Apostolic councils?

[Marymog]

Yes, that is true, but I would not give any men any more authority than that which is warranted - how faithfully they handed down the tradition. Succession or lineage does not determine truth and veracity, obedience and humility does. The arrogance of the Popes, for one, entirely disqualify them from the appellation of being a successor to the Apostles.

Hi,

You didn't answer the question: According to your theory, When did the Christian man stop being taught the Truth? (or stop teaching the Truth)

 

[Marymog]

You show more faith in man, than you do in the wisdom of God. I don't want to hear you tell me who, or where, you think that the Church is. Take a look around you, research history, and consequently one will see that only a credulous and misguided person would believe that there is such an authority on earth.
Accept what God has given us, and accept the means by which He preserved His Word - extremely unconventional. This is the wisdom of God, it is not the wicked Papacy, nor the Byzantine, nor Protestant Churches, it is every man for himself. All men must come to God on their own, indoctrination will not save them, the Pope will not take responsibility for leading anyone astray, so don't put your faith in him, or any man, or any institution. God hates a haughty spirit, and this is indicative of such entities like the massive Churches on earth. In the same manner, He preserved His Word in a humble and unassuming manner - no autographs, only a fragmentary witness pre 3rd century, 400K variances, copies of copies of copies, etc... - no glory outside of the fact that we still have the words of salvation and edification.

Why do you put faith in what YOU teach, preach, believe and YOUR interpretation of Scripture if we are not to put faith in any man? Are you not a man?

I agree with you. We should not put faith in any man. That is why I am Catholic. I have faith in The Church which is the pillar and foundation of Truth of which we are to go to when we want to settle our differences.

Sounds like you should be Catholic also if you do not put your faith in man....

 

[BreadOfLife]

You show more faith in man, than you do in the wisdom of God. I don't want to hear you tell me who, or where, you think that the Church is. Take a look around you, research history, and consequently one will see that only a credulous and misguided person would believe that there is such an authority on earth.
Accept what God has given us, and accept the means by which He preserved His Word - extremely unconventional. This is the wisdom of God, it is not the wicked Papacy, nor the Byzantine, nor Protestant Churches, it is every man for himself. All men must come to God on their own, indoctrination will not save them, the Pope will not take responsibility for leading anyone astray, so don't put your faith in him, or any man, or any institution. God hates a haughty spirit, and this is indicative of such entities like the massive Churches on earth. In the same manner, He preserved His Word in a humble and unassuming manner - no autographs, only a fragmentary witness pre 3rd century, 400K variances, copies of copies of copies, etc... - no glory outside of the fact that we still have the words of salvation and edification.

Do you adhere to a 39-Book OT canon or a 46-Book OT canon?
Please tell me which one you adhere to and WHY.

 

[DNB]

YOUR version of Christ's Church doesn't exist - nor did He build it that way.

First of all - Christ's Church has ALWAYS been made of imperfect people. He built His Church on 11 COWARDS and 1 DEVIL (Judas).
What makes YOU think that His Church today would be filled with "perfect" people? There is NO such thing.

Secondly - Jesus transferred His Authority onto the leaders of His Church . . .
Matt 16:18-19
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

This is SUPREME earthly Authority.
Paul also speaks of those who have this Authority over Christ's people:
1 Cor. 12:28
Some people God has designated in the church to be, FIRST, apostles; SECOND, prophets; THIRD, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you,

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

YOU speak against Christ's Church with an ANTI-Biblical tongue . . .

The Apostles testified to their authority with signs and wonders, and their comportment. There is no post-apostolic period, clergy, priest or presbyter or so on, that can claim the same authority. Scripture was handed down, and it was due to the fact that there was no single governing authority to determine canon, is what makes what we have authentic. Neither the Eastern, Western Churches, or their offshoots established inspired Scripture, it was the ability to assess all the manuscripts that were available, including gnostic or apocryphal, that allowed both the theologian and the technician to define canon.

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB<

So you trust what man handed down by tradition but you don't trust what man AFFIRMED by Council? That is an interesting take on it since traditionally various Christian churches around the world accepted various letters (books) as inspired!!

Traditionally some churches accepted Clement, The Didache etc. as inspired Scripture (part of their bible) and they read them during church services. When did those churches STOP accepting them as inspired and WHY?

You say for the most part you accept their decision on what books belong in Scripture. Which books do you think they left out OR have included in Scripture that don't belong?

Curious Mary

I trust what was handed down, only because textual criticism has verified it, that it was inspired. Man's councils do not follow a tradition from the Church, or they continue where an inspired Apostle had left off. They dealt with distinct and specific issues that were somewhat foreign to the church, and their decisions were not inspired and barely Scriptural. To the point that I profoundly disagree with all of them.

As far as the Books are concerned, I'm not 100% percent confident that we have all the Books (eg: Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, or Paul's severe letter to the Corinthians, etc,...). I'm not 100% confident of the authorship of certain Books (eg: Genesis, 2 Samuel, ...)

 

[DNB]

Hi,

You didn't answer the question: According to your theory, When did the Christian man stop being taught the Truth? (or stop teaching the Truth)

When his faith and humility expired.

 

[Stumpmaster]

Learn to understand the CONTEXT of Scripture instead of simply blurting out verses willy-nilly . . .

Jesus isn't condemning the use of the term "Father" in Matt. 23:9. He is using hyperbole (exaggeration) to make a point and does so many times in Scripture.
In the verse that precedes this (Matt: 23:8), Jesus tells us not to call people “Teachers”. Is Jesus telling us that we can’t call certain people "fathers" or “teachers” when they may actually be fathers or teachers? Absolutely NOT. He is telling us that no man is to be considered father ABOVE our Father in heaven and no person is to be considered teacher above our Teacher in heaven.

Jesus was speaking about the Scribes and Pharisees who exalted themselves before all:
“They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi” (Matt 23:6-7).

Consider the following passages:
"Honor thy FATHER and thy mother" (Exod 20:12).
Jesus said, “Your FATHER Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
Stephen refers to "our FATHER Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
Paul speaks of "our FATHER Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
"For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a TEACHER of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7).
"For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and TEACHER" (2 Tim. 1:11).
"God has appointed in the church first Apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERS" (1 Cor. 12:28).

YOUR problem is that you don't understand context . . .

You don't seem to understand the difference between the possessive case used as an attributive adjective and the use of bogus titles. Mother Superior...? Really?

 

[DNB]

Why do you put faith in what YOU teach, preach, believe and YOUR interpretation of Scripture if we are not to put faith in any man? Are you not a man?

I agree with you. We should not put faith in any man. That is why I am Catholic. I have faith in The Church which is the pillar and foundation of Truth of which we are to go to when we want to settle our differences.

Sounds like you should be Catholic also if you do not put your faith in man....

No, you just contradicted yourself, the Roman Catholic Church is a man-made Church - you didn't know?
There is no office of the Pope, there is no intercession of the saints nor eucharist, nor indulgences, nor rosarie, no theotokos, nor confession, etc...
What has Rome got to do with Jerusalem or Christ?

 

[DNB]

Do you adhere to a 39-Book OT canon or a 46-Book OT canon?
Please tell me which one you adhere to and WHY.

I accept 39 Books in the OT. Between either the apocryphal or deuterocanonical nature of the these extraneous literature, I do not put much credence into their inspiration. It's been a very long time since I've read them, and I read them quite a bit, but I vaguely recall the content, so I can't speak of that right now.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Apostles testified to their authority with signs and wonders, and their comportment. There is no post-apostolic period, clergy, priest or presbyter or so on, that can claim the same authority. Scripture was handed down, and it was due to the fact that there was no single governing authority to determine canon, is what makes what we have authentic. Neither the Eastern, Western Churches, or their offshoots established inspired Scripture, it was the ability to assess all the manuscripts that were available, including gnostic or apocryphal, that allowed both the theologian and the technician to define canon.

WRONG.
The position of Apostle was successive.

When they gathered to choose a successor (not replacement) for Judas - Peter stated the following, quoting Psalm 109:
Acts 1:20
Let another take his office.

The word used here for "office" is "Episkopay" (Bishopric).
The Apostles were the first Bishops - and they, in turn, appointed Bishops.

As for the Canon of Scripture - as I told you earlier, it was decided upon by the Holy Spirit - who spoke through His Church.
Time for a history lesson . . .

- The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified.
- 11 years later, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).
- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.
This is the NT Canon that YOU and all other Protestants adhere to.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You don't seem to understand the difference between the possessive case used as an attributive adjective and the use of bogus titles. Mother Superior...? Really?

That's about the weakest, most generalized argument I've ever come across when discussing this matter.
NOT all of the examples I gave you have the same context - so your point goes right down the drain . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I accept 39 Books in the OT. Between either the apocryphal or deuterocanonical nature of the these extraneous literature, I do not put much credence into their inspiration. It's been a very long time since I've read them, and I read them quite a bit, but I vaguely recall the content, so I can't speak of that right now.

Interesting.
Time for another history lesson - AND a Bible lesson . . .

First of all - the 7 Deuterocanonical Books that Protestants reject are referred to some 200 times on the pages of the New Testament. They were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon that existed until the 2nd century and were part of the Septuagint that Jesus and the Apostles studied from. For example:
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
Heb. 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

As I stated before - these Books were part of the open Jewish Canon that wasn't closed until the Jewish Rabinnical School that was convened at Jabneh (Jamnia). This was AFTER the attack o Jerusalem and AFTER the destruction of the Temple - BOTH which were prophesied by Jesus.

At this gathering, they decided to eject 7 Books (and portions of Esther and Daniel) that they felt were "uninspired". They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ.

The main advocate for removing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books was Rabbi Akiva, who was also known for proclaiming that a man named Simon Bar Kohkba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD). So, your Protestant Father, Martin Luther, chose to go with a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ".

Now - the question for YOU and ALL Protestants is: "WHY would you adhere to this Canon??"

 

[Philip James]

They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ.

No surprise that they left this one out:

Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.

For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.

With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.

Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him

Wis 2: 17-20

Peace be with you!

 

[DNB]

WRONG.
The position of Apostle was successive.

When they gathered to choose a successor (not replacement) for Judas - Peter stated the following, quoting Psalm 109:
Acts 1:20
Let another take his office.

The word used here for "office" is "Episkopay" (Bishopric).
The Apostles were the first Bishops - and they, in turn, appointed Bishops.

As for the Canon of Scripture - as I told you earlier, it was decided upon by the Holy Spirit - who spoke through His Church.
Time for a history lesson . . .

- The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified.
- 11 years later, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).
- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.
This is the NT Canon that YOU and all other Protestants adhere to.

BOL, honestly, you sound indoctrinated! Never put your faith in men, councils, creeds nor tradition. Read your Bible and try and understand the wisdom, for all men will come before God alone and naked. None of the men, their creeds or councils, that you mentioned, will protect you on Judgement Day the way that you are supporting them now. They will not be either willing, or able, to come to your defense on that Day, explaining to God how they steered you wrong or mislead you.
According to Catholic tradition, the Latin Vulgate was the only permissible translation to read, and many were condemned by them for trying to bring it the common people in their own language, etc...
You are showing a great deal of naiveté by adhering to and revering such a historically perverse church, or even to such a fundamentally flawed principle - a universal church derived from Rome.

 

[DNB]

Interesting.
Time for another history lesson - AND a Bible lesson . . .

First of all - the 7 Deuterocanonical Books that Protestants reject are referred to some 200 times on the pages of the New Testament. They were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon that existed until the 2nd century and were part of the Septuagint that Jesus and the Apostles studied from. For example:
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
Heb. 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

As I stated before - these Books were part of the open Jewish Canon that wasn't closed until the Jewish Rabinnical School that was convened at Jabneh (Jamnia). This was AFTER the attack o Jerusalem and AFTER the destruction of the Temple - BOTH which were prophesied by Jesus.

At this gathering, they decided to eject 7 Books (and portions of Esther and Daniel) that they felt were "uninspired". They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ.

The main advocate for removing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books was Rabbi Akiva, who was also known for proclaiming that a man named Simon Bar Kohkba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD). So, your Protestant Father, Martin Luther, chose to go with a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ".

Now - the question for YOU and ALL Protestants is: "WHY would you adhere to this Canon??"

Because, as you said, they were deemed uninspired. None were written in Hebrew, for one, which was a large part of their disqualification. I can't recall if there were tones of mysticism or Gnosticism that were also cause for their rejection. I forget a lot of the history behind its exclusion.
I question your correlation of Hebrews 11:35 with the Book of Maccabees - no way of verifying either way. Even the allusion of Ephesians 6:13-17, is not veritably a quote from the Book of Wisdom, either.

BTW, no protestant, catholic, eastern, coptic or methodist or anabaptist is my father - I put no faith in man whatsoever - I'm not even convinced whether or not Luther, Calvin, Aquinas or Augustine are even saved, just for the record. But, what I can assert is that half of the medieval popes were not saved - namely the Borgias, for sure, and many others.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL, honestly, you sound indoctrinated! Never put your faith in men, councils, creeds nor tradition. Read your Bible and try and understand the wisdom, for all men will come before God alone and naked. None of the men, their creeds or councils, that you mentioned, will protect you on Judgement Day the way that you are supporting them now. They will not be either willing, or able, to come to your defense on that Day, explaining to God how they steered you wrong or mislead you.
According to Catholic tradition, the Latin Vulgate was the only permissible translation to read, and many were condemned by them for trying to bring it the common people in their own language, etc...
You are showing a great deal of naiveté by adhering to and revering such a historically perverse church, or even to such a fundamentally flawed principle - a universal church derived from Rome.

Once again - YOUR version of history is as bizarre as your lack of faith in God's Word.

Jesus DID, in fact give the leaders of His Church SUPREME\ME Earthly Authority, as I showed you back in post #99. He stated that WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would also be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23).

And nobody is claiming that ANYBODY from the Church is going to "defend" me at my Judgement. However, Jesus told the leaders of His Church that WHOEVER listens to or rejects THEM listens to or rejects HIM and the ONE who sent Him (Luke 10:16). That's why Church leaders are held accountable - and to a HIGHER standard (Matt. 18:6, Acts 20:28).

Finally - as to your bogus and historically-bankrupt claim above in RED - it wasn't the translating of the Scriptures into different languages that the Church had a problem with. the Church translated MANY Books into different languages before anybody else did.
The problem was spurious and erroneous translations that were full of ERROR.

Get your facts straight . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Because, as you said, they were deemed uninspired. None were written in Hebrew, for one, which was a large part of their disqualification. I can't recall if there were tones of mysticism or Gnosticism that were also cause for their rejection. I forget a lot of the history behind its exclusion.
I question your correlation of Hebrews 11:35 with the Book of Maccabees - no way of verifying either way. Even the allusion of Ephesians 6:13-17, is not veritably a quote from the Book of Wisdom, either.

WRONG.
As for Wis. 5:17-20 is an almost verbatim comparison of the armor of God Paul writes about in Eph. 6:13-17.
Also - 2 Macc. 7:1-42 is the ONLY place you will read about the mother and her sons written about in Heb. 11:35.

BTW, no protestant, catholic, eastern, coptic or methodist or anabaptist is my father - I put no faith in man whatsoever - I'm not even convinced whether or not Luther, Calvin, Aquinas or Augustine are even saved, just for the record. But, what I can assert is that half of the medieval popes were not saved - namely the Borgias, for sure, and many others.

WRONG again.

The minute YOU chose to accept Luther's decision about the OT Canon - he became your Protestant Father.

And you STILL haven't explained why you reject an OT Canon of Scripture that Jesus and the Apostles studied from - in favor of a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was ordained by the Rabbi Akiva, who was a FALSE Prophet who proclaimed a FALSE Messiah (Simon Kohkbar) - the Borgias notwithstanding . . .

 

[DNB]

Once again - YOUR version of history is as bizarre as your lack of faith in God's Word.

Jesus DID, in fact give the leaders of His Church SUPREME\ME Earthly Authority, as I showed you back in post #99. He stated that WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would also be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23).

And nobody is claiming that ANYBODY from the Church is going to "defend" me at my Judgement. However, Jesus told the leaders of His Church that WHOEVER listens to or rejects THEM listens to or rejects HIM and the ONE who sent Him (Luke 10:16). That's why Church leaders are held accountable - and to a HIGHER standard (Matt. 18:6, Acts 20:28).

Finally - as to your bogus and historically-bankrupt claim above in RED - it wasn't the translating of the Scriptures into different languages that the Church had a problem with. the Church translated MANY Books into different languages before anybody else did.
The problem was spurious and erroneous translations that were full of ERROR.

Get your facts straight . . .

BOL, you're all over the place. Try to do your best to focus, remove the delusion from your mind, and try and appreciate the predicament that you're in with your misguided and misinformed tenets and convictions.
For almost 1,000 years, only the Latin Vulgate was allowed to be owned or read by the lay people. Wycliffe was hunted down, and Tyndale was burnt at the stake, and many more were persecuted and even martyred if found with a non-Latin translation. PLEASE TELL ME THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THESE FACTS??????
Secondly, bound on earth will bound in heaven is both, a context and phraseology that eludes most people, including yourself. During the inception of the Church, the Apostles were endowed with special authority and powers. This declaration was testified to in abundance, during the apostolic era. None of these phenomena were verifiably either witnessed or documented, shortly after the 1st century. As in, not a single bishop who attended any of the ecumenical councils were endowed with such wisdom nor authority - half were even unaware as to what the controversy was at the time or as to why they were beckoned to attend.

My point was, which they all seem to go over your head, is that your undeniable allegiance to the secular church and it's theologians, is going to be your undoing. Your obvious zeal for their honour will be unrequited on Judgment Day. I honour no man or institution, but you worship the Pope and his cohorts.

 

[DNB]

WRONG.
As for Wis. 5:17-20 is an almost verbatim comparison of the armor of God Paul writes about in Eph. 6:13-17.
Also - 2 Macc. 7:1-42 is the ONLY place you will read about the mother and her sons written about in Heb. 11:35.

WRONG again.

The minute YOU chose to accept Luther's decision about the OT Canon - he became your Protestant Father.

And you STILL haven't explained why you reject an OT Canon of Scripture that Jesus and the Apostles studied from - in favor of a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was ordained by the Rabbi Akiva, who was a FALSE Prophet who proclaimed a FALSE Messiah (Simon Kohkbar) - the Borgias notwithstanding . . .

Yes, Wis 5:17-20 is almost verbatim with Eph 6:13-17, but my point was, such an analogy was not uncommon throughout history, I believe even in secular writings - I can't recall where else I read a similar expression outside the Bible.
Look, I even accept some Catholic tenets, as did Luther and other non or anti-Catholics - that doesn't make anyone but the self-professed Catholics, Catholic, that goes without saying. How ridiculous to try and make an equation over one shared conviction.

You bring up a very good point about Jesus and his disciple's usage of the Septuagint. I don't have a substantial response right now, I will have to look into this further as to what they may have considered it's inspiration to be. Paul quoted secular works as words of wisdom, not as inspired text. For, even Socrates, Buddha or Ghandi, had wise insights, it wouldn't be heretical nor compromising one's allegiance by quoting them. The expression 'two wrongs do not make a right' is not in the Bible, but undeniably true. 'Do not retaliate' is in the Bible, but not the explanation of, exactly as in the previous example, which is not the same as 'vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord'.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL, you're all over the place. Try to do your best to focus, remove the delusion from your mind, and try and appreciate the predicament that you're in with your misguided and misinformed tenets and convictions.
For almost 1,000 years, only the Latin Vulgate was allowed to be owned or read by the lay people. Wycliffe was hunted down, and Tyndale was burnt at the stake, and many more were persecuted and even martyred if found with a non-Latin translation. PLEASE TELL ME THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THESE FACTS??????
Secondly, bound on earth will bound in heaven is both, a context and phraseology that eludes most people, including yourself. During the inception of the Church, the Apostles were endowed with special authority and powers. This declaration was testified to in abundance, during the apostolic era. None of these phenomena were verifiably either witnessed or documented, shortly after the 1st century. As in, not a single bishop who attended any of the ecumenical councils were endowed with such wisdom nor authority - half were even unaware as to what the controversy was at the time or as to why they were beckoned to attend.

My point was, which they all seem to go over your head, is that your undeniable allegiance to the secular church and it's theologians, is going to be your undoing. Your obvious zeal for their honour will be unrequited on Judgment Day. I honour no man or institution, but you worship the Pope and his cohorts.

If not for your perverted, revisionist "histories" - your posts would be a LOT shorter.
Time for another history lesson . . .

YOU claim that for 1000 years, the laity could "own" and read the Latin Vulgate. This is absolute nonsense.
For starters - the printing press hadn't yet been invented, so Bibles were HANDWRITTEN. Because of this, they took YEARS to copy and were extremely expensive to produce. The laity didn't "own" Bibles. In fact - they were chained to pulpits during this time so they wouldn't be stolen.

Secondly, as much as 85% of the general public was functionally ILLITERATE and would have NO NEED for owning a Bible - even if they could afford one.

Finally - it wasn't until the Council of Toulouse in the 13th century that owning a Bible became illegal because of all of the spurious and erroneous copies being made - like Wycliffe's version that was corrupt and full of heresy.

Read Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, which talks about the MANY translations into other languages BEFORE Wycliffe's perversion (Ch. 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”). Tyndale's botched version was NO better.

So, so your HOMEWORK - then come back and try to have a reasoned discussion . . .