re: st malachi's prophecy 4 snuff
Hi Briter, this has taken me a while to reply to.
You said: would like to ask you snuff why did the cc go to extreme lengths to disuage the likes of john huss and wycliffe from publishing and preaching the word of god if it did not want sole power over the people?
I say : If only things were so simple. The story of Wycliff is complex and tied up with questions of the role of poverty and possessions by Church and State. Remember he lived at about the time when St Francis began his movement. Basically he was attacking the idea of churchmen having personal possessions, amongst other things. He eventually went on to attack the ideas contained in the word “transubstantiation” which was an attack on the very nature of a sacrament central to the church. He was not condemned because of his translation of the Bible. The Catholic Encyclopedia says this of him (in part): <<<Thus by 1380 Wyclif had set himself in open opposition to the property and government of the Church, he had attacked the pope in most unmeasured terms, he had begun to treat the Bible as the chief and almost the only test of orthodoxy, and to lay more and more stress on preaching. Yet he would have protested against an accusation of heresy. Great freedom was allowed to speculation in the schools, and there was much uncertainty about clerical property. Even the exclusive use of Scripture as a standard of faith was comprehensible at a time when the allegiance of Christendom was being claimed by two popes. It must be added that Wyclif frequently inserted qualifying or explanatory clauses in his propositions, and that, in form at least, he would declare his readiness to submit his opinions to the judgment of the Church. It seems to have been a time of much uncertainty in matters of faith, and the Lollard movement in its earlier stages is remarkable for a readiness of recantation. Wyclif's heretical position became, however, much more pronounced when he denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation. His own position is not quite clear or consistent, but it seems to approach the Lutheran "consubstantiation", for he applied to the Blessed Eucharist his metaphysical principle that annihilation is impossible. To attack so fundamental a doctrine tended to define the position of Wyclif and his followers. Henceforth they tend to become a people apart. The friars, with whom the "reformer" had once been on friendly terms, became their chief enemies, and the State turned against them.>>>>
You said: these men and others prerached a gospel that was alien from anything preached by or published by the cc (which was usually in latin so the peasants couldnt read it). huss was burnt at the stake using wycliffes writings and manuscripts as firewood.
I say: The peasants could not read anyway. Books at the time had to be copied by hand and were very expensive, who could afford to buy them? The Gospel they preached was a little different but not that much different. Even Lutherans and Anglicans call themselves Catholic. The rest of the protestants that followed, of course, are far from the Spirit of Catholicism.
You said: my mother and all of my in laws were staunch catholics. more catholic than the pope. the bible whilst not forbidden to them was a book that was discouraged from being read. and this from the priestys whom they had close relations with.
I say: I note that they were not forbidden but you say a local priest discouraged your relatives. So the Church as a whole should be responsible for a priest who acted against the explicit teachings of the Pope on that subject? I’m sorry your rellies were so treated.
You say: why has the jerusalem edition changed the ten commandments?
I say: This is really weird. What are you talking about? Each of the English translations of the Bible has been translated in various ways to suit various ends. How could the JB change the ten commandments?
You said: and i once asked you if you had read Foxes book of martyrs. Have you? this book might change some of your thinking.
I say: No. I have not read Foxes martyrs. But when it says this of the Irish Church at the beginning of an account of the demise of martyrs in 1641 :
” The gloom of popery had overshadowed Ireland from its first establishment there until the reign of Henry VIII when the rays of the Gospel began to dispel the darkness, and afford that light which until then had been unknown in that island.” I have doubts about its objectivity because it is widely recognized that the Irish church and its monks saved the ancient books we have today from the total destruction by the Barbarians in Europe. So to describe the Irish church as being in a story of gloom is hardly appropriate.
With regard to the persecutions that occurred after Luther I have this to say. It was not a one way street. Besides, the mentality of the time was rather savage in many ways. You must also remember they all believed in an after life so death was not the end of it all. Being savage in punishment, well savage as we would see it today, was part of the fabric so I do not think we should judge the actions of any body from that time. Further, tied up with it all were questions about secular power, it was not all just to do with questions of religious belief.
You said: it waas not left to the cc as the sole provider and domain of the word of god. the lord purposely would not have domne this because the seeds of corruption are sown. the priests of the cc are no different to the priests of egypt or the mayans.
I say: There are a lot of things in those few words. You forget one thing, Jesus specifically said “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against you”, and “I am with you always to the close of the age”. Christ specifically guaranteed freedom from error.
Think of what Jesus said to Peter. “You are the rock on which I will build my church.” That was one man. Jesus specifically named one man, are you suggesting Jesus lied?
You said: power and control is what these people want. not the truth about the word of god. the vicar of christ is not the vicar of christ. we all have the power to commune with god we do not need the mediation of a corrupt organisation of men who follow doctrines of devils.
I say: Control of people is the last thing the CC wants. What it wants is to see people freely following Christ according the Truths it espouses. As I see it, the only time the Church gets really upset is when people start to teach doctrines that are contrary to the deposit of faith it teaches and does so in the name of the Church.
You said: an examople you might like to check is marriage in the pristhhod. 1Tim specifically statews that have any type of leadership in the church one must be the husband of one wife. the same with the jews. to be a member of the sanhedrin one hadto be married. this then prevnnts such evils as paedophilia in the church. in other words or more succinctly the church banned the bible
I say: You are sadly mistaken if you think a married priesthood would make any difference to that situation. Any way, Paul extolled the virtue of virginity. The Church is quite explicit about married priests, it is a church law which from its 2000 year history has shown itself to be the best solution. Remember Christ did not marry. In the West we live by the Latin rite where this rule applies to all priests, in the other minor rites in Union with Rome, priests are allowed to marry before ordination but they may never become Bishops. Of course in the Latin rite the Pope may allow ordination of ordained clergy men from other faiths, like the Anglicans.
See below an authoritative statement about the issue of reading the bible. It is from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
My final point is this. Protestantism that uses the Bible alone as the foundation for its faith is a doomed system. It is regrettable that due to the nature of Man every man who picks up the book will read what he wants into the book. If he does not, he will just follow the understandings that some other man has read into the words on the page. My late wife was the follower of such a teaching. Almost 160 years this guy reads the Bible and sees a set of doctrines that he codifies. He then convinced others that his interpretation was right. They then began following his teachings. When some of his followers then started really reading the bible they came up with different ideas that eventually lead to a split. If you follow the story or Protestantism this is a recurring theme. If you then step back and use your rational mind and see things scientifically this constant splitting leads one to the conclusion that the very basis of the system it the problem. In other words, the Bible Alone is a flawed basis for Faith.
When I read about two protestant churches in the US arguing and rejecting each other over whether Christ was nailed to the cross with 3 nails of 4 nails then I could see the absurdity of the Protestant position. I think one of my Protestant friends has finally arrived at the logical end of Protestantism. He has set up his own church in his own house in which his family participate. The total destruction of the idea of Church has thus been destroyed.
Thank you for the opportunity to engage. VI. ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH TOWARDS THE READING OF THE BIBLE IN THE VERNACULAR The attitude of the Church as to the reading of the Bible in the vernacular may be inferred from the Church's practice and legislation. It has been the practice of the Church to provide newly-converted nations, as soon as possible, with vernacular versions of the Scriptures; hence the early Latin and oriental translations, the versions existing among the Armenians, the Slavonians, the Goths, the Italians, the French, and the partial renderings into English. As to the legislation of the Church on this subject, we may divide its history into three large periods: (1) During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not promulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the Sacred Books according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", III, iv). (2) The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text (St. Gregory VII, "Epist.", vii, xi). The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned ("Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, "Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III", Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.). After the death of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: "prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere" (Hefele, "Concilgesch", Freiburg, 1863, V, 875). In 1233 the Synod of Tarragona issued a similar prohibition in its second canon, but both these laws are intended only for the countries subject to the jurisdiction of the respective synods (Hefele, ibid., 918). The Third Synod of Oxford, in 1408, owing to the disorders of the Lollards, who in addition to their crimes of violence and anarchy had introduced virulent interpolations into the vernacular sacred text, issued a law in virtue of which only the versions approved by the local ordinary or the provincial council were allowed to be read by the laity (Hefele, op. cit., VI, 817). (3) It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, "Dominici gregis", the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix. Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it. This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible, by the Bull "Unigenitus" issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.
