hear.

Whether you choose to accept my responses, or the PBS view of history, is another matter, but the questions were answered.

It seems PBS is your 'bible' on this issue.

I suggest you take your questions up with them, you'll most probably get the sensationalist answers you're looking for.

Thomas

[Nick_A]

Nick the Pilot

The answer is simple. Any open-minded person who reads Genesis 1:26 is going to ask, "Hey, wait a minute, why does this one verse mention God as plural, yet all of the other verses in the same chapter mention God as singular?" And, such a person who reads Genesis 2:5 is going to ask, "Hey, wait a minute, why does it say here that no man existed, when it says back in Day Six of the Creation Story that man had already been created?"

These are exactly the kinds of questions that Catholic priests hate to hear. (Believe me, I know, from personal experience.) The church does not want to hear these kinds of questions. This is why the church has done everything it can to stop people from reading these verses for themselves, and asking such ‘pesky’ questions. (Fortunately, it had failed in both tasks.)

This has been my experience as well. Only in mid life have I come to see that there is no contradiction. It just requires understanding the nature of the Trinity. However in my teens I got the impression that there was something "wrong" with such questions. This negative attitude was a major reason for staying away from the church.

[Thomas]

Hi Nick and Nick and all –

I'm signing out of this debate now, having done all that was reasonably asked of me. No doubt we shall talk down the line, but for the moment, this is my closing statement on matters at hand.

These are exactly the kinds of questions that Catholic priests hate to hear.[/I] (Believe me, I know, from personal experience.) The church does not want to hear these kinds of questions. This is why the church has done everything it can to stop people from reading these verses for themselves, and asking such ‘pesky’ questions. (Fortunately, it had failed in both tasks.)

The access to Bible Study, theology, etc., is more open now than it has ever been ... my own case is an example, I'm a 'walk off the street' guy who now has access to theologians who teach in the universities in Rome, and every priest I have met delights in the idea of my doing a theology degree. I have even been offered access to documents that haven't seen the light of day (for lack of interest, i might add) for a thousand years.

The model we have established is currently being copied in the US to provide outreach and distance learning programmes there. Curiously we also have a sibling outfit in the Middle East! The Lord moves in mysterious ways, indeed.

But then I took the responsibility upon myself to seek out priests who challenge me ... like doctors, dentists, teachers, musicians, poets and bosses, I assumed there would be some good, some bad, some indifferent ... it seems a fact of human nature. I see no reason why a priest should be different, they are human after all. Nor am I perfect. When I heard about this course, I checked it out with a few people I knew and respected.

Nor did I expect that the first priest I met must necessarily fulfil all my requirements, there are others issues in the world, and on the average parish priest's plate, than mine alone.

+++

For my part, the cry now is 'gimme a break!' ... besides a reading list as long as your arm, which includes Bultmann, Barth, Rahner and a number of other 'saints and sinners' — even heretics! — there's Derrida and Lacan, archaeology and Quantum Physics ... Furthermore, I am being 'actively encouraged' to learn Greek, or Latin, or better, both! So that I can read the texts in the original and thus draw my own conclusions, and not live on the 'interpretation' of someone who may well provide a translation suited to his own point of view.

So I would say that your experience in your part of the world was unfortunate, and as a Catholic I am saddened by it, I will even apologise for it on behalf of my Church ... but I don't accept that as sufficient reason to give up, or cry 'sour grapes'.

Not saying we're perfect, not saying there isn't a long way to go, and a lot to be done, but that's why I'm in there, doing what I can do. Nothing ever changed for the better any other way than by rolling your sleeves up and getting on with changing it.

You can live in and argue in the past as much as you like. I'm over fifty now, half way to sixty, even ... time is no longer my luxury — my productive years are fewer than they once were, my days, as they say, are numbered, I haven't my youth to waste. I can no longer afford to live in the past, nor rest on complaint, nor blame someone else for my situation. I'd be one bitter old ******* if I settled for that. I'm ******* enough as it is, according to some...

I've got somewhere I want to be by the time I shuffle off this mortal coil. I want to be equipped for my transitus according to my nature.

And as I get older, I find I have less patience with complaint — it's such an unproductive exercise if not accompanied by fruitful action.

There's a prayer, it's a good one:
"God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
courage to change the things we can,
and wisdom to know the difference."

So take a word of wisdom ... if you don't like it, and can't change it, then move along, there's no good for you here. Don't hang around criticising and carping because it's not for you. Time spent criticising just draws more bitterness into yourself.

Go out and live a life ... And God speed,

Thomas

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Nick and Nick and all –

I'm signing out of this debate now, having done all that was reasonably asked of me. No doubt we shall talk down the line, but for the moment, this is my closing statement on matters at hand.



The access to Bible Study, theology, etc., is more open now than it has ever been ... my own case is an example, I'm a 'walk off the street' guy who now has access to theologians who teach in the universities in Rome, and every priest I have met delights in the idea of my doing a theology degree. I have even been offered access to documents that haven't seen the light of day (for lack of interest, i might add) for a thousand years.

The model we have established is currently being copied in the US to provide outreach and distance learning programmes there. Curiously we also have a sibling outfit in the Middle East! The Lord moves in mysterious ways, indeed.

But then I took the responsibility upon myself to seek out priests who challenge me ... like doctors, dentists, teachers, musicians, poets and bosses, I assumed there would be some good, some bad, some indifferent ... it seems a fact of human nature. I see no reason why a priest should be different, they are human after all. Nor am I perfect. When I heard about this course, I checked it out with a few people I knew and respected.

Nor did I expect that the first priest I met must necessarily fulfil all my requirements, there are others issues in the world, and on the average parish priest's plate, than mine alone.

+++

For my part, the cry now is 'gimme a break!' ... besides a reading list as long as your arm, which includes Bultmann, Barth, Rahner and a number of other 'saints and sinners' — even heretics! — there's Derrida and Lacan, archaeology and Quantum Physics ... Furthermore, I am being 'actively encouraged' to learn Greek, or Latin, or better, both! So that I can read the texts in the original and thus draw my own conclusions, and not live on the 'interpretation' of someone who may well provide a translation suited to his own point of view.

So I would say that your experience in your part of the world was unfortunate, and as a Catholic I am saddened by it, I will even apologise for it on behalf of my Church ... but I don't accept that as sufficient reason to give up, or cry 'sour grapes'.

Not saying we're perfect, not saying there isn't a long way to go, and a lot to be done, but that's why I'm in there, doing what I can do. Nothing ever changed for the better any other way than by rolling your sleeves up and getting on with changing it.

You can live in and argue in the past as much as you like. I'm over fifty now, half way to sixty, even ... time is no longer my luxury — my productive years are fewer than they once were, my days, as they say, are numbered, I haven't my youth to waste. I can no longer afford to live in the past, nor rest on complaint, nor blame someone else for my situation. I'd be one bitter old ******* if I settled for that. I'm ******* enough as it is, according to some...

I've got somewhere I want to be by the time I shuffle off this mortal coil. I want to be equipped for my transitus according to my nature.

And as I get older, I find I have less patience with complaint — it's such an unproductive exercise if not accompanied by fruitful action.

There's a prayer, it's a good one:
"God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
courage to change the things we can,
and wisdom to know the difference."

So take a word of wisdom ... if you don't like it, and can't change it, then move along, there's no good for you here. Don't hang around criticising and carping because it's not for you. Time spent criticising just draws more bitterness into yourself.

Go out and live a life ... And God speed,

Thomas

Hi Thomas. I hope you achieve what you desire. As for me I don't complain but rather offer an alternative so as to help open the mind. I feel for those tht have been hurt but also support the parts of Catholicism that are open to reason. For example a Catholic University in Australia has yearly lectures on the ideas of Simone Weil. Now that is progress.

The School of Philosophy Simone Weil Lectures on Human Value - ACU National (Australian Catholic University)

In 2009 the Royal Institute of Philosophy in London has a lecture on Simone open to the public. These and more efforts to come offer an alternative to the dark side of Catholicism. I hope to be part of an effort in New York.

The Royal Institute of Philosophy

Simone Weil is called the "New Saint" because she didn't deny her intellect but rather learned how to use it beyond the limitations of binary associative thought so as to compliment the needs of the heart. These efforts will gradually have a purifying effect on the church for the benefit of all parties concerned. Being involved with such efforts is far beyond just complaining.

[I, Brian]

Interesting - I've got to admit, my own reading of the subject was that the early Catholic church saw itself as a guardian of the Bible, but that in such guardianship, came the politics of controlling the message - ie, the point underlining everything regarding the Bible is that you had to go through the priests of the Catholic Church in order for a layman to access the Bible.

While there may have been a valid spiritual argument about protecting the correctness of "the word", we all know too well that through the millenia the Papacy has certainly been an extremely political animal, sometimes very much more concerned with the political well-being of itself, than the spiritual well being of the flock.

Preventing the texts from being copied, read, made accessible to the layman, was a way to keep the Church empowered over the layman - none could go through Jesus with The Church. By printing the Bible, Tyndale and similar were empowering the layman at the detriment of the political power of the Catholic Church because the Church could now be questioned, and even argued as wrong.

Remember, the conservatism within Catholicism sought to maintain and protect it's own world view - it's brushes with Gallileo and similar for challenging that are legendary, because it diminished the influence of the Church with it.

I didn't see the PBS program, but I was under the impression that it was a commonly accepted fact within secular historical studies that the Roman Catholic church saw translation of the Bible as a threat because it directly circumvented the role of the church as sole authority in spiritual matters. While those trying to translate it may have been reformers, and therefore against the Roman Catholic Church in the first place, I don't see any argument that the Roman Catholic Church itself actively supported the printing of the Bible outside of Latin, precisely because of the reasons above.

2c.

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

We discussed,

"My questions go unanswered. --> No..."

--> I have two responses.

(1) You have not answered the questions.

(2) There are people out there — Catholics included — who are reading this discussion. These people are genuinely interested in hearing your answers to my questions. If you won't do it for me, do it for them.

"The access to Bible Study, theology, etc., is more open now than it has ever been ..."

--> I am glad to hear that. The theme of the 20th century was openess and questioning. The church is being swept along in this new atmosphere, and I am glad to hear it.

"I'm a 'walk off the street' guy...."

--> It think it is obvious that you have worn the robes of Bishop, perhaps even Pope, in more than one previous reincarnation. Have you considered this possibility?

"The model we have established is currently being copied in the US to provide outreach and distance learning programmes there."

--> I am glad to hear of such progess within the church.

"For my part, the cry now is 'gimme a break!' "

--> This is the main difference between us. I actually enjoy questions about things like Genesis 1:26, Genesis 2:5, etc., and I feel no need for a break from such questions. This is fun! I am truly sorry that you do not see this as fun.

"...that's why I'm in there, doing what I can do."

--> It sounds like you are committed to discussing the issues. I await your return to such discussions.

[Nick the Pilot]

Nick A,

We discussed,

These are exactly the kinds of questions that Catholic priests hate to hear. --> This has been my experience as well. Only in mid life have I come to see that there is no contradiction."

--> I agree that, when we finally get to what the real 'truth' is, there will be no contradictions at all. I can see that you are committed to making progress no matter what.

"It just requires understanding the nature of the Trinity."

--> Well, I think it takes a lot more than this. But this is a good start.

"However in my teens I got the impression that there was something "wrong" with such questions."

--> Yes. I was shocked when I asked a Catholic priest something, and I was told my ideas were heretical. (I was not even allowed to discuss my question.) Such thinking is the very picture of religious intolerance. (Fortunately, I have since found a belief system which actually encourages such 'pesky' questions.)

"This negative attitude was a major reason for staying away from the church."

--> Sadly, I still see this attitude in the Catholic Church today. There is no room for people with 'pesky' questions — people such as you and I — within the Catholic Church. Thomas says he is looking for priests that will challenge him — he is not looking for priests who will allow him to challenge them.

[Nick the Pilot]

Brian,

You said,

"...you had to go through the priests of the Catholic Church in order for a layman to access the Bible."

--> I agree. I would add that 'pesky' questions about the Bible have always been discouraged.

"...through the millenia the Papacy has certainly been an extremely political animal, sometimes very much more concerned with the political well-being of itself, than the spiritual well being of the flock."

--> I agree. Even Thomas admits the church confiscated and burned Bibles, contrary to the very idea of religious freedom.

"Preventing the texts from being copied, read, made accessible to the layman, was a way to keep the Church empowered over the layman - none could go through Jesus with The Church."

--> I agree.

"By printing the Bible, Tyndale and similar were empowering the layman at the detriment of the political power of the Catholic Church because the Church could now be questioned, and even argued as wrong."

--> The sad thing is, even today, the church does not see what is wrong with that.

"...it's brushes with Gallileo...."

--> If I remember correctly, Gallileo died in prison, a prisoner of church doctrine.

"...I was under the impression that it was a commonly accepted fact within secular historical studies that the Roman Catholic church saw translation of the Bible as a threat because it directly circumvented the role of the church as sole authority in spiritual matters."

--> I say it was a threat for two reasons. One reason is the reason that you have cited — 'political' power in spiritual matters. The other reason is to hide intentional changes in the Bible.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Brian,

You said,

"...you had to go through the priests of the Catholic Church in order for a layman to access the Bible."

--> I agree. I would add that 'pesky' questions about the Bible have always been discouraged.

"...through the millenia the Papacy has certainly been an extremely political animal, sometimes very much more concerned with the political well-being of itself, than the spiritual well being of the flock."

--> I agree. Even Thomas admits the church confiscated and burned Bibles, contrary to the very idea of religious freedom.

"Preventing the texts from being copied, read, made accessible to the layman, was a way to keep the Church empowered over the layman - none could go through Jesus with The Church."

--> I agree.

"By printing the Bible, Tyndale and similar were empowering the layman at the detriment of the political power of the Catholic Church because the Church could now be questioned, and even argued as wrong."

--> The sad thing is, even today, the church does not see what is wrong with that.

"...it's brushes with Gallileo...."

--> If I remember correctly, Gallileo died in prison, a prisoner of church doctrine.

"...I was under the impression that it was a commonly accepted fact within secular historical studies that the Roman Catholic church saw translation of the Bible as a threat because it directly circumvented the role of the church as sole authority in spiritual matters."

--> I say it was a threat for two reasons. One reason is the reason that you have cited — 'political' power in spiritual matters. The other reason is to hide intentional changes in the Bible.

How ironic. The "catholic priest" in my family, challenged us to ask "pesky" questions about the bible. I asked him a question once, that he couldn't answer, and he stated such. I then said incredulously "but you're a priest!"

His reply?

"The best thing that a priest can ever hope to become, is human..."

[Thomas]

Hi Brian —

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I've got to admit, my own reading of the subject was that the early Catholic church saw itself as a guardian of the Bible, but that in such guardianship, came the politics of controlling the message - ie, the point underlining everything regarding the Bible is that you had to go through the priests of the Catholic Church in order for a layman to access the Bible.

I think it's more you have to come to the Church for its Scripture — certainly we insist it's authentic interpretation is guaranteed with us. Even the Protestants came to the Catholic English translation (Douay-Rheims) as the basis of their English (King James) version.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

While there may have been a valid spiritual argument about protecting the correctness of "the word", we all know too well that through the millenia the Papacy has certainly been an extremely political animal, sometimes very much more concerned with the political well-being of itself, than the spiritual well being of the flock.

That's a valid criticism, and I haven't denied it.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Preventing the texts from being copied, read, made accessible to the layman, was a way to keep the Church empowered over the layman

A common misconception, and largely our fault. As I have listed, the Bible, or parts of it, was available in the vernacular from about the 9th century. Research into documents of the era show the layman had an informed sense of the Bible's contents — more informed than today, I might hazard to guess.

The Church never 'prevented' texts from being copied, but did contain editorial control, as it were — and exercised that control when She saw counterfeit or propagandist translations being circulated.

Nor was redaing the Bible in the vernacular ever listed as a capital offence, as far as I am aware.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

By printing the Bible, Tyndale and similar were empowering the layman at the detriment of the political power of the Catholic Church because the Church could now be questioned, and even argued as wrong.

Frankly I don't buy that — or rather, Tyndale's motive was political, not nearly as 'empowering' as he implied. Tyndale actively supported the new Reformation order, which dealt with the layman just as the Old order had done.

It's unlilely a farmer would have the interest or the wherewithall to argue doctrine — to do that would require a working understanding of theology and philosophy — which suggests a literate education, and that literacy would be Latin, not English.

Today, I will not be fully accepted as a critic of Scripture, unless I can at least read Latin, and ideally Latin and Greek.

Might I also point out that scientific documents, like Copernicus' "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" were written in Latin. In fact I think it's safe to say that all scholarly texts were written in Latin, because that was the language of the educated — and in many fields that is still the case.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Remember, the conservatism within Catholicism sought to maintain and protect it's own world view - it's brushes with Gallileo and similar for challenging that are legendary, because it diminished the influence of the Church with it.

Yes, but consider ... most of the established scientific community were wedded to the Aristotelian model, and they too sought to see Galileo brought down. We do not however attack astronomy today, because at one point astronomers thought Galileo was wrong.

As I have shown, the Church favoured Copernicus' heliocentric model when he presented his data, a hundred years before Galileo. What they didn't want, and what they ended up with, was a debate about the validity of Scripture. What Galileo thought was his personal reputation would carry all before him — even the Church. He was wrong.

And as has been remarked, the Church's treatment of Galileo was 'enlightened' by any standard of the day — sadly a treatment that does not reflect in all her dealings with the world, but in this instance, it is actually a subject of historical note.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I didn't see the PBS program, but I was under the impression that it was a commonly accepted fact within secular historical studies that the Roman Catholic church saw translation of the Bible as a threat because it directly circumvented the role of the church as sole authority in spiritual matters.

No.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

While those trying to translate it may have been reformers, and therefore against the Roman Catholic Church in the first place, I don't see any argument that the Roman Catholic Church itself actively supported the printing of the Bible outside of Latin, precisely because of the reasons above.

May I point out the first book printed was ... the Bible? As a typographer, I can offer you a series of historical notes wherein the Church has been the patron of the printing press.

Then of course, the implication is that if one can reads it, one understands it — something which Scripture itself points out is an erroneous assumption.

Thomas

[I, Brian]

Thanks for the comments, Thomas - interesting, as it seems there's a very two sided argument here - all of which seems to relate to the issue control of access to the Bible, with the reformists on the one hand claiming there is over-control outside of the RC, while the RC arguing the need for editorial controls within the RC. A much more rich and interesting topic than I expected.

[lunamoth]

I can't speak for the Roman Catholic tradition of course, but the current Anglican teaching is that to fully understand the Bible we need to read it in community, not completely off on our own. There is such a tremendous diversity of material in the Bible that you could construct pretty much any religion you want using the Bible in isolation. Yes, we are to read the Bible and pray with it, let it speak to us individually, but we also need to read it together, in groups, and in the context of the Church, and in the context of worship.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Even the Protestants came to the Catholic English translation (Douay-Rheims) as the basis of their English (King James) version.

Dearest Thomas, this is simply not the case. This is the third time now I have seen you play to this, and twice I have overlooked it. If I may:

Douay-Rheims Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Douay-Rheims Bible, also known as the Rheims-Douai Bible or Douai Bible and abbreviated as D-R, is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English. The New Testament was published in one volume with extensive commentary and notes in 1582. The Old Testament followed in 1609–10 in two volumes, also extensively annotated. The notes took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character. They also offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate. The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which was heavily influencing England. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Counter-Reformation.

Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England.

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

Even in the letters written to the King and to the people by the translators of the KJV (to which I referenced just a short while back in another thread), they do recognize that they referenced other earlier works, but the Douay-Rheims OT was not in existence and the KJV NT was sourced from other documents, predominantly the Textus Receptus. In fact, Gustavus Payne went so far as to claim the Douay Bible was hurried to completion because of the KJV. If you notice, the KJV first printing was 1611, and the first printing Douay was 1610...certainly one or even two years is not enough to establish "the basis of their English (King James) version" on "the Catholic English translation (Douay-Rheims)."

I realize your zealousness for your brand of faith, but I really must highlight this error in defense of my own faith and preferred tradition. The Catholic institution felt threatened, perhaps rightly so, and that is why the Douay Bible was so quickly completed to *compete with* the KJV. It only stands to reason the Catholic position would be to claim something like what you say here about Protestants referencing it in order to help bolster their egos and self-validation.

[Joedjr]

Hi,
Seems there is a loose consensus here that the RCC has erred in the past, acknowledged their fault and moved on from this dark spot in history. In James 3:1 we read: Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. How do each role from this time, teacher and student, come under the judgment, that is to come? How much is the student accountable for his actions? Will the excuse "I was only doing what I was told" be enough to get through the narrow gate?
In today's RCC are there some teachings that should not be followed? Will the excuse "I was only doing what I was told" be good enough?
Joe

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Joedjr

Hi,
Seems there is a loose consensus here that the RCC has erred in the past, acknowledged their fault and moved on from this dark spot in history. In James 3:1 we read: Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. How do each role from this time, teacher and student, come under the judgment, that is to come? How much is the student accountable for his actions? Will the excuse "I was only doing what I was told" be enough to get through the narrow gate?
In today's RCC are there some teachings that should not be followed? Will the excuse "I was only doing what I was told" be good enough?
Joe

The church hasn't erred, individuals have. Teaching is not for the feignt of heart. To much that is given to some, so much will be expected from some.

This life is not a popularity contest. It is a time to develop the love within us, to be able to express it regardless of the obstacles confronting us.

Love fears nothing.