Catholicism
(05-05-2020, 01:26 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote:
(05-04-2020, 10:44 PM)Wingfold Wrote: On the literacy question, you're right. Illiteracy was widespread and biblical knowledge, even among clergy, was low. The translation of the Bible into English changed all that. 

I'll have to disagree. First, I don't think that illiteracy was as common amongst clerics as you insinuate, and the concept of "biblical knowledge" is a little bit vacuous. What does this really mean?

Most people would have heard sermons expounding Scripture. Most people would have heard the readings of the Mass chanted each week. If you decided to enter religion (join a monastic order) or become a cleric (bishop, priest, deacon, etc.) you would be bound to sing some portion of the Divine Office (the Divine Office, with the Mass, is the prayer of the Church. Essentially it consists of singing the Psalms of David, hymns and readings from Sacred Scripture and the Fathers of the Church.) In the absence of plentiful printed material, such as we have now, most monastics would have to learn the Psalms by heart. Many would have memorized the entire book of Psalms. 

Also, the common layfolk would have gone to Church with greater frequency than we do now. Chances are they would have seen reliefs, statues, stained glass, altar pieces, etc., which represented stories from the Bible. While they couldn't read the stories, they certainly could see them depicted. And like I said, sermons would have been the primary way the faith was communicated:

Quote:St. Paul wrote:

But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 
 And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!”  But they have not all heeded the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 
 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. Rom. 10 14-17

The gospel went out into a world which had a low literacy rate. Christ chose twelve men to be preachers, not authors. Most people would have heard the Scriptures read aloud at the Divine Liturgy each Sunday and that would have been the primary, if not exclusive, way of hearing the Scriptures.


And, I would challenge that the translation of the Bible into the vernacular made a significant dent in the rates of illiteracy.  I did a quick search online and found this link: https://ourworldindata.org/literacy 

The increase in literacy could just as easily be ascribed to the increase of printed materials in general, as to the Bible specifically. A press can produce thinks more cheaply and efficiently than a single monk can, so it becomes more practical to take the time to learn to read.


Quote:People learned to read because this book became more readily available (and less expensive) with the advent of the printing press. Biblical knowledge increased and people proved quite capable of grasping its meaning, from the common man to the learned. 

I am sorry, but this is just begging the question. Who is to say that someone has actually grasped the meaning of the Bible accurately? Would only a person who came to a Protestant conclusion have grasped its meaning? Would someone who came to conclude that the Catholic Church was true have grasped the meaning of the Bible? I think that Sacred Scripture expounds the Catholic faith, I am sure you'll disagree. But, who is to say that I am wrong or you right?

Quote:Wingfold said:

I know the Church of the day thought people too stupid to grasp such words - you know, if they had brains they'd be dangerous - but the Church was wrong. And arrogant. 

I had trouble trying to upload the Captain Picard facepalm meme, but please imagine that here.

Quote:Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza: this is desert. And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adoreAnd he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me?  And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. Acts 8:26-31

Quote:And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. 2 Peter 3:15-17


Quote: 

I had trouble trying to upload the Captain Picard facepalm meme, but please imagine that here.

Histrionics, in the end, do not cancel the truth. Cardinal Ximenes in 1492, "It would be throwing pearls before swine. For the word of God should be wrapped in discreet mystery from the vulgar, who feel little reverence for what is plain and obvious. It was for this reason that our Saviour himself clothed his doctrines in parables when he addressed the people. The Scriptures should be confined to the three ancient languages [Latin, Hebrew, Greek] which God, with mystic import, permitted to be inscribed over the head of his crucified Son." Then, "In 1546 the Council of Trent had prohibited the official use of any other text but the Vulgate in lectures, disputations or sermons and heaped scorn upon vernacular translations as unholy and impure." Wide As The Waters, pp. 187-8.
Reply
(05-05-2020, 02:22 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Histrionics, in the end, do not cancel the truth.

Yet you are happy to trot out ignorant quotations which are at wild variance with the verifiable truth. Is that not "histrionics"?

(05-05-2020, 02:22 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Cardinal Ximenes in 1492, "It would be throwing pearls before swine. For the word of God should be wrapped in discreet mystery from the vulgar, who feel little reverence for what is plain and obvious. It was for this reason that our Saviour himself clothed his doctrines in parables when he addressed the people. The Scriptures should be confined to the three ancient languages [Latin, Hebrew, Greek] which God, with mystic import, permitted to be inscribed over the head of his crucified Son."

Care to cite the original work so we can check the context of the quote?

You can find lots of quotes attributed to people, but, of course, there's always the question of what they actually said (or if it is just made up), and what they meant, which usually is found only in the contexts.

(05-05-2020, 02:22 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Then, "In 1546 the Council of Trent had prohibited the official use of any other text but the Vulgate in lectures, disputations or sermons and heaped scorn upon vernacular translations as unholy and impure." Wide As The Waters, pp. 187-8.[/font][/size][/color]

Apparently the author knows very little about the Council of Trent, whose decrees are widely available, and do not say what this author suggests.

1546's session on Scripture is Session 4 says something very different :

Quote:Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic, 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.

Says nothing about prohibiting any other version, just that the Vulgate has been used, and because it had been used for so long, and among all the other Latin versions it was the best, it should be held as authentic.

Later in that decree it says :

Quote:[This Synod] ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said 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; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary.

Not a single time in the entire decrees of the Council of Trent does the Church "heaped scorn upon vernacular translations as unholy and impure".

The decrees on Scripture concern four things :
  1. Laying out the Canon of Scripture clearly to remove any doubt,
  2. Establishing the Latin Vulgate as the official version that the Church will use and ask be used as the reference point in doctrinal matters,
  3. Ensuring Scripture be printed accurately, and in order to do so, that any printer needs to obtain permission to print his edition (lest he change things therein),
  4. Decreeing that personal interpretation against Church doctrine or the unanimous teaching of the early Fathers was wrong.
If you're keen to see that for yourself, you can read the whole decree here : http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm

I challenge you to find anything therein which even suggest that the Church condemned vernacular translations, or anywhere where vernacular translations are "unholy and impure" or scorned.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
(05-05-2020, 04:22 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-05-2020, 02:22 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Histrionics, in the end, do not cancel the truth.

Yet you are happy to trot out ignorant quotations which are at wild variance with the verifiable truth. Is that not "histrionics"?

(05-05-2020, 02:22 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Cardinal Ximenes in 1492, "It would be throwing pearls before swine. For the word of God should be wrapped in discreet mystery from the vulgar, who feel little reverence for what is plain and obvious. It was for this reason that our Saviour himself clothed his doctrines in parables when he addressed the people. The Scriptures should be confined to the three ancient languages [Latin, Hebrew, Greek] which God, with mystic import, permitted to be inscribed over the head of his crucified Son."

Care to cite the original work so we can check the context of the quote?

You can find lots of quotes attributed to people, but, of course, there's always the question of what they actually said (or if it is just made up), and what they meant, which usually is found only in the contexts.

(05-05-2020, 02:22 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Then, "In 1546 the Council of Trent had prohibited the official use of any other text but the Vulgate in lectures, disputations or sermons and heaped scorn upon vernacular translations as unholy and impure." Wide As The Waters, pp. 187-8.[/font][/size][/color]

Apparently the author knows very little about the Council of Trent, whose decrees are widely available, and do not say what this author suggests.

1546's session on Scripture is Session 4 says something very different :

Quote:Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic, 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.

Says nothing about prohibiting any other version, just that the Vulgate has been used, and because it had been used for so long, and among all the other Latin versions it was the best, it should be held as authentic.

Later in that decree it says :

Quote:[This Synod] ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said 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; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary.

Not a single time in the entire decrees of the Council of Trent does the Church "heaped scorn upon vernacular translations as unholy and impure".

The decrees on Scripture concern four things :
  1. Laying out the Canon of Scripture clearly to remove any doubt,
  2. Establishing the Latin Vulgate as the official version that the Church will use and ask be used as the reference point in doctrinal matters,
  3. Ensuring Scripture be printed accurately, and in order to do so, that any printer needs to obtain permission to print his edition (lest he change things therein),
  4. Decreeing that personal interpretation against Church doctrine or the unanimous teaching of the early Fathers was wrong.
If you're keen to see that for yourself, you can read the whole decree here : http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm

I challenge you to find anything therein which even suggest that the Church condemned vernacular translations, or anywhere where vernacular translations are "unholy and impure" or scorned.


The "pearls before swine" quote by Cardinal Ximenes above is from The Popular History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue by Thomas Jefferson Conant and Hannah Chaplin Conant (page 230). The context is Ximenes telling a bishop not to translate the Scriptures into Arabic in order to minister to the Moors (who were Muslims).

Further research tells me that Pope Gregory VII also opposed translation from Latin into vernacular tongues: The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition by Justo Gonzalez, Volume I, page 337. The context seems general.

William Tyndale was martyred for translating the Bible into English. 

But I hear what you're saying. This from the National Catholic Register,

"Protestant Church historian James Gairdner confirms all this: The truth is, the Church of Rome was not at all opposed to the making of translations of Scripture or to placing them in the hands of the laity under what were deemed proper precautions. It was only judged necessary to see that no unauthorized or corrupt translations got abroad; and even in this matter it would seem that the authorities were not roused to special vigilance till they took alarm at the diffusion of Wycliffite translations . . . To the possession by worthy lay men of licensed translations the Church was never opposed; but to place such a weapon as an English Bible in the hands of men who had no regard for authority, and who would use it without being instructed how to use it properly, was dangerous not only to the souls of those who read, but to the peace and order of the Church."
(Lollardy and the Reformation in England, Vol. 1 of 4, 1908, 105, 117)

Aha! you say. There it is! Hang on. It is evident from the above quote that the RC Church had no problem with English translations it could control. To the RC powers-that-be, the great unwashed simply couldn't be trusted with one. As far as they were concerned if it didn't come from them, it was heretical, full stop. You and I can go back and forth on this for hours but at the end of the day, we'll be no further ahead. RCs believe that only the Church can correctly interpret and translate the Scriptures while Protestants claim that man can do this if he is led and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Both sides are saying the same thing, really. It's just that the Catholics believe in the Spirit-led collective that makes up the Magisterium while Protestants place trust in the Spirit-led individual.

It's worth pointing out a certain parable from Jesus here. Luke 16:19-31, The Rich Man and Lazarus. At the end, Jesus said this, "

But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

"Moses and the Prophets" being the Holy Scriptures at that time. As far as Jesus was concerned, they were sufficient for finding the way to eternal life. And from the context of the story, all were capable of doing so, even unbelievers who had access to them. Jesus held them all responsible for learning them.

I realize today is a different story. The RC Church doesn't take issue with vernacular Bible translations (unless it's the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation, and everyone takes issue with that). But in the Middles Ages, I fear it was a serious bone of contention.
Reply
(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: The "pearls before swine" quote by Cardinal Ximenes above is from The Popular History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue by Thomas Jefferson Conant and Hannah Chaplin Conant (page 230). The context is Ximenes telling a bishop not to translate the Scriptures into Arabic in order to minister to the Moors (who were Muslims).

I wasn't asking for who quoted Ximenes, but the source for the letter, so we can actually read the whole context of the quote. Given the source already cannot seem to accurately report what was in decreed by the Council of Trent, I don't trust that the Ximenes quote is not manufactured or mistranslated.

So, perhaps you could open said Conant & Conant book to page 230 and provide the citation and source they have for the original?

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Further research tells me that Pope Gregory VII also opposed translation from Latin into vernacular tongues: The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition by Justo Gonzalez, Volume I, page 337. The context seems general.

Again, given the earlier quote was horrifically incorrect, in what Papal document does Gregory VII write this and precisely what does he say?

I'm not asking who claims that Gregory said this. I'm asking where Gregory did, again, to see the whole context.

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: William Tyndale was martyred for translating the Bible into English. 

He wasn't martyred. He was sentenced to death for trying to leading souls to spiritual death.

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: It is evident from the above quote that the RC Church had no problem with English translations it could control. To the RC powers-that-be, the great unwashed simply couldn't be trusted with one. As far as they were concerned if it didn't come from them, it was heretical, full stop.

No. It could be heretical, and most Protestant translations were because they intentionally changed Scripture to suit a man-made false doctrine.

Consider Luther's additions and subtractions.

If the Church has the duty to teach and protect the faithful, and St Paul tells us to not accept a Gospel other than the one taught, then the Church has the duty to ensure that the Scriptures which are printed actually agree with that Gospel, and are not a false Gospel.

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: You and I can go back and forth on this for hours but at the end of the day, we'll be no further ahead. RCs believe that only the Church can correctly interpret and translate the Scriptures while Protestants claim that man can do this if he is led and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Both sides are saying the same thing, really. It's just that the Catholics believe in the Spirit-led collective that makes up the Magisterium while Protestants place trust in the Spirit-led individual.

And one's false. Christ built a Church. He did not make a Church out of every individual.

Christ insisted that we believe, not the we read, and most couldn't for more than 1700 years after Christ. If we need to read and interpret to be saved, then the Church failed almost instantly after it was founded.

If every man gets to decide what the Bible means, then this makes God a liar. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, and clearly if everyone is inspired by Him to find in Scripture "his own truth" which contradicts all the others, then the Holy Spirit is a deceiver and a liar.

There's only one spirit that causes division and is a liar, and it is not the Holy Spirit, so if two people are inspired by a "spirit" to read the Bible differently, at least one, if not both have Satan as their co-pilot in that downhill travel.

So, no, both sides are saying radically different things.

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: But in the Middles Ages, I fear it was a serious bone of contention.

Well, as has been shown, the Church had no issue with vernacular translations even in the Middle Ages, seeing as many were made as was shown above. There were post-Latin vernacular translations as early as the 730s, and in fact Latin was a vernacular, as was also shown to you.

I thought we were having a productive dialog here for a bit, Wingfold, but now you're just firing off stereotypical and offensive language. Remember, you came to the Catholic party, so have a bit of respect. Ask questions and challenge us, but if you think phrases like

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: To the RC powers-that-be, the great unwashed simply couldn't be trusted with one.

are becoming of a Christian gentleman, then I do think you've overstayed your welcome.

You're welcome in the Catholic party, but let's not start insulting and intentionally trying to provoke the homeowners.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, jovan66102, Justin Tertius
Reply
(05-06-2020, 05:01 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: The "pearls before swine" quote by Cardinal Ximenes above is from The Popular History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue by Thomas Jefferson Conant and Hannah Chaplin Conant (page 230). The context is Ximenes telling a bishop not to translate the Scriptures into Arabic in order to minister to the Moors (who were Muslims).

I wasn't asking for who quoted Ximenes, but the source for the letter, so we can actually read the whole context of the quote. Given the source already cannot seem to accurately report what was in decreed by the Council of Trent, I don't trust that the Ximenes quote is not manufactured or mistranslated.

So, perhaps you could open said Conant & Conant book to page 230 and provide the citation and source they have for the original?

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Further research tells me that Pope Gregory VII also opposed translation from Latin into vernacular tongues: The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition by Justo Gonzalez, Volume I, page 337. The context seems general.

Again, given the earlier quote was horrifically incorrect, in what Papal document does Gregory VII write this and precisely what does he say?

I'm not asking who claims that Gregory said this. I'm asking where Gregory did, again, to see the whole context.

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: William Tyndale was martyred for translating the Bible into English. 

He wasn't martyred. He was sentenced to death for trying to leading souls to spiritual death.

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: It is evident from the above quote that the RC Church had no problem with English translations it could control. To the RC powers-that-be, the great unwashed simply couldn't be trusted with one. As far as they were concerned if it didn't come from them, it was heretical, full stop.

No. It could be heretical, and most Protestant translations were because they intentionally changed Scripture to suit a man-made false doctrine.

Consider Luther's additions and subtractions.

If the Church has the duty to teach and protect the faithful, and St Paul tells us to not accept a Gospel other than the one taught, then the Church has the duty to ensure that the Scriptures which are printed actually agree with that Gospel, and are not a false Gospel.

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: You and I can go back and forth on this for hours but at the end of the day, we'll be no further ahead. RCs believe that only the Church can correctly interpret and translate the Scriptures while Protestants claim that man can do this if he is led and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Both sides are saying the same thing, really. It's just that the Catholics believe in the Spirit-led collective that makes up the Magisterium while Protestants place trust in the Spirit-led individual.

And one's false. Christ built a Church. He did not make a Church out of every individual.

Christ insisted that we believe, not the we read, and most couldn't for more than 1700 years after Christ. If we need to read and interpret to be saved, then the Church failed almost instantly after it was founded.

If every man gets to decide what the Bible means, then this makes God a liar. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, and clearly if everyone is inspired by Him to find in Scripture "his own truth" which contradicts all the others, then the Holy Spirit is a deceiver and a liar.

There's only one spirit that causes division and is a liar, and it is not the Holy Spirit, so if two people are inspired by a "spirit" to read the Bible differently, at least one, if not both have Satan as their co-pilot in that downhill travel.

So, no, both sides are saying radically different things.

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: But in the Middles Ages, I fear it was a serious bone of contention.

Well, as has been shown, the Church had no issue with vernacular translations even in the Middle Ages, seeing as many were made as was shown above. There were post-Latin vernacular translations as early as the 730s, and in fact Latin was a vernacular, as was also shown to you.

I thought we were having a productive dialog here for a bit, Wingfold, but now you're just firing off stereotypical and offensive language. Remember, you came to the Catholic party, so have a bit of respect. Ask questions and challenge us, but if you think phrases like

(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: To the RC powers-that-be, the great unwashed simply couldn't be trusted with one.

are becoming of a Christian gentleman, then I do think you've overstayed your welcome.

You're welcome in the Catholic party, but let's not start insulting and intentionally trying to provoke the homeowners.

Quote:
No. It could be heretical, and most Protestant translations were because they intentionally changed Scripture to suit a man-made false doctrine.

Actually, that isn't the case. The only group that ever changed Scripture to suit their beliefs are the Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Quote:
And one's false. Christ built a Church. He did not make a Church out of every individual.


And He is still building His Church - out of individuals. See 1 Peter 2:5. Each of us are living stones who are being built into "a house that God can live in", so to speak. The collective Bride is made up of saved individuals.

Quote:
but if you think phrases like 


(05-05-2020, 10:50 PM)Wingfold Wrote: To the RC powers-that-be, the great unwashed simply couldn't be trusted with one.

are becoming of a Christian gentleman, then I do think you've overstayed your welcome. You're welcome in the Catholic party, but let's not start insulting and intentionally trying to provoke the homeowners.

This is offensive? I was speaking of the medieval leaders of the Catholic Church. You've said a lot worse about the Reformers, including the seemingly tacit approval of Tyndale's murder. Not trying to "provoke the homeowners". It does seem, though, that you have a hard time with anyone who sees the RC Church as less than perfect - at all times throughout its history. 
Reply
Wingfold,

How about those citations I asked for?

You're throwing out lots of demonstrably false quotations (like the one against the Council of Trent, which you have not yet acknowledge is false) and I've now asked twice for citations of the original documents. 

You've only pointed out the secondary sources. You've pointed out people claimed these original sources said these things.

Since you're able to cite the secondary source, surely you can then provide the footnote to the original documents for Cardinal Ximenes and the Papal document I asked for ... unless these are made up quotations, or paraphrases which are not accurate.

If your secondary source does not provide the citation to the original, then admit this, so we can know your honesty in this, otherwise I dismiss those quotations as invented and false.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Quote:
No. It could be heretical, and most Protestant translations were because they intentionally changed Scripture to suit a man-made false doctrine.

Actually, that isn't the case. The only group that ever changed Scripture to suit their beliefs are the Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Luther modified Romans to fit his doctrine : https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online...ture-alone

The King James version deliberately translates certain phrases against the Latin and Greek : http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scri...ersion.htm

The NIV is full of mistranslations and modifications according to this Protestant to teach certain doctrines : https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/a...rsion-niv/

Here's a 118-page book from the early 1800s (this is a reprint) discussing the various changes and mistranslations in Protestant Bibles : https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=aLYVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=protestant+mistranslations+of+the+bible&source=bl&ots=9JUagFamvA&sig=ACfU3U2tmv9hHIwNKZgVUbFxN1CpomVpog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi13fmo0qDpAhX9yzgGHUDBDvwQ6AEwEHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=protestant%20mistranslations%20of%20the%20bible&f=false

I'd go on with other references, but I have a feeling you won't read them, and will just start posting more quotations from books designed to confirm you in your false opinions and provably-false history.


So, to be clear, yes, Luther and others intentionally mistranslated the Bible to fit their doctrines.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
This is offensive? I was speaking of the medieval leaders of the Catholic Church.

I know who you were speaking of. It's clearly false for the reasons above, and namely one you admitted : the "unwashed masses" couldn't read.

You attribute an evil motive to the clergy for not giving something that people could not use to them. It's offensive to attribute that motive, but also offensive to common sense and decency.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
You've said a lot worse about the Reformers, including the seemingly tacit approval of Tyndale's murder.

Murder is the unjust killing of an innocent person. Capital punishment for a criminal is not murder. Heresy is a crime, even if today we would not punish it as such. Heresy is a crime against God and against souls.

So no. I don't approve of Tyndale's murder, because he was not murdered. I fully approve of his execution. His false doctrines were leading and have led many souls to Hell, and would have led more to Hell, had he not been stopped.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
It does seem, though, that you have a hard time with anyone who sees the RC Church as less than perfect - at all times throughout its history.

The Church is full of sinners. It's a field hospital, so I don't expect the members of the Church to be pristine at all.

The Church itself, however, is a Divine institution, so inasmuch as it is this, indeed, I do expect the Church to be perfect, even if Popes, Bishops, Priests, and the laity are, more often than not, self-serving scoundrels.


I'll renew again here my call for the citations I've mentioned now for the third time.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Justin Tertius
Reply
(05-06-2020, 10:09 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Quote:
No. It could be heretical, and most Protestant translations were because they intentionally changed Scripture to suit a man-made false doctrine.

Actually, that isn't the case. The only group that ever changed Scripture to suit their beliefs are the Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Luther modified Romans to fit his doctrine : https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online...ture-alone

The King James version deliberately translates certain phrases against the Latin and Greek : http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scri...ersion.htm

The NIV is full of mistranslations and modifications according to this Protestant to teach certain doctrines : https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/a...rsion-niv/

Here's a 118-page book from the early 1800s (this is a reprint) discussing the various changes and mistranslations in Protestant Bibles : https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=aLYVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=protestant+mistranslations+of+the+bible&source=bl&ots=9JUagFamvA&sig=ACfU3U2tmv9hHIwNKZgVUbFxN1CpomVpog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi13fmo0qDpAhX9yzgGHUDBDvwQ6AEwEHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=protestant%20mistranslations%20of%20the%20bible&f=false

I'd go on with other references, but I have a feeling you won't read them, and will just start posting more quotations from books designed to confirm you in your false opinions and provably-false history.


So, to be clear, yes, Luther and others intentionally mistranslated the Bible to fit their doctrines.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
This is offensive? I was speaking of the medieval leaders of the Catholic Church.

I know who you were speaking of. It's clearly false for the reasons above, and namely one you admitted : the "unwashed masses" couldn't read.

You attribute an evil motive to the clergy for not giving something that people could not use to them. It's offensive to attribute that motive, but also offensive to common sense and decency.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
You've said a lot worse about the Reformers, including the seemingly tacit approval of Tyndale's murder.

Murder is the unjust killing of an innocent person. Capital punishment for a criminal is not murder. Heresy is a crime, even if today we would not punish it as such. Heresy is a crime against God and against souls.

So no. I don't approve of Tyndale's murder, because he was not murdered. I fully approve of his execution. His false doctrines were leading and have led many souls to Hell, and would have led more to Hell, had he not been stopped.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
It does seem, though, that you have a hard time with anyone who sees the RC Church as less than perfect - at all times throughout its history.

The Church is full of sinners. It's a field hospital, so I don't expect the members of the Church to be pristine at all.

The Church itself, however, is a Divine institution, so inasmuch as it is this, indeed, I do expect the Church to be perfect, even if Popes, Bishops, Priests, and the laity are, more often than not, self-serving scoundrels.


I'll renew again here my call for the citations I've mentioned now for the third time.


Yep. I'll look into those citations. Feel free to keep reminding me. By the way, what do you (and any others reading this) think of Pope Francis? A few Catholics I know don't like him much - for various reasons.
Reply
(05-06-2020, 10:19 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
(05-06-2020, 10:09 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Quote:
No. It could be heretical, and most Protestant translations were because they intentionally changed Scripture to suit a man-made false doctrine.

Actually, that isn't the case. The only group that ever changed Scripture to suit their beliefs are the Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Luther modified Romans to fit his doctrine : https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online...ture-alone

The King James version deliberately translates certain phrases against the Latin and Greek : http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scri...ersion.htm

The NIV is full of mistranslations and modifications according to this Protestant to teach certain doctrines : https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/a...rsion-niv/

Here's a 118-page book from the early 1800s (this is a reprint) discussing the various changes and mistranslations in Protestant Bibles : https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=aLYVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=protestant+mistranslations+of+the+bible&source=bl&ots=9JUagFamvA&sig=ACfU3U2tmv9hHIwNKZgVUbFxN1CpomVpog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi13fmo0qDpAhX9yzgGHUDBDvwQ6AEwEHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=protestant%20mistranslations%20of%20the%20bible&f=false

I'd go on with other references, but I have a feeling you won't read them, and will just start posting more quotations from books designed to confirm you in your false opinions and provably-false history.


So, to be clear, yes, Luther and others intentionally mistranslated the Bible to fit their doctrines.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
This is offensive? I was speaking of the medieval leaders of the Catholic Church.

I know who you were speaking of. It's clearly false for the reasons above, and namely one you admitted : the "unwashed masses" couldn't read.

You attribute an evil motive to the clergy for not giving something that people could not use to them. It's offensive to attribute that motive, but also offensive to common sense and decency.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
You've said a lot worse about the Reformers, including the seemingly tacit approval of Tyndale's murder.

Murder is the unjust killing of an innocent person. Capital punishment for a criminal is not murder. Heresy is a crime, even if today we would not punish it as such. Heresy is a crime against God and against souls.

So no. I don't approve of Tyndale's murder, because he was not murdered. I fully approve of his execution. His false doctrines were leading and have led many souls to Hell, and would have led more to Hell, had he not been stopped.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
It does seem, though, that you have a hard time with anyone who sees the RC Church as less than perfect - at all times throughout its history.

The Church is full of sinners. It's a field hospital, so I don't expect the members of the Church to be pristine at all.

The Church itself, however, is a Divine institution, so inasmuch as it is this, indeed, I do expect the Church to be perfect, even if Popes, Bishops, Priests, and the laity are, more often than not, self-serving scoundrels.


I'll renew again here my call for the citations I've mentioned now for the third time.


Yep. I'll look into those citations. Feel free to keep reminding me. By the way, what do you (and any others reading this) think of Pope Francis? A few Catholics I know don't like him much - for various reasons.
Reply
Quote:Yep. I'll look into those citations. Feel free to keep reminding me. By the way, what do you (and any others reading this) think of Pope Francis? A few Catholics I know don't like him much - for various reasons.

Wingfold, you're encouraged to discuss here and I am sure that plenty if people will love you give you their opinion about the current pope, but try to stay on topic.

It seems like your trying to dodge having to give answers to difficult questions.

If you are interested in actual discussion, it would be better to creat a separate thread, that way discussions can be more focused.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)