Doc110 Loc: York PA

12/18/2017 Difficulties of Authority: Luther, Calvin, & Protestantism (Part 1)

Dave Armstrong
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/12/difficulties-authority-luther-calvin-protestantism.html

Books by Apologist Dave Armstrong: “The Catholic Verses.” Chapter Five: “Bible and Tradition”; section one: “The Necessity of Authoritative Interpretation”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/07/books-by-dave-armstrong-catholic_31.html

Catholics hold that Scripture is a fairly clear document and able to be understood by the average reader, but also that the Church is needed to provide a doctrinal norm (an overall framework).

For determining proper biblical interpretation (specifically, for “vetoing” that interpretation which is erroneous because it leads to doctrinal error).

Both Luther and Calvin underemphasize the guidance of the Church in understanding the Bible and assert the perspicuity, or clearness, and self-interpreting nature of Scripture, in terms of its overall teaching.

Luther wrote:

The contents of Scripture are as clear as can be . . . If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another . . . to many people a great deal remains obscure;

But that is due, not to any lack of clarity in Scripture, but to their own blindness and dullness.
(The Bondage of the Will, II: “Review of Erasmus’ Preface”; ii: “Of the Perspicuity of Scripture”; from Packer, 71-72)

The apostles promulgated an authoritative tradition, . . . and they didn’t tolerate dissension from it . . .

Once again, we find that an important Protestant distinctive is not biblical.

So how do they attempt to explain this discrepancy?

John Calvin, in his Commentaries, makes the following argument, pertaining to 1 Peter 20, Biblical Context: 1 Peter1:17-24

17 Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear.
18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.
20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the t***h so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart.
23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
24 For, “All people are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25 But the word of the Lord endures forever.”
And this is the word that was preached to you.

But the Papists are doubly foolish, when they conclude from this passage, that no interpretation of a private man ought to be deemed authoritative.

For they pervert what Peter says, that they may claim for their own councils the chief right of interpreting Scripture;

But in this they act indeed childishly;

For Peter calls interpretation private, not that of every individual, in order to prohibit each one to interpret;

But he shews that wh**ever men bring of their own is profane . . . the faithful, inwardly illuminated by the Holy Spirit, acknowledge nothing but what God says in his word.

I would like to apply Calvin’s principle and reasoning and by so doing, demonstrate that it ultimately reduces to absurdity and the utmost impracticality.

Calvin (like Luther) despised the sectarianism that proliferated as a result of Protestant principles of authority, such as private judgment and the perspicuity of Scripture.

But neither seemed to see the obvious causal connection between their new principles and the rapidly growing number of Protestant sects.

Luther claimed authority to o*******w a host of traditions that had been held for 1500 years.

On what basis did he do so?

In order to probe that issue and get to the bottom of it, one might construct a hypothetical dialogue between Luther [words in [b]blue[/b] and a Catholic critic that would run something like the following:

Luther (L): The Catholic Church is incorrect in beliefs a, b, c, and d. 
Catholic (C): Why do you say that?[/b]
L: Because what you teach is unbiblical. 
C: What gives you the authority to determine such a thing?
L: My authority is the Word of God, to which my conscience is captive. 
C: We grant your sincerity, but not everyone agrees with your interpretation of Holy Scripture. Why should we believe you over against Church Tradition?
L: Because God has appointed me as the restorer of the gospel. 
C: How do you know that? Why should we believe it?
L: God’s Word will make it manifest. 
C: But what happens when your fellow Protestants disagree with you (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, the Anabaptists)?
L: One must determine which view is more biblical.
C: How does one go about that, since your movement has no one leader, but rather, increasing numbers of sects who oppose each other on one or more grounds?
L: [b]From now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you—or even an angel from heaven—to judge my teaching or to examine it . . . Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world — I Pet. 3:15.

22 “He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.”[e]
23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”
25 For “you were like sheep going astray,”[f] but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

1 Peter 3:15 (NIV)
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

1 Peter 4 (NIV)

Living for God
4 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin.
2 As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God.
3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.
4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.
5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3] ) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved — for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.


3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

1 Corinthians 6 (NIV) Biblical Context:

Lawsuits Among Believers
6 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people?

2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church?

5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be c***ted?

8 Instead, you yourselves c***t and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]

10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[actual words of Luther: Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522; Luther’s Works, 39, 239-299; quote from 248-249]

C: But Martin, don’t you see that when Calvin or Zwingli disagree with you, that they do so on the same grounds you claim for yourself, and that no one can figure out who is telling the t***h unless there is a “court of final appeal”?
L: My t***h is plain in the Bible. 
C: That’s what Zwingli says too.
L: He is damned and out of the Church because he denies what has always been taught by the Church: that the body and blood of Jesus are truly present after consecration. It pains me that Zwingli and his followers take offence at my saying that “what I write must be true.” Zwingli, Karlstadt, and the other heretics have in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths. 

C: The t***h is that which has always been held by the Church (just as you yourself argued with regard to the Real presence in the Eucharist). Why, then, do you deny other Catholic doctrines that have an equally long history?
L: Because they are unbiblical. 
C: According to whom?
L: According to the Bible.
C: As interpreted by you?
L: Yes, because, like I said already, whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved — for it is God’s and not mine. Do we not read in the Old Testament that God commonly raised up only one prophet at a time? I say not that I am a prophet, but I do say that the more you despise me and esteem yourselves, the more reason you have to fear that I may be a prophet. If I am not a prophet, yet for my own self I am certain that the Word of God is with me and not with you, for I have the Scriptures on my side, and you have only your own doctrine.

[closely based on actual words from Luther’s tract, An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull, 1521, in Jacobs, III, 13-14]
C: So we either accept your authority and word as the preeminent Bible expositor and deliverer of Christian t***h of all time (and possibly a prophet), or so much the worse for us?

L: Yes, because God would have it so.

You are obviously wrong and I must be right, because my teaching lines up with Scripture.

You disagree with me not because of any lack of clarity in Scripture, but because of your own blindness and dullness.

And so on and so forth.

(End Part 1)

Doc110 Loc: York PA

12/18/2017 Difficulties of Authority: Luther, Calvin, & Protestantism (Part 2)

Dave Armstrong
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/12/difficulties-authority-luther-calvin-protestantism.html

Books by Apologist Dave Armstrong: “The Catholic Verses.” Chapter Five: “Bible and Tradition”; section one: “The Necessity of Authoritative Interpretation”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/07/books-by-dave-armstrong-catholic_31.html


It goes on and on like this, but the underlying assumptions of Luther are never proven; they are merely assumed.

If a pope dared to proclaim such an unspeakably outrageous thing, Protestants would never accept it in a million years.

But when Luther does it, it is accepted with blind faith that he is right and the Catholics are wrong, because “everyone knows” that Protestants are the “Bible people” and Catholics aren’t!

They follow crusty, dead traditions of men which were condemned by Jesus, and are like the Pharisees. Etc., etc.

That’s what it always falls back on, because appeals to the Bible inescapably reduce to disputes over whose interpretation is correct.

This is the circular nature of competing Protestant theologies.

There is no way to choose between Calvin and Luther, except arbitrariness, irrational faith, or appeal to one’s own judgment.

Calvin has no more authority than Luther did.

They both simply proclaimed it and people followed them. At the same time they railed against the Catholic exercise of authority, which was self-consistent.

And far easier to trace back through history, in an unbroken apostolic succession (precisely as the Church Fathers argued for their authority in proclaiming true doctrine over against heresy).

This was the inner logic and dynamic of Luther’s new perspective, set forth at the Diet of Worms in 1521 (the famous confrontation where he cried, “here I stand!”).

Yet few Protestants will admit that it is unreasonable or a circular argument, and far more objectionable and implausible than the Catholic stance in reaction to Luther.

It sounds wonderful and noble and almost self-evidently true to choose (as Luther did at Worms) the “Bible and plain reason” rather than the “traditions of men.”

But of course that is a false dilemma and caricature of Luther’s choice from the get-go.

It’s a vicious logical circle for Protestants, any way one looks at it.

This is what happens when “private interpretation” is championed, contrary to 2 Peter 1:20.

2 Peter 1:20New International Version (NIV)

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.

It was already an unbiblical concept even before its fruit in history became evident.

Sources:

John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 volumes, t***slated and edited by John Owen; originally printed for the Calvin T***slation Society, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1853; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1979.

C. M. Jacobs, t***slator, Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Co. and the Castle Press, 1930; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982, six volumes.
Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (LW), American edition, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (volumes 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (volumes 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (volumes 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (volumes 31-55), 1955.

J. I. Packer, and O. R. Johnston, t***slators, The Bondage of the Will, by Martin Luther (1525), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1957; reprinted in 1995.
***
(originally 4-11-04)

[Excerpt from my book, The Catholic Verses (2004); Chapter Five: “Bible and Tradition”; section one: “The Necessity of Authoritative Interpretation” (commentary on the biblical passages Nehemiah 8:8, Acts 8:27-31, and 2 Peter 1:20) ]

(End of Story)

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Read Malachi Martin's The Final Enclave. Martin was on the inside and painted an appalling picture of just how political the Vatican has been lately.

The False Prophet has to come from somewhere.

Take note of the Interfaith Movement and its endorsers.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Big Mike,

Read it a long time ago.

Everything is speculation and shear human fear in the hearts and mind of people.

I always have to go back what Jesus said, in Three scriptural verses.

The Catholic Church doesn't endorse very much, or speculate's on prophecy, or on the rapture phoneme, but only God the Father knows the day and the hour unknown.

1. Matthew 24:13
The Day and Hour Unknown
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.
41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
[b'42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.[/b]
43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.
44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

2. Matthew 25-13
13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

3. Matthew 16:15-20
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; wh**ever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and wh**ever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

That was a great read with such details that you know he had to have gotten inside info on the process somehow. It predicted a pastoral pope which we got in John Paul II but then it left open the possibility of a marxist pope which I am afraid we have now.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Bush, Gorbachev and John Paul II had a meeting, like, 21 days after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Bush came back blabbing about the NWO, Gorbachev starts writing things like "religious exclusivity must be extirpated" and next thing you know we have a Polish Pope who got along pretty well with the Soviets and now we have a Pope who's a straight up Marxist, no doubt about it...A Jesuit. We have a new UN General Secretary who's a Jesuit and we would have had a Jesuit VP if the hag had won.

I'd say someone's power play fizzled and you can bet God was the one that made it so.

But Europe is far enough under the control of the authoritarians for it to work there...sort of.

Kenneth Copeland, Rick Warren and Joel Osteen to name a few have signed onto this reconciliation with the Vatican idea, along with the Anglicans, Lutherans and others.

They'll all go along with this Interfaith thing. I'm waiting to see who else signs up. We're watching the formation of the world religion of the False Prophet.

Revelation 17 calls the Prostitute "the mother of harlots" meaning she has harlot daughters.

We may be seeing a family reunion.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

[quote=BigMike]... and next thing you know we have a Polish Pope who got along pretty well with the Soviets and now we have a Pope who's a straight up Marxist, no doubt about it...A Jesuit. [quote=BigMike]


This is the only part I disagree with. Wotyla was Polish but I don't think he & the Kremlin got along that well. Why'd they try to have him assassinated?

Personally, I think John Paul II was the biggest reason for the collapse of the Eastern Bloc & its c*******m. JPII was representing something they couldn't even acknowledge existed.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

[quote=crazylibertarian][quote=BigMike]... and next thing you know we have a Polish Pope who got along pretty well with the Soviets and now we have a Pope who's a straight up Marxist, no doubt about it...A Jesuit.

The eastern bloc had to collapse if they were to have any chance for a large influx of western cash which they sorely needed. Make no mistake, there was nothing circumstantial about the fall of the Iron Curtain.

As far as Wotyla goes...his relationship with the Kremlin was as bishop, archbishop and cardinal in Poland. He fared pretty well compared with some under those circumstances. His survival and that of his church should be indicative of the depth of it...[I]he knew how to get along with the c*******ts and Vatican policy has been (paraphrasing...I can find the quote) to, "teach" socialists how to do it right."

This gradual reconciliation with c*******m (the Vatican understands generational warfare almost as well as the Muslims), the e******n of a Liberation Theology, Jesuit Pope and now bringing back her "wayward daughters" tells me there's been a lot going on that I'm not aware of and I'm more aware than many. Much of it for a long time...since the end of WWII for sure.

At any rate,

Doc110 Loc: York PA

BigMike,

So far, You have only skirted around the Article.

By using a fallacy idiom statement's to obscure what the thread article is really talking about.

Nicely done . . . Stand up and take a bow . . . for religious obscure mentalism.


Malachi Martin's prediction is just that, a prediction and a generalization.


My biblical response to you was.

1. Matthew 24:13
The Day and Hour Unknown
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

2. Matthew 24:44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Matthew 25-13
13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

3. 3. Matthew 16:18-20
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; wh**ever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and wh**ever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.


BigMike,

This article is about Biblical evidence for Catholic Church authority, and where the "Difficulties of Authority Of: Luther, Calvin, & Protestantism" inlay in Protestant theology. And not about "Malachi Martin's The Final Enclave."

So What's going on here with this diversion, only conjecture Innuendo' opinion's ?

You gave No biblical scriptural supported facts !

If it's not found in the Bible, then it falls on the dung-heap of religious theology.


So you say that, "The False Prophet's has to come from somewhere" ?

The Article say's it's Luther, Calvin, & Protestantism.


Malachi Martin's The Final Enclave, is just a distraction by yourself, from really talking about the article thread and to throw human politics into your convoluted mis-mash opinion.


Just waiting to see if your up for the challenge ?


That's if you care to discuss the article and your Ad Hominem comment distraction statement, Straw-Man and or Red-Herring argument idiom.

a. Appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason and attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. Based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason.

b. Fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument:

c. Something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.


Thought so. . . .

[quote=BigMike


The eastern bloc [I]had[/I] to collapse if they were to have any chance for a large influx of western cash which they sorely needed. Make no mistake, there was nothing circumstantial about the fall of the Iron Curtain.

As far as Wotyla goes...his relationship with the Kremlin was as bishop, archbishop and cardinal in Poland. He fared pretty well compared with some under those circumstances. His survival and that of his church should be indicative of the depth of it...[I]he knew how to get along with the c*******ts and Vatican policy has been (paraphrasing...I can find the quote) to, "teach" socialists how to do it right."

This gradual reconciliation with c*******m (the Vatican understands generational warfare almost as well as the Muslims), the e******n of a Liberation Theology, Jesuit Pope and now bringing back her "wayward daughters" tells me there's been a lot going on that I'm not aware of and I'm more aware than many. Much of it for a long time...since the end of WWII for sure.

At any rate,[/quote]

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

"Both Luther and Calvin underemphasize the guidance of the Church in understanding the Bible and assert the perspicuity, or clearness, and self-interpreting nature of Scripture,"

This simple sentence sums up the nature of the struggle.

To some, I'm sure it must seem as if Luther and Calvin neglected the significance of the role of the Church.

I say they did it on purpose because it was necessary at the time. If I'm not mistaken a lot of folks had their belly full of the Church's role in society.

The Vatican spent centuries trying to keep the common man ignorant of scriptures. Tyndale was burned alive for t***slating the scriptures into English.

The Vatican has polluted itself with politics to the point it's difficult to defend it.

The Vatican has also declared itself to be inerrant.

"Catholics hold that Scripture is a fairly clear document and able to be understood by the average reader, but also that the Church is needed to provide a doctrinal norm (an overall framework)".

It may be true a Church is helpful, but needed is up to the Church. If they can do a better job interpreting scripture than I can, more power to them...but they have to show me first.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

BigMike,

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner, the holidays, and rearranging my computer file system, to access articles that I save and maintain for just this reason and discourse.

Here is an article, that may help your skepticism on the Catholic Church in the t***slation of the The Holy Bible into foreign languages and into the lay vernacular languages of Europe and the world.

I will also send another article on self-interpreting nature of Scripture of the Holy Bible and where both Luther and Calvin erred and went wrong in their theology, understanding.

And the nature of the struggle that you are having.

Was the Catholic Church Historically an Enemy of the Bible? NO . . .

Dave Armstrong
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/was-the-catholic-church-historically-an-enemy-of-the-bible

“The Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body.”
(CCC 103)

We commonly hear accusations along these lines:

Such as that the Church for centuries provided only a few difficult-to-access “chained Bibles” and forbade Bible t***slations in the vernacular.

This broad topic is one of the most cherished anti-Catholic myths, yet in point of fact it's an outrageous falsehood:

Easily overturned by fair-minded historical investigation. I shall attempt to briefly summarize the facts that run counter to this viewpoint.

Perhaps the best and most decisive response to this myth is to cite the preface of the King James 1611 English t***slation of the Bible, which describes the long history of vernacular t***slations in England long before Protestantism ever arose:

Much about that time [1360], even our King Richard the Second's days, John Trevisa t***slated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers t***slated, as it is very probable, in that age . . .

So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, . . . but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any Nation;

No doubt, because it was esteemed most profitable, to cause faith to grow in men's hearts the sooner, . . .

The history of English Bible t***slation (preceded earlier by editions in the earlier common language of Anglo-Saxon) is very long, starting with.

a. Caedmon in the 7th century, Aldhelm
(c. 700).

b. The Venerable Bede
(d. 735), followed by

c. Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert (all in Saxon, the vernacular language of that time in England).

d.King Alfred the Great (849-99) t***slated the Bible, as did Aelfric
(d. c. 1020).

f.Middle English t***slations included those of Orm (late 12th century) and Richard Rolle
(d. c. 1349).


Vernacular Bibles in many languages appeared throughout the early and late Middle Ages (after Latin ceased being a common, widespread language).

Between 1466 and 1517 fourteen t***slations of the Bible were published in High German, and five in Low German.

Raban Maur had t***slated the entire Bible into Teutonic, or old German, in the late 8th century.

Between 1450 to 1520 there were ten French t***slations, and also Bibles rendered in
Belgian,
Bohemian,
Spanish,
Hungarian, and
Russian.

25 Italian versions (with express Church sanction) appeared before 1500, starting at Venice in 1471.

The accusation that the Catholic Church chained Bibles in order to keep them from the common people, is equally wrongheaded and historically misinformed.

The exact opposite is true:

Bibles were chained in libraries so that they would not be stolen, precisely because they were so valued and treasured (especially before the invention of the movable-type printing press in the mid-15th century), in order to be more accessible to all.

Protestants did the same thing themselves for some 300 years.

For example, Eton and Merton Colleges (Oxford) did not remove their chained Bibles until the 18th century.


It is true that the Catholic Church has (at least sometimes) forbidden reading the Bible in the vernacular:

For example, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229.

Can that be explained in a way other than hostility to the Bible?


[/b]The Protestant objection has been that if the Bible were allowed to be read in the language of the people, it would stop false doctrine, not promote it.

Therefore, the Catholic Church was (then and now) supposedly scared to let people read it, because the Bible would refute what are thought to be false doctrines in the Catholic Church.[/b]

I answer as follows:

The Catholic Church, as the guardian of Holy Scripture, opposed only unauthorized t***slations, which is no different from many Protestants today who protest against various t***slations as “liberal” or inaccurate, due to a perceived bias based on the religious beliefs of the t***slator(s).

This flows from a praiseworthy concern for the accurate t***smission of God’s word.

Likewise, the Catholic Church was entitled to have an opinion on the matter also, without being unjustly accused of being “anti-Bible.”

The early Protestants, including Martin Luther himself, often censored or prohibited Catholic t***slations in their districts, on the same basis (while they also were prohibiting the Mass).

It's a double standard, then, to solely accuse the Catholic Church of something that Protestants have always selectively done, too.


The Church prohibited vernacular Bible reading in some circumstances because false doctrine was already rampant, such as in 1229, when the bizarre Gnostic heresy of Catharism was influential.

Protestants claim that the Bible is clear enough to stop such heretical sects, yet they have never achieved doctrinal unity in their own ranks based on the “Bible Alone” as the sole infallible source of authority (or, sola Scriptura).


Moreover, this objection neglects to see that Bible interpretation occurs within a context of an overall belief-system.

If, for example, Baptists read the Bible together, they will arrive at Baptist doctrine, because groups have a way of preserving their own particular beliefs and biases.


Protestant Church historian James Gairdner confirms all this:

The t***h is, the Church of Rome was not at all opposed to the making of t***slations 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 t***slations 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 t***slations . . .

To the possession by worthy lay men of licensed t***slations 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)

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

History is the judge of the Vatican's infallibility and Scripture is the foreteller of its destiny. Its own priests warn of the Jesuit Pope. Francis is pretty old...if he can't get the world religion going he'll get the successor he wants who will. Just watch.

This is NOT a plug for Protestantism...forget that.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

BigMike,

The article sent definitely cleared up your misunderstanding of Biblical history, t***slation's of the bible from the Latin to the vernacular languages and the reason for chained bibles through medieval history and to the reformation . . . .

I have an article for just that argumentation also, give me a minute so you can read scripture, Church oral biblical traditions, the Apostles and the early church fathers on infallibility and Scripture.

Isn't Apologetic's just grand, to provide the answers to your disbelief and chagrin.

Just remember Pope's come and go, their only human and they err politicly, humanly but the Popes do not err on Christ's instruction and Church teaching.

What is infallible is the Christ's Churches teaching, the Magisterium and the Pope's teaching of the Magisterium. It hasn't changed for 1986 years, e.g.

Contraception, Birth Control, Marriage, A******n, Female Priests, etc. the list goes on and on.

Just look at the Protestant demoinations that have changed their theology over the past 80 years or so on the above topics.

I'm not going to point to any direct article, but am going to give you a URL link on.


11/09/2017 The Papacy and Infallibility (Index Page) Over 300 resources and articles at your finger tips . . .

Dave Armstrong
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/11/papacy-index-page.html

Here's an article right up your ally . . . Have at it, . . . bon appetite for your brain . . .

Pope St. John XXIII & Pope Benedict XVI on “Prophets of Doom” [6-9-14]
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/10/pope-st-john-xxiii-pope-benedict-xvi-prophets-doom.html