Reformists

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 15 2004, 06:55 PM'] history has shown that so long as your spreading of the protestant gospel didn't include criminal activity like murder or adultery or abortion or something, you'd end up in jail in a Catholic state. [/quote]
John Hus, burned at the stake for promoting John Wycliffe's ideas that people should be allowed to read the bible in thier native tongue and oppose the tyrany of rome, which had threatened execution of anyone possessing anything else but a latin vulgate.

Wycliffes remains, having died some years earlier, were ordered dug and and burned by papal command. Imagine that.

Savonarola was hanged and burned at the stake in Florence Italy for heresy.

Thomas Bilney was an ordained priest who preached that salavation was through Christ alone, and that rites and rituals were empty unless undertaken with this attitude. He denounced the worship of relics and saints and that the idolatry of christendom had kept the jews from Christ. He didn't differ with the church over communion, the mass, confession or any substantial doctrines, just these. He was burned to death.

John Frith was burned because he denied that the eucharist was Christ's body and blood. He witnessed to the man who was being burned with him, Andrew Hewitt. It took two hours for them to die because the wind was blowing the fire away from them.

William Tyndale was garroted and burned at the stake. His big blasphemy? Printing the new testiment in English and using Greek and Hebrew souces rather than latin sources.

Bishops Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley... John Hooper and John Bradford... Arch Bishop Thomas Cranmer watched them burn, but that didn't stop him from staying true to his beliefs. He too was burned to death.

History paints a different picture.

[Guest Aluigi]

1) have i ever claimed every execution in history was just? nope

2) the history of the inquisition shows they mainly executed those who committed crimes due to their heresy

of course there were some killed for simply spreading heresy, but that was less common and your beloved reformers often slaughtered people who refused to convert from Catholocism, going city to city burning every book except the Bible and all that. i'm not defending all execution, just most of the inquisition executions (because it was against heretical criminals)

i'm sure some of your examples are somewhat distorted.. but the Church did try to stop ppl from making faulty translations of the Bible, there were many misleading eroneous translations and if ppl just learned the Bible the way it was meant to be learnt, but it being read outloud in Church, it would have been simple.

even men in high places are sinners. but Church doctrine is not affected by their sins, and Church doctrine is the only thing i'm concerned about.

anyway, i'm just sayin, it's all past, protestants and Catholics did dreadful things to one another back in the day. but the state executing people for criminal heresy is not wrong.

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Sep 10 2004, 11:41 PM'] Many times during AP Euro history, I find it disturbing to realize how often reformists claim (esp. Luther) who's their actions were oxymornic to their beliefs.

The first one I noticed, the Church holds the doctrine of men, and the doctrines weren't of God. The doctrines of all the reformists were beliefs of men... made up by them. This is a quick flaw in their thinking.

They screamed scripture is our authority, but even scripture suggests to stick to what your teachers have taught you.

The reformists claimed in Faith alone as being salvic, however, he rejected Trans. (can't spell it) which is the greatest sign of Christian faith.

Luther often time criticized the Church for being political, but Luther's movement was a political movmeent in that whenever Luther's doctrines didn't stand up at the debate table, he'd turn to the error of the people of the Church.

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but this list seems to be about right to me.

God bless,

Mikey [/quote]
I think he was against the whole charging for forgiveness and the complete social"wealth" basis that the church was ran under.

Besides Luther didn't want to split the church.

[Guest Aluigi]

Pope Leo X accepted over 40 of Martin Luther's Theses, and they were enacted by the Council of Trent (not like, specifically Martin Luther's theses, but what they said was the same thing Trent said); and the other 40 plus were doctrinal things that the Church said no, that's contrary to the Church's DOCTRINE.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 15 2004, 09:15 PM'] I think he was against the whole charging for forgiveness and the complete social"wealth" basis that the church was ran under.

Besides Luther didn't want to split the church. [/quote]
The Church was not run under the corruption. There are corrupt people in the Church, but that doesn't mean that the Church was corrupt.

Luther didn't want to split the Church, he wanted originally to fix problems with some members of the Church. He went about it a bad and uncharitable way, and by the end, he still didn't want to split the Church; he wanted the whole Church to slip into heresy.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I think the Gospel reading from today's Mass was a bit providential:


[quote]As he drew near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging; and hearing a multitude going by, he inquired what this meant.  They told him, "Jesus of Nazareth is passing by."  And he cried, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"  And those who were in front rebuked him, telling him to be silent; but he cried out all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"  And Jesus stopped, and commanded him to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him, "What do you want me to do for you?" He said, "Lord, let me receive my sight."  And Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has made you well."  And immediately he received his sight and followed him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.  -Luke 18:35-43[/quote]

The blind man in today's reading had faith. He could have stayed silent and just believed in silence, but his faith compelled him to speak out and cry out to God. The faith he expressed in that act, which the people tried to stiffle, is what made Jesus turn to him. The people tried to silence him, and yet we see that he truly was compelled by faith because he continued to cry out. Christ turned to him and said that his faith saved him. Not the act of crying out, but the faith he expressed in that cry, in that act. We express our faith in our acts, because our faith compels us to do so. Not only do we see that Christ tells him his faith has saved him, but the miracle yields two other results. The faith he expressed gained him his sight, which is comparable to how our faith, expressed through works, builds up our faith even more, as faith is similar to sight, in that it lets us see God. Faith is like a spiritual eye. Furthermore, his faith, expressed in works, allows him to do more works better, which we see in the joy and glory he gives to God. We can see then that faith acting through love, expressed in works, lays a foundation to help our spiritual life in other ways. Faith builds on faith. Moreover, the faith he expresses through works causes those who had wanted him to be silent to glorify God as well. We see then that faith acting through works can change the hearts of sinners and can cause others to have faith and to express it in works.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 15 2004, 08:53 PM'] 1) have i ever claimed every execution in history was just? nope

[/quote]
If you are saying that it is not just to kill Hus, then that is against the Church's teaching. You seem to think the act of preaching heresy is not something that is worthy of the death penalty. If that is the case, the Church teaches differently.

[Quietfire]

Wycliffe's version of the Bible was not a correct version, and because he was using it as a means of corrupting the people's faith and of teaching them false doctrine.

The simple facts about Wycliffe.

Born in 1320.
became a priest and theologian and lecturer at Oxford: and at first caused notoriety by taking part with the State against the claims of the Pope in regard to tribute money and benefices.
But in course of a few years he went further and began to oppose the Church not only in matters of policy or government(which may at times been conceivably pardonable) but in the things of Faith.

Accused of preaching novel and uncommon doctrines, he was inhibited by Pope Gregory XI from further teaching.

No more proceedings were taken against him (although he didnt desist from his anti-Papal teaching) til 1381 when again he was making himself notorious.

He attacked the friars and Religious Orders with bitterness, impugned transubstantiation, and seemed to advocate the theory that was afterwards peculiarly Luther's.

Ridiculed Indulgences and flooded the country with pamphlets and tracks with heresy.
He was in short, a "Lollard". (check out Chambers Cyclopedia or a Catholic encyclodpedia)

I could go on, but Wycliffe died on December 31, 1384, after a stroke of paralysis while hearing Mass.

The whole digging up and burning is new to me.


Tomorrow I will post more.
Again, there seems to be the typical misunderstanding of the Bible being put into the 'common' language and the Church burning people and such for doing so.
There is much proof to show those arguements are wrong, some of which from Protestantism itself.

Pax.

[Quietfire]

I promised that I would post more today, I hope you have your reading glasses on....The written word of God...

[u]'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.' 2 St.Peter iii, 16.[/u]

Havent you ever wondered what "the other scriptures" were?

Ok. Nevermind, lets move on to the subject at hand. I dare say, many will not read, as this is a long post. But it will be worht every second of it.

As far as Wycliffe or Tyndale being the only such men who put Scripture in English, I say to that, Hogwash. An out and out lie.

During the Middle Ages, the people who could read at all could read Latin; hence there was little need for the Church to issue the Scriptures in any other language.
BUT....
she did. As a matter of fact she did put Scripture in the hands of her children in their own tongue.
1. We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and the Gospels in [i]Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, and Hungarian[/i] for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing. But for the sake of this particular arguement we will stick stricly with England.
*I must note though that England did not always speak English(as we now know it, nor the type of English seen in day when folks spoke like that of Shakespeare.)
But to continue...
To anyone that has investigated (TRULY INVESTIGATED) the REAL facts of the case, this fondly cherished notion must seem truly ridiculous; it is not only absolutely false, but stupidly so, inasmuch as it admits of such easy disproof; one wonders that nowadays any lecturer or writer should have the termitity to advance it.
I am speaking of the days before the printing press was invented. I am speaking of England; and the Church which did not, and does not, admit the necessity of Bible-reading for salvation: and concerning an age when the production of the Scriptures was a most costly business, and far beyond the mens of nearly everybody.

I can safely assert and prove that there were many copies of the Scriptures in English in exsistance among the people of that day.
We have the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the [i]seventh century[/i].
In the [i]eighth century[/i], we have the well known translation of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died while busy with the Gospel of St. John.
Also in the eight century there was Eadhilm, Bishop of Sherborne. Guthlae, a hermit near Peterborough; and Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island. These were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time.
Moving on...
We have the free translations of King Alfred the Great who was working at the Psalms when he died, and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury; as well as popular renderings of Holy Scripture like the Book of Durham, and the Rushworth Gloss and others that have survived the wreck of ages.

After the Norman conquest of 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known.
the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150)
the Salus Animae (1250)
the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349)
I say advisedly 'specimens' for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwads perished.

We have proof of this in the words of the Blessed Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says:'The whole Bible long before Wycliff's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read' (Dialogues III) Again, 'The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approbed for good, or such as be already reproved for naught(meaning naughty or bad) as Wycliff's was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff's days, they remain lawful and be in some folks' hands. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen's hands, such as he knew for good and CAtholic folk, that used them with sobernes and devotion'
You will undoubtedly say that that is the witness of a Roman Catholic. Very well, continue to hear a PROTESTANT testimony....
The translators of the Authorized Version, in their 'Preface', referring to previous translations of the Scriptures into the language of the people, make the following important statements. After speaking of the Greek and Latin Versions, they proceed...

'The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin...but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thristed after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the [u]Vulgar[/u] for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under Heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their Mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by the written word translated.'

Moreover, the 'Reformed' Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface to the Bible of 1540: 'The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.'

There is Foxe, a man of Protestant trust who says: ' If histories be well explained, we shall find, both before the Conquest and after, as well before John Wycliff was born or since, the whole body of Scripture by sundry men translated into our contry tongue.'
From the pen of Rev.J.H. Blunt, a Protestant author, in his History of the English Bible,; 'But as of the earlier period, so of this, there are none but fragmentary remains, the "many copies" which remained when Cranmer wrote in 1540 having doubtless disappeard in the vast and ruthless destruction of libraries which took place within a few years after that date.'

Another Angelican dignitary, Dean Hook, tells us that....' long before Wycliff's time there had been translators of Holy Writ'

One more authority on the Protestant side. Mr Karl Pearson (Academy, August, 1885) who says:
' The Catholic Church has quite enough to answer for, but in the 15th century it certainly did not hold back the Bible from the folk: and it gave them in the vernacular (ie. their own tongue) a long series of devotional works which for language and religious sentiment have never been surpassed. Indeed, we are inclined to think it made a mistake in allowing the masses such ready access to the Bible. It ought to have recognised the Bible once for all as a work absolutely unintellegeble without a long course of historical study, and , so far as it was supposed to be inspired, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant.'

Now I dont know what Mr. Pearsons religious standpoint may have been, but he goes too far in blaming the Church for throwing the Bible open to the people in the 15th century, or indeed in any previous age. NO evil results whatsoever followed the reading of that precious volume in any century preceding the 16th, because the people had the Catholic Church to lead them and guide them and teach them the meaning of it.
It was only when the principle of "Private Judgement" was proclaimed that the Book became 'dangerous' and unintelligible' , as it is still to the multitudes who will not receive the true (as in TRUTH) interpretation of it at the hands of the Catholic Church, and who are about as competent to understand and explain it by themselves as they are to explain or prophesy the movements of the heavenly bodies.

There is no need to waste further time in accumulating proofs that the Bible was known, read and distributed by the Catholic Church in the Common language of the people of all countries from the 7th down to the 14th. I have paid more attention to the case in England because of the popularity of the myth about Wycliff having been the first to translate it.

Such a grosteque notion can only be due to either to ignorance or concealment of the well known facts of history. Now, one would fain hope that, in this age of enlightenment and study, no one valuing his scholarship will so far imperil it as to attempt to revive the silly fable.

BUT....supposing it were true as it is false, that John Wycliff was the first to publish the Bible in English, how in the name of reason and sanity can it be true at the same time that Luther, more than 100 years afterwards, discovered it?
Really now, people need to decide which contradictory of the other. Wycliff or Luther, let it be; but Wycliff and Luther together-that is impossible.

Pax.

[Quietfire]

This is in response to your claim in reference to William Tyndale.

William Tyndale and for that matter Martin Luther, was born almost 100 years after Wycliff died, that is, 1484. He studied at Oxford and became a priest, and was seized with the ambition of getting the Bible printed in England. His goal was to have the Bible printed in England. (By now we had the Printing press)

(side note-the first book ever printed was the Mazarin Bible-after Cardinal Mazarin)

Ok, back to my point. There were three great objections to having this step taken.

1. Tyndale was not the man to do it; he was uttery unfitted for such a great work. He says himself he was 'evil favored in this world, and without grace in the sight of men, speechless and rude, dull and slow witted.'
He had no special qualifications for the task of translation. He was but a mediocre scholar, and could not boast of anything above the average intellect. Indeed, non-Catholic authors have admitted that the cause of Scripture reading in the vernaular was distinctly prejudiced by having been taken in hand by incapable men like Tyndale.

2. He was acting entirely on his own account, and without authorization from ecclesiastical superiors, either in England or in Rome; he was simply a private obscure priest, and was acting without commission and without sanction from higher quarters. Indeed, he was acting in disobedience to the decision of higher authorities.

Now, I am now quoting the Angelican Dore'...At the beginning of the 16th century' the authorities of the English Church took into consideration the desirability of introducing a vernacular Bible into England, and the great majority of the Council were of opinion that, considering the religious troubles on the Continent and the unsettled state of things at home, at this juncture the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue, and its circulation among the people, would rather tend to confusion and distraction than to edification.

Now, you may lament all you wish (as Dore' does) this decision as an error of judgement, and affirm that the postponement of an English version in print authorised by the Bishops was a most unfortunate event, as leading to false and corrupt versions being issued by irresponsible individuals. But right or wrong in their judgment, this was the conscienctious conclusion at which the Councel under Archbishop Wareham arrived: no printed English Bible meanwhile was to be allowed; And after all is said and done, they were probably better judges than WE ARE as to what was best for the Church of that time in England.

The Lutheran Revolution was in full swing abroad (1520) and the Lutheran heresy was spreading everwhere, carrying with it rebellion and immorality, and the English Bishops might well have cause to fear lest the infection should poison the faithful under their own jurisdiction.

3. There was no demand for a printed English Bible to any great extent-certainly not to the extent of making it at all an urgent or pressing duty on the part of the authorities to issue one. Dore' (already quoted above) ridicules the idea that at that time England was a "Bible-thirsty land". He declares that 'there was no anxiety whatever for an English version excepting among a small monority of the people.' AND ' the universal desire for a Bible in England we read so much of in most works on the subject existed only in the imagination of the writers'.
Another Protestant writer Dr. Brewer so scoffs at the idea, to the point of being insulted. ' To imagine', he says, 'that ploughmen and shepherds in the country read the New Testament in English by stealth, or that smiths and carpenters in town pored over its pages in the corner of their master's workshops, is to mistake the character and acquirements of the age.'

There has, in short, been a great deal of wild and groundless talk about the intense desire of the people of that century to devour the Scriptures. And I can prove it by these simple facts, that.
1. The people had to be compelled by law to buy Bibles, for Acts were passed again and again threatening the King's despleasure and a fine of 40s.per month if the Book was not purchased.
2. There is documented evidence that inhabitants of certain parts of the country, such as Cornwall and Devonshire, unanimously objected to the new translation, and that even among the clergy Reformers like Bishop Hugh Latimer almost entirely ignored the English copy and always took their texts from the Latin Vulgate.
3. Printers had large stocks of printed Bibles on their hands, and could not get rid of them at any price, except under legal coercion.
4. The same edition of the Bible was ofter re-issued with fresh titles and preliminary matter, and new title-pages were composed for old unsold Bibles, without any regard to truth, simply to get them sold.

As one can see, there was really no extensive demand for English Bibles among the mass of Christians at that time in England, whether clergy or laity, and that the design of spreading them wholesale among the masses was borrowed from the Continent which was then in a perfect ferment of Religious and Civil Revolution. You can then understand at once how Tyndale's proposal was viewed with suspicion and disfavor by the Bishops, and himself refused any assistance or encouragement from Tunstall, Bishop of London, and other prelates. And when we further bear in mind(as the [i]Atheneum[/i] pertinently remarked, Aug.24,1889) that this irresponsible private chaplain had become already known as a man of dangerous views, who was exceedingly nsulting in his manner, unscrupulous, and of a most violent temper; that in postprandial discussions he repeatedly abused and insulted Church dignitaries who were present; that with him the Pope was anti-Christ and the whore of Babylon, whilst the monks and friars were 'caterpillars, horseleeches, drone-bees, and draff', we shall not be vastly astonished that these dignitaries did not evince much enthusiasm in pushing on Mr. Tydale's scheme.

Rather than continue on in this discourse. It is obvious that Tyndale was not a man in his right mind to do the job, and now all see the fruit of his work.

On the issue of his death. I would never concede that the Church (as many think) would allow so much as for this man to be put to death in the manner of which you discuss. While I admit to the fact that there are evil men in every aspect of this world, to assume that some of them in the Church itself may have had a role in his death would not be farfetched. I have never blamed Rome in this instance. Men decide for themselves their own perverted power and make choices that may or may not effect others. Blame the specific man for the action, not the Church. Henry VIII himself went to the greatest of lengths to put a stop to Tyndale tyranny. He passed laws and edicts within England banning Tyndale's work, with fines and imprisonment and DEATH as a recourse for those who followed Tyndale, before he himself had a hissy fit because the Church would not allow him a divorce. So he left the Church because he too, could not get his way. How selfish, to assume that we have more right of way than God Himself. How outstandinly stupid to assume that the laws of God can be twisted and perverted to suit ones own personal desires, lusts, and wants.

Do the research, have a bit of critical thinking on this matter before you unjustly accuse. The facts of Tyndales works are obvious, but some refuse to see it as that. They hide behind misconceptions and run away when the truth is exposed. Or they change the tune. Or worst of all, they simply refuse to accept the Truth as Truth. They would rather clothe themselves within a lie or misconception, then to stand nakedly in front of the Truth.

Pax.

Edited November 16, 2004 by Quietfire

[noncatholicname]

Classic.

Justify the sin by belittling those sinned against. Don't bother to reply to this because I'm done. You have the victory. You win.

All of you who would kill us heretics, I salute you.

Edited November 16, 2004 by noncatholicname

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='noncatholicname' date='Nov 16 2004, 04:24 PM'] Classic.

Justify the sin by belittling those sinned against. Don't bother to reply to this because I'm done. You have the victory. You win.

All of you who would kill us heretics, I salute you. [/quote]
I don't know who called you a heretic, but that's forbidden on this phorum.

Not all of us are trying to be rude, so please don't be rude to us.

[Quietfire]

[quote name='noncatholicname' date='Nov 16 2004, 03:24 PM'] Classic.

Justify the sin by belittling those sinned against. Don't bother to reply to this because I'm done. You have the victory. You win.

All of you who would kill us heretics, I salute you. [/quote]
If, as you say, I in particular have called you such, then please tell me, show me. The information I posted was not an attack, but simply a clarification. You accuse the Church (eg. the entire collective of the Church-I doubt you meant a building) in such foul things. I and others wished to only explain that there are bad people yes... but the Church cannot be that of her children-She is not bad.
You can accuse....but I cannot defend?

The words that I entered in the above posts are not mine, even though they are true, they are still not mine. (With the exception of the very last paragraph)

I quoted from several books all the above information.
I believe though that I proved my point.

If I am mislead as to my post...If I was wrong in ANY of the information I provided, then I implore YOU to correct me. All of the information should be available to the public. If its out there, it can be found. One need only search.

Why are you running away? I asked for you to at least investigate what was written above, to see if you found it to be true also.

If it is wrong, I will be corrected if not by you then by my fellow PM'ers.(as in my original post on this particular thread) I am nowhere near as learned as most here. I have only been on this forum since April when I seriously wished to learn Catholicism. My profile explains all that.(I think). I am not above being corrected, that is how I learn. Im not sure how most other people get their information or how they learn, but for me personally....make a mistake-admit it-get corrected-move on.

I am not even received in the Church.
Yet as Protestant, I myself had a hard time accepting the Truth. I didnt want to believe any of the information posted above or any thing else from the mouths of Catholics, but upon looking for the Truth, I found it.





Catholic by desire....and humbled by it.


Pax.

[Don John of Austria]

QUitefire you and I often disagree, but that was an excellent post.

And Raphael I called hima heretic but not as an attack, as a correction, he called himself an Infidel which as a christian he certianly is not I informed him he as a Christian would be a Heretic not an Infidel. He already saw himself as a victim at that point, I was just correcting his terminology.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 18 2004, 10:35 AM'] And Raphael I called hima heretic but not as an attack, as a correction, he called himself an Infidel which as a christian he certianly is not I informed him he as a Christian would be a Heretic not an Infidel. He already saw himself as a victim at that point, I was just correcting his terminology. [/quote]
Ah, well, in that context, I suppose it works...