Burned at the stake for the Bible

[Dream]

Thomas, what lessons would you say there are to learn from the big church split. Other than the JW's, what good would you say has come as a result?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dream

Thomas, what lessons would you say there are to learn from the big church split. Other than the JW's, what good would you say has come as a result?

my side hurts...stop it.

[mee]

Toward the latter part of the fourteenth century a Roman Catholic clergyman named John Wycliffe, scholar and lecturer at Oxford, denounced the spiritual indifference and ignorance he found among the clergy high and low.


If ignorance of the Bible was appalling among the clergy, what of the common people, many of whom never knew there was such a book as the Bible!

Said Wycliffe: "To be ignorant of the Scriptures is to be ignorant of Christ." So Wycliffe took the Latin Bible and made the first complete translation of the Bible into English. This was about 1382.


The Roman Catholic Church did not appreciate Wycliffe’s efforts.

He was bitterly opposed.

Writing to the pope in 1412, Archbishop Arundel called Wycliffe "that wretched and pestilent fellow of damnable memory . . . who crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue." Church authorities put a ban on any further translation of the Bible into the English tongue.

[mee]

And not forgetting
Ben Teradion

[mee]

in 155 C.E., a professed Christian named Polycarp faced a test when he was ordered to revile Christ.
His response was: "Eighty-six years have I served Him, and He has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who has saved me?" Because of his refusal to deny Christ, Polycarp was burned at the stake.

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil,

You said,

"Get over it...."

--> I disagree, because 'it' is not over yet. I grew up in the Catholic church, went to a Catholic high school, and even applied to become a priest. Not once in all those years was I ever offered an opportunity to attend a Bible study class in any Catholic building nor was one ever held that I knew of.

Not once.

There is still an atmosphere in Catholocism that the people cannot be trusted to interpret scripture, that they must depend on the clergy to do it for them. This is exactly the point that was made in the public TV program that I cited when I first started this thread. It is this same sad mentality that led the church to murder people after labeling them heretics. (At least Thomas admits heretics were indeed murdered by the church.)

My point is, the church still does not want the people to read the Bible for themselves. The church still wants the people to rely on priests to interpret the Bible for them.

'It' is not over yet, and everyone needs to know it.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dream

Thomas, what lessons would you say there are to learn from the big church split.

That we don't listen.
Too much head; not enough heart.
Holy innocence is better than worldly knowledge.

Originally Posted by Dream

what good would you say has come as a result?

None.

Thomas

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Thomas

That we don't listen.
Too much head; not enough heart.
Holy innocence is better than worldly knowledge.


None.

Thomas

Your mistake is believeing that the secular church is capable of holy innocence. The reality is far closer to what Jesus describes

Matthew 15

16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

If the church doesn't have it, it cannot teach the young so all we have are people acting parts. The value of the head is that it can see the con job for what it is and see that it is not Christian but rather Christendom raising the sincere question if Christianity exists and if it does, where is it?

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I grew up in the Catholic church, went to a Catholic high school, and even applied to become a priest. Not once in all those years was I ever offered an opportunity to attend a Bible study class in any Catholic building nor was one ever held that I knew of.

Yes, that is a problem — basically a shortage of well-trained priests. The priests that are there are often faced with not enough time to devote to Scripture in the face of pastoral issues considered more important. The good scholars can often be poor pastoral advisers.

The again, every mass is a bible study class, if we pay attention, with readings from the Old Testament, the Gospels and the Epistles, the whole Liturgy is structured on Scripture. But I agree with you that if one wants to understand then one needs instruction in the tradition of exegesis. The homily should be just that, referencing the readings (unless immediate pastoral concerns take priority), thus the Liturgy encompasses (or should) Scripture study. I fully accept that not every priest is a scripture scholar to suit every taste, however, but nor can they be, I think.

But the good news is that is changing — since Vatican II — but again, we all know we are now dealing with the tragic outcome of the liberalism of the last half century which did so much damage, the American seminary system being a prime example (and might be an aspect of your particular problem — depends when you were asking).

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

There is still an atmosphere in Catholicism that the people cannot be trusted to interpret scripture, that they must depend on the clergy to do it for them.

No, that's not quite right.

I think everyone would agree there's more to Scripture than meets the eye — instruction is needed — the evidence of the abundance of the misinformation as well as its misinterpretation is beyond doubt (one has to comprehend what it is in essence before one can understand its particularities), again we are back to the point that just because you can read it does not mean you understand it, as what one assumes of what one is reading will invariably determine what one gets from it.

So there is every good reason to assert that assistance is needed in the correct interpretation of Scripture. In this case that assistance is the Apostolic Teaching, which comprises both Scripture and Tradition, the voice of which is the Church itself. The role of the Magisterium then, as the successor of the Apostles, is as guarantor of that teaching, as Christ affirmed.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

It is this same sad mentality that led the church to murder people after labeling them heretics. (At least Thomas admits heretics were indeed murdered by the church.)

Well as they were executed within the law, 'murder' is an incorrect term. Secular as well as sacerdotal authorities sanctioned the execution within the law.

It was a bad law. In my history (socially as well as spiritually) there were things done in the name of the law that I do not condone. I do understand the circumstance however, which is tragic one, ontologically founded in our fallen nature.

Do I condemn them? Yes. Can I forgive them? Yes, for according to Christ, I must. He will be the judge of men, not I.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

My point is, the church still does not want the people to read the Bible for themselves. The church still wants the people to rely on priests to interpret the Bible for them.

Not quite right — the Church does want the people to read the Bible for themselves, but understand that the Church is the authority when it comes to affirming a correct interpretation ... without that, the evidence is plain that people to often choose to find in what they read what they were looking for.

There are a myriad contradictory theories about what Scripture is, and a myriad more about what its says ... they can't all be right, so a vast number must be wrong.

The Church affirms only that which She received (anything 'new' is solidly founded on what went before); She alone can trace an unbroken heritage and inheritance of the deeds and words of the Lord. If one is looking for an 'authentic' tradition, She's the only one there is.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Is it true that people were forbidden to read a Bible written in their own vernacular?

Is it true that people were forbidden to possess a Bible written in their own vernacular?

[mee]

The Catholic Church used the notorious Inquisition to stamp out so-called "heretics" by fiendish torture and burnings at the stake.

In the sixteenth century alone, the Catholic Inquisition burned more than 30,000 "heretics" in this way.


Nor were the Protestant reformers of that time without guilt, a notable case being the burning near Geneva of Michael Servetus, because of his publicly declaring the truths that the Trinity doctrine and the baptism of infants are contrary to Bible teaching.

John Calvin, one of the founders of the Presbyterian Church, argued for the death penalty, and looked on while Servetus was literally roasted alive in a slow fire for about five hours till dead.



Jehovah, the ‘God of love,’ has never consented to such tortures.

[wil]

Originally Posted by thomas

...the Church is the authority when it comes to affirming a correct interpretation ... without that, the evidence is plain that people to often choose to find in what they read what they were looking for.

I think we've seen what happens in many denominations, sects, and religions when one body (the hierarchy) is seen as the only interpreter and not open to discussion.

[juantoo3]

Ahhhhhhh...

Nuthin' like a good weenie roast.

So...where'd all the weenies go?

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil,

Not only that, if you disagree with Thomas, he feels he has the right to execute you.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Wil,

Not only that, if you disagree with Thomas, he feels he has the right to execute you.

I don't think that's quite fair, Nick. I disagree with Thomas frequently, and I have not ever felt the threat of becoming toast in his presence.

On the other hand, I have on occasion felt as though I could have easily become the roast du jour on a number of other instances...once at the hands of those I presume were fundamentalist Christians, another time at the hands of fundamentalist Atheists, and once at the hands of fundamentalist Muslims.

What can I say? I guess I'm an equal opportunity heretic.

And let us not forget, if we are going to play the "guilty of your fathers' sins" game, all those Christians and Jews put to the torch and worse at the hands of Pagans...

So I think wil was really more profound than perhaps even he knew. Memories tend to be short...and highly selective, especially when levelling accusations.