about the different versions of the bible

Great Debates
61

Well, now do not get me wrong, I was never trying to personally attack the RCC nor say that any version is specifically better than the other, I leave that up for people to choose on their own. However, certain facts do exist.

Here is just a few…

According to the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, Catholics are not allowed to believe what they read in the Bible without first checking it out with the Catholic Church. They are required to find out how the Catholic bishops interpret Scripture passages, and they are to accept what the bishops teach “with docility” as if it came from Jesus Christ Himself. They are not allowed to use their own judgment or to follow their own conscience. They are required to believe whatever the bishops teach without questioning it. [“Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraphs 85, 87, 100, 862, 891, 939, 2034, 2037, 2041, and 2050]

Catholics were not even allowed to read the Bible in Latin. Reading the Bible was considered to be proof that someone was a heretic. Men and women were burned at the stake for reading the Bible in Latin. [Paul Johnson, “A History of Christianity,” page 273.]

Martin Luther (Catholic Priest) stated in his 95 theses:
That all people should be allowed to read the Bible, not just priests. The Catholic Church believed that if all people were allowed to read the Bible they would form their own opinions and that the Bible would become more important than the Church.

1229 Bible placed on Index of Forbidden Books in Toulouse.
Pope Innocent III felt that the Bible was too deep for the common people, and even the educated people could not comprehend it.
Archbishop Berthold, of Mainz, threatened with excommunication to all who tried to translate and or to circulate translations the Bible, without his permission.
Pope Pius IV. (1564), felt that reading of Bible versions did more harm than good would not allow laymen to read it without special permission of a bishop.
Clement VIII. (1598) reserved the right to grant this permission to the Congregation of the Index.
Gregory XV. (1622), and Clement XI. (1713), repeated the conditional prohibition.
Benedict XIV.(1757), one of the liberal popes, extended the permission to read the Word of God yet with the provision that the translation be approved in Rome and guarded by explanatory notes from the writings of the fathers and Catholic scholars (1757). This excludes all Protestant versions.
“It is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible is translated into vulgar tongue be indiscriminately allowed to everyone, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it.” The Roman Index
If anyone should have the presumption to read or possess it without any such written permission, he shall not receive absolution until he first deliver up the Bible to the ordinary, that is according to the Roman principles, his soul is damned."

62

Actually, you were doing an admirable job of attacking the Roman Catholic Church. It’s amazing what one can do without trying, hey?

Speaking of that…how about trying to answer the question I put to you earlier in this thread?

63

I very specifically stated that I had no intention of naming names, simply to avoid the stupid concept of arguing over personal faith and opinions.
I will read back to see what the other question was, though…hang on.

64

I’ll save you some time, roy. Here’s my posting from page one of this thread:

Now as to your last posting above:

That’s pure malarkey. In other words, it’s a lie and nothing else. Although you weren’t “naming names,” you certainly made it quite clear that it was the Roman Catholic Church it was you were maligning.

As to “avoid the stupid concept of arguing over personal faith and opinions,” that’s just laughable. All you have is your faith that your opinion is correct. Your opinion (which btw is 100% wrong – and, yes, opinions can be wrong, especially when they’re not based on fact) is that the Roman Catholic Church has prohibited the reading of the Bible. The only proof you have is that some particular versions and translations have been condemned. There is a decided difference between (a) condemning an unauthorized interpretation of a work and (b) condemning the original work and any and all authorized interpretations.

Big whoop. How about reading up on Logic and Logical Fallacies and then get back to us?

65

Royjwood, I posted quotations from a 1407 edict (the Constitutions of Oxford) which prevented the reading of the English Bible by the laity. But further edicts by the Church in Rome rescinded that. Do you have any evidence that the RCC now bars the reading of the Bible in the vernacular? I doubt that.

66

Maybe this will refresh your memory…

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

67

Which question were you trying to answer there, roy?

68

Good grief, roy! Are you intentionally dodging the questions put to you or do you honestly believe what you are saying is, in any way, an on-point response to those questions?

69

I think he included the quotes to say that Christians are supposed to read the bible for themselves…

70

Monty,
I am answering those questions as I have the time (I am at work)…you seem to believe that God does not wish us to read the Bible, however, he clearly has advised us to do so.

Duke,
No, although I do not recall the specific date, the RCC was forced to conced that the normal people should read the Bible. However, this was probably within the last thirty years, since I was also taught not to study the Bible when I grew up.

71

Monty,

You obviously have not yet read all of the posts, because I avoided naming names…period!

And I have already answered some of your other questions already as well. Such as Martin Luther.

But bu the way, just because someone does not support the RCC does not make them the anti-Christ, does not warrant them being murdered, and does not make them heretics.
It only makes them non-catholics.
However, the RCC claims to be the only church, (RCC 1994 catechism item #811, 830)
the only way to salvation, (RCC 1994 catechism item #816, 846)
and the only people (the priesthood), with enough grey matter to comprehend God.(RCC 1994 catechism item #100)

That is bullarky!

72

Well, if they started out as Catholics, leaving the Catholic church and believing other things would make them heretics, wouldn’t it?

73

Roy, I’ve gone to the trouble of reading the paragraphs of the catechism that you cite. The deal with the teaching authority of the Church, and most of them make no specific reference to the scriptures.

Paragraph 85 says that “the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the word of God . . . has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone . . . this means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with . . . the Bishop of Rome”

It should be noted that “the Church” is the whole people of God. So, an “authentic interpretation” comes from “the Church alone” (i.e an authentic interpretation must be a collective, not an individual, exercise) and “the task of interpretation” has been intrusted to the bishops.

See the distinction? Para 85 says that bishops must offer their interpretation. It does not say that no-one else can offer an interpretation.

The very next paragraph, para 86, which for some reason you chose not to mention, says explicitly that “this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it.” And later on in the same section of the Catechism we see that “all the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth [which includes sripture]. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them[53] and guides them into all truth.” (para 91). “The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief.” (para 92) “By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.” (para 93) “From the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”, the sacred Scriptures grow with the one who reads them." (para 94)

Now, by all means attach the notion of authority in the Catholic Church, and the view of that church about the proper relationship between the individual, the Christian community, and the formal institutions of the Church. You might have an argument there.

But to extract paragraphs which relate to the bishops, and to ignore paragraphs which relate to the church as a whole, or to the relationship between the Christian and God, and to present these paragraphs in support of assertions that “Catholics are not allowed to believe what they read in the Bible without first checking it out with the Catholic Church . . . They are not allowed to use their own judgment or to follow their own conscience . . . They are required to believe whatever the bishops teach without questioning it” is at best lazy and at worst dishonest. Why would the Holy Spirit trouble to instruct and guide someone whose conscience and judgment was irrelevant? Why would the Catechism lay such stress on the infallibility of the whole Church if the teachings offered by bishops were definitive? Did you actually read the paragraphs you quoted? Did you make any effort to understand them? Did you read the paragraphs in between? If you did, you would have noticed that they describe the formal teaching authority of the Church as a guide, not a rule, and say that Christians are to “penetrate” the faith “with right judgment”. They also speak in approving terms of the believer growing through reading sacred scripture.

Nobody who has read these paragraphs could possibly believe that the Catholic Church requires believers to accept what the bishops teach without questioning it, that it disapproves of the reading of scripture, or that Catholics are not allowed to use their own judgment or follow their own conscience. I am forced to conclude that you didn’t read them. How, then, did you arrive at the list of paragraphs which you believed supported your assertions? Could it possibly be that somebody else told you they supported your assertions, and you accpeted that without making your own judgement on the matter?

That would be ironic, wouldn’t it?

74

Cpt amazing,
no it makes them smart enough to erad and learn from themselves and not a robot…

UDS,
Actually, when the RCC refers to “the church”, the specifically imply the priesthood of the RCC.
but also read #119…

One of the verses I gave earlier, gave honour to Berea, because they did NOT accept any person on thoer word alone, but “searched the scriptures” for themselves.

I have read them, (once for confirmation, under the older catechism, and again later after they finally updated it) but I have also read the Bible, and I will ALWAYS place my faith more in the actual writings of God, and less in the writings of man.
If one does read the entire catechism, and the Holy Bible together, they will most certainly see very many differences, but I do not (as mentioned several times) care to debate peoples’ faith with them, it is useless to try. Unless they are willing to accept God’s word as the final authority, and be open to words of God, they will never learn the spiritual freedom of knowing the Messiah, and knowing biblical salvation, and the joy that it brings.
It took many years to accept what I was reading in Bible over what I was being taught in church. But eventually, with much prayer, I was forced to make a stand on the Word of God.

75

Well, there’s a time-honored rule for polemicism, UDS, that states that one merely selects from the resources available those things which support one’s previous conception and rejects anything that would tend to confute it. (I’m not accusing Roy of doing this, necessarily – he could be relying on polemic documents.)

I confess that the idea of an authoritative magisterium often gives me the willies – I prefer to bring my own scholarly abilities to the task, coupled with what I learn from others. But since those others are often people ordained and given the “faculties” and training to teach with some authority, it ultimately reduces to an approximation of an Anglican version of the Magisterium.

As for other areas of dispute, (addressed largely to Roy, it seems to me that people who conceive themselves to have spiritual direction and guidance over the faithful who have consented to their authority would certainly have both the right and the responsibility to ensure that the text of Holy Scripture is rendered in a way comprehensible by their flock and not tendentiously translated to teach heresy from their POV. That is in essence what the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur on Bibles affirm – that a bishop or someone delegated the responsibility by him has reviewed the text and approved it for reading by Catholic laity.

This is true. However, if one goes spreading lies about the Catholic Church, it also makes them anti-Catholic. And, of course, from the Catholic POV, quite reasonably, anyone who disagrees with them on doctrinal matters is a heretic, that being the basic definition of the word.

This is unmitigated horse-puckey. Try reading the content of such things, or look for posts by tomndebb (including one within the last month) on what the Catholic church teaches regarding other churches. It claims to have the fullness of the Deposit of Faith, which other churches have only in part – which sounds offensive until one realizes that if they did not believe that, they would not be a part of the Catholic Church, but would have joined the Lutherans, the Orthodox, or whoever they conceived of as having the fullness instead of themselves.

More fertilizer – the crops should be green this year!! Like every other Christian church, the Catholics teach that the only way to salvation is in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. They are significantly more generous than many conservative Protestants in extending their understanding of how far that Atonement reaches. And, ultimately, when one conceives of the church as one metaphysical entity founded by Christ and encompassing all the denominational divisions, the idea that the small-c catholic church is the only way to salvation, because it consists of all who have taken Christ as Lord and Savior, repented and been baptized, and live according to His will to the best of their abilities.

More of the same. God is incomprehensible (see the Athanasian Creed) – He can only be known through His grace as our loving Father. The priests and bishops of the churches in the Apostolic Succession have the authority to administer the sacraments and to teach with authority – they receive this at ordination, by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

76

If you would read your copy of the catechism, you would see that not only does the RCC claim that it is the only path to salvation, it also claims:
charity saves: #837
the RCC forgives sins (not God (Mark 2:7), through Christ’s sacrifice (Eph 4:32): #979, 982, 983, 986, 1448, 1461
Baptism saves #818, 950, 1212, 1213, 1257, 1265, 1263
the sacraments save: #1113, 1129
Mary saves: #494, 969, 1172
the Eucharist saves: #1364, 1405
Confirmation saves: 1316
Confession to priests saves: 1446
Priests forgive sins: 1448, 1495
But then the RCC says that none of this is even certain: #2092
Even after all of that “salvation”, you still have purgatory to contend with: #954, 1030, 1031
But…
Catholics are also Christ Himself: #795
and…
Catholics are also God: #460

Since this contradicts the teachings of the Bible, I had to choose: Bible or RCC.
If believing God and His Holy Word makes me a heretic of the RCC, than I will wear that as a badge of honour. But I will not call God a liar and deny the truth of His Holy Word.
Again, I apologise to anyone who is offended, but certain among you attacked me personally and requested to tknow the truth, so it is there for you.
I have never hated catholics and never will, only false doctrines that contradict the Word of God. Matthew 15:3; Mark 7:7,8; Colossians 2:8

77

You had posted this to another, don’t really have any questions, but wanted to make a few comments. Whether or not the RCC encouraged or discouraged reading the Bible seems to be whom was the Pope at the time. I found several Popes who discouraged it such as Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory VII. I suppose there were others. But considering that over a millennium 98-99% of the world was illiterate, and before the printing press handwritten Bibles cost several years wages to the common man, and the languages the Bibles were printed on may not have even been their own language, it seems to me that this was enough to prevent any reading of it with the exception of a very small educated minority. It makes me wonder why they even needed edicts. If the cites I searched are correct even many of the priests were illiterate, some barely able to write their own name.

JZ

78

John,

I never though about that. In that sense, you have a very definite and valid point.

Nonetheless, there was a strong movement to provide common language translations. But I guess, if you could read, it would have been nice to be able to do so. But who could other than only the highest classes?
I have been recently studying history of the Christian church as a whole, not denomination specific, and did not catch on to that point. I will now have to broaden my reading.

Thanks,

79

Well, but there were common language translations authorized by the Catholic church. The Biblia Alfonsina, in Spanish, dates back to the 13th century. In the 14th century, there were in French the Anglo-Norman Bible, the partial Bible of King Jean le Bon, and the Bible of Charles V, in German, partial translations date back to the 8th century, and in the 15th, the Rellach bible. There was also the Douai in English, as well as older Psalters and Gospels.

80

That is all fine and well. You may choose to see your interpretation of RCC teachings as in conflict with your interpretation of the Bible to your heart’s content.

However, this particular straying from the original path of the OP came about when you posted that the RCC had attempted to suppress copies of the original versions of the Bible. You have provided no evidence that they have done so. You have launched into the exact complaint against vernacular translations that I originally speculated you would. You have cherry picked phrases and statements out of 2,000 years of proclamations implying that each such statement (often presented out of context) was the whole of RCC behavior, without showing any grand pattern of action (by ignoring every opposing statement that the RCC may also have issued), and you have fallen into the pattern, in your last few posts, of launching polemics against the RCC for its interpretation of the Christian Faith without ever once supporting the original claim on which I challenged you.

You’ll note that Polycarp, who has serious differences of opinion with the RCC on various points, has indicated both logical errors and the polemical nature of your posts. I suspect that we can, at this point, (however anyone may regard the unfortunate censorship attempted in the late Medieval and early Renaissance periods), ignore your original claim and chalk up the rest of your posting to simple differences in doctrinal interpretation.
(It is interesting, when one searches the net for discussions of the Textus Receptus, that the sites that hold it up as somehow more “true” than other versions are nearly all found on anti-Catholic sites, while sites that are not explicitly anti-Catholic (even when Protestant) tend to treat the actual history of its creation in a way that shows that the TR is simply one of many possible sources of Scripture that has both positive and negative traits. Among the problems that it has are the glosses that Erasmus (good Catholic priest, Erasmus) inserted either by accident or by inserting glosses from the Latin Vulgate. And no site that provides a balanced history of the TR claims that it used as sources texts “hidden” from the angry eye of Rome.)