Where is the reformation in the Bible?
- Thread starter theefaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The message of our loving God to such critics would be to put aside their
prejudice and hatred and taste and see the goodness of the Lord in the Catholic community.If Christ had intended that men should learn Christianity from the New Testament, what about the hundreds who lived before the first Bible was given to the world by the Catholic Church?
Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the fist Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.
Last edited:
And I am one at 77. Just wait until I hit 107... well now that will be the day !
Probably seeing better than I... these days.
The message of our loving God to such critics would be to put aside their
If Christ had intended that men should learn Christianity from the New Testament, what about the hundreds who lived before the first Bible was given to the world by the Catholic Church?
Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the fist Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.
bibles were copied by hand by monks (Protestants rejects such men)
They were very rare it took a lifetime to copy one bible and very expensive
And most people were in able to read
Well the starting for encountering it is not so far away as that...
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding" Prov 9:10
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
The message of our loving God to such critics would be to put aside their
Facts and truth seem to Catholics like prejudice and hatred.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Article 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE
I. Christ - The Unique Word of Sacred Scripture
101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66
104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText (vatican.va)
SACRED SCRIPTURE
I. Christ - The Unique Word of Sacred Scripture
101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66
104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText (vatican.va)
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
isn't it the state of imagination?I don't know if the Forum even has an address.. hmm
tough question.
I forgot where @April_Rose said we were going.
But it's a good place.
C'mon over..
here's a ticket for the virtual bus..
CB Camp
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
You could say that..
It's fellowship either way..
Com on over
Fellowship Forum
CB Camp
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
from the badly written anti-Catholic web site posted by Wrangler:
Perhaps the best and most decisive response to this myth is to cite the preface of the King James 1611 English translation of the Bible, which describes the long history of vernacular translations in England long before Protestantism ever arose:
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 translations 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:
(Lollardy and the Reformation in England, Vol. 1 of 4, 1908, 105, 117)
ITEM #2 COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.
The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229....
...goes on to lie by omission.
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 translations 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.The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229....
...goes on to lie by omission.
Perhaps the best and most decisive response to this myth is to cite the preface of the King James 1611 English translation of the Bible, which describes the long history of vernacular translations in England long before Protestantism ever arose:
Much about that time [1360], even our King Richard the Second's days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, 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 translation (preceded earlier by editions in the earlier common language of Anglo-Saxon) is very long, starting with Caedmon in the 7th century, Aldhelm (c. 700), the Venerable Bede (d. 735), followed by Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert (all in Saxon, the vernacular language of that time in England). King Alfred the Great (849-99) translated the Bible, as did Aelfric (d. c. 1020). Middle English translations included those of Orm (late 12th century) and Richard Rolle (d. 1349).
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 translations 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 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.
Was the Catholic Church Historically an Enemy of the Bible?| National Catholic Register (ncregister.com)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)
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
VATICAN CITY – On the first Sunday of Lent, Pope Francis said if we want to fight against the temptation of sin, we must be familiar with the Word of God – treating the Bible more like how we treat our cellphone.
“During the forty days of Lent, as Christians we are called to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and address the spiritual battle against evil with the power of the Word of God,” he said March 5. “For this you have to become familiar with the Bible, read it often, meditate on it, assimilate it.”
“Someone said: what would happen if we treated the Bible like we treat our cell phone? If we always carried it with us; or at least the small pocket-sized Gospel, what would happen?”
Pope Francis spoke to pilgrims before leading the Angelus in St. Peter’s Square, drawing a stark comparison between the attention we give our cellphones and the attention we give Scripture, for example, always taking it with us, and going back if we forget it at home.
“You forget you mobile phone – oh! I do not have it, I go back to look for it; if you read the messages of God contained in the Bible as we read the messages of the phone…” he said.
Pope Francis: Do you read the Bible as often as you check your phone? (catholicregister.org)
“During the forty days of Lent, as Christians we are called to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and address the spiritual battle against evil with the power of the Word of God,” he said March 5. “For this you have to become familiar with the Bible, read it often, meditate on it, assimilate it.”
“Someone said: what would happen if we treated the Bible like we treat our cell phone? If we always carried it with us; or at least the small pocket-sized Gospel, what would happen?”
Pope Francis spoke to pilgrims before leading the Angelus in St. Peter’s Square, drawing a stark comparison between the attention we give our cellphones and the attention we give Scripture, for example, always taking it with us, and going back if we forget it at home.
“You forget you mobile phone – oh! I do not have it, I go back to look for it; if you read the messages of God contained in the Bible as we read the messages of the phone…” he said.
Pope Francis: Do you read the Bible as often as you check your phone? (catholicregister.org)
