|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Preaching the gospel to Roman Catholics
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But at least in the Catholic set-up the Magisterium can step in to resolve such a dispute if necessary. Funnily enough, that's how it evolved in the first place...
[Spelling]
[ 17. February 2006, 11:32: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But it at least has the advantage over sola Scriptura that it provides a solution, whereas SS doesn't provide a solution; in fact, as Karl has shown, it's far more of a problem than a solution
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Sure. It's a functional solution that may or may not have anything to do with truth. I respect it but I don't agree with it.
Which is approximately what I'd say about every man his own Magisterium.
I'd say that 2000 years of debate and lack of clarity show that individual interpretation of the Bible, group interptretation, and the Magisterium, cannot claim to have a definitive handle on truth. Perhaps you can come to the truth through study of the Bible, but how would you know when you got there? How do I know the guy who's convinced of the Once Saved Also Saved position has reached it and the guy who's convinced that a person can lose salvation (not that this question means an awful lot within my soteriology, but I digress) hasn't, or vice versa? In this sphere, methinks, absolute truth may exist, but it looks exactly the same as any other plausible provisional truth.
Which causes me to conclude that either God doesn't care too much about what propositions we believe, compared with who we believe in. Or that He does care, but He likes to make things insanely difficult and then squash those who fail to do the impossible. God as PE Teacher anyone?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
No thanks; mine were sadistic bastards to a man.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
I'm not sure what you mean by 'solution', though. A definitive answer that everyone can abide by? That, as you seem to be acknowledging, may nonetheless not be related to the truth of the matter?
And does it even work? I keep seeing Roman Catholics who favour abortion or the priesting of women or the use of contraception, or who have questions about things like the existence of purgatory. The magisterium is against them but somehow things keep coming up for debate.
I don't know if this is answerable before our Lord's return, any more than the parallel questions that could be asked of a sola scripturist. The epistemological questions may be answerable to your (general) satisfaction or mine or a certain percentage of those who claim the name Christian, but that is not the same as saying they have been answered.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But those Catholics would not be following the Magisterium's teaching; their Church would not describe them as 'loyal' Catholics.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
I've heard us described as 'loyal dissenters' .. which is a term i like ! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
For me the issue is like this: - can we disagree and stay united?! Is it more helpful that we choose 'in or out' or that we choose to 'stay and argue'?! ... Sometimes i learn more from those who disagree with me than from those who agree with every word I say.
The institutional church speaks only in black and white ... but that doesn't mean we have to speak in the same way ... personally, i'm all for the grey areas!!! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noneen:
The institutional church speaks only in black and white ...
Or, She is presented speaking only in black and white by some people, because that would help their ideas stand.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But I wasn't aware that the Roman Catholic position allowed for new and definitive revelation concerning God emerging after the closing of the canon. Does it? Is that what was going on in 1950 when the doctrine of the Assumption of the BVM was articulated? I don't know the answer to this, but if it really was new revelation it raises all sorts of other questions. If it wasn't, then the analogy to Scripture prior to the closing of the canon doesn't really work.
Urgh... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) New revelation till the closing of the canon April 8, 1546 at Trent? Or for the "Apocrypha" crowd about 1596? Somehow I don't think so... For RCs revelation finished with Jesus Christ Himself, way prior to even the earliest written scripture documents. Since then it's just about working out what it all means (including the question of what belongs to scripture, which took a while), that's all. The Assumption of Mary is a doctrine that can be tracked back to about the 5th century, see for example here and here. There was an ever growing agreement on the Assumption among the faithful which then got the official stamp of approval in 1950. That it took so long has a lot to do with the fact that more important doctrinal matters had to be taken care of in the centuries before. When you have Arius et al. to deal with, there's no time for the finer points of Marian dogma. It's also hardly a novel idea anyway, it appears that Enoch and Elijah were assumed and what do you think happened to all those saints of Matthew 27:52–53?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Didn't one of the ECFs (Irenaeus?) say that some of them were still alive in the reign of Trajan? That at least would imply that they died natural deaths a second time as it were.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And how exactly does that soelve the contradictory epistemological problems demonstrated by Karl's list?
Sola scriptura isn't useful in the sense that we can infallibly derive truth from it, but it is useful in that properly understood it prevents the power abuse that results from individuals or institutions claiming divine authority for their interpretation of scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy:
Which sounds nice but it never actually works like that. A sola scriptura argument inevitably works around to the personal theology of the speaker or his favorite spiritual authors. And that is the great danger - the perception that one person's understanding of sola scriptura is authoritative and therefore the use as a casting vote or a trump card against descenters. And don't tell me it doesn't happen because I have seen it with my own eyes.
The most honest person says 'this is the scriptures as I understand them, mixed up in my brain with all the authors I know well and expressed in the best way I understand it'. There is never anyone who judges things on a strict scripture-only basis.
The abuse of sola scriptura comes when people confuse their understanding of scripture with scripture itself. But the recognition that scripture itself alone is authorative, and not our interpretations of it, is a recognition of our fallibility and that what we believe is only "the scriptures as I understand them, mixed up in my brain with all the authors I know well and expressed in the best way I understand it".
Sadly some people do sometimes oppress by claiming the authority of scripture for their interpretation of scripture. But "my interpretation of scripture" is not the same as scripture, so anyone holding it to be authorative is not genuinely holding to the idea of sola scriptura. Such a person has entirely missed the point.
quote:
Scripture on its own is not authoritative. You need to use your brain and engage with the text. Everybody - bar nobody - also consults others to understand the text as well.
Using your brain, engaging with the text, consulting others in no way undermine the sole authority of scripture. If you believe scripture to be solely authorative, then you should wish to understand it as best you can, and use every resource you have to do so. But that doesn't make those resources a higher authority than scripture.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
The abuse of sola scriptura comes when people confuse their understanding of scripture with scripture itself. But the recognition that scripture itself alone is authorative, and not our interpretations of it, is a recognition of our fallibility and that what we believe is only "the scriptures as I understand them, mixed up in my brain with all the authors I know well and expressed in the best way I understand it".
But they clearly are not authoritative. How many christian farmers do you know that consider the agricultural rules to be authoritative? Which is the smallest seed?
If some things are relevant and some not, then you have to interpret it. Anyone telling you that they don't is a liar.
quote:
Sadly some people do sometimes oppress by claiming the authority of scripture for their interpretation of scripture. But "my interpretation of scripture" is not the same as scripture, so anyone holding it to be authorative is not genuinely holding to the idea of sola scriptura. Such a person has entirely missed the point.
So, what is the point of a believing the bible to be authorative if it is not able to be understood?
quote:
Using your brain, engaging with the text, consulting others in no way undermine the sole authority of scripture. If you believe scripture to be solely authorative, then you should wish to understand it as best you can, and use every resource you have to do so. But that doesn't make those resources a higher authority than scripture.
I think it was Chesterton that said that in the headlong rush to remove the Pope, many have replaced him with a pope in every parish.
Sola scriptura is just a manifestation of that.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
The abuse of sola scriptura comes when people confuse their understanding of scripture with scripture itself. But the recognition that scripture itself alone is authorative, and not our interpretations of it, is a recognition of our fallibility and that what we believe is only "the scriptures as I understand them, mixed up in my brain with all the authors I know well and expressed in the best way I understand it".
But they clearly are not authoritative. How many christian farmers do you know that consider the agricultural rules to be authoritative? Which is the smallest seed?
Well, my view is that it's just a matter of understanding the Bible properly. It's a misunderstanding to view the scripture as saying those things in the way you suggest.
quote:
If some things are relevant and some not, then you have to interpret it. Anyone telling you that they don't is a liar.
I know - that's the point. That's why none of our interpretations are authorative.
quote:
So, what is the point of a believing the bible to be authorative if it is not able to be understood?
Although we can't understand exhaustively or absolutely, that doesn't mean we can't understand at all - but it does mean that because we are fallible, we can't set up our interpretation of scripture with divine authority.
quote:
I think it was Chesterton that said that in the headlong rush to remove the Pope, many have replaced him with a pope in every parish.
Sola scriptura is just a manifestation of that.
I agree with Chesterton, and it is indeed the height of folly. But it's sola my-interpretation-of-scriptura is the manifestation of that, not sola scriptura. Sola scriptura says that there are no popes, including my interpretation.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
Well, my view is that it's just a matter of understanding the Bible properly.
QED.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Ah, I'm so glad we cleared it up. So, those of us who are intelligent are able to understand the Bible properly and are thus is perfect agreement with Caleb Woodbridge, whereas those of us who aren't are clearly - quite clearly even - incapable of understanding the Bible and are therefore total dunderheads.
Thanks for the clarification
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
I would never say that understanding the Bible is a matter of intelligence, though. Because it is a word, it functions like other words, so there is a certain amount of intelligence required in the sense that you have to be able to understand words (You don't have to be able to read, you just need someone to read to you).
But at heart this comprehension is a gift given by the speaker, the Holy Spirit. It's not so much irrational, therefore, as arational.
And again, all the same arguments alleged against the possibility of interpreting Scripture apply to the understanding of papal encyclicals, Roman catechisms, and the like. Indeed more so, since they seem to be require significantly higher intellectual ability to fathom and cross-reference than the Bible. So for anyone who wanted to establish the truth of Romanism's version of scriptural interpretation, this would seem to be an epistemological dead end.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But at heart this comprehension is a gift given by the speaker, the Holy Spirit. It's not so much irrational, therefore, as arational.
And again, all the same arguments alleged against the possibility of interpreting Scripture apply to the understanding of papal encyclicals, Roman catechisms, and the like.
Exactly my point. Any criticism of the wider RCC's claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit is equally applicable to the man who advocates sola scriptura.
Glad we all agree on that then.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Well, yes, we agree on that, which means nothing more than that there is no epistemological argument that adequately proves anything here. The Romans could be right. They could be wrong. We just can't know, using the style of argument that we've dipped into for the last page.
Once you realize that this philosophical style of argument ends in stalemate, you get to the point where you just leave it on the shelf until something better comes along. The only thing "proven" really is that the common epistemological arguments used against sola scripturists, if true (and we can't know), prove far more than those advancing them would probably like to prove. As it is we have a potentially valid argument that has nothing to do with anything, so the philosophers at least should be jumpin' for joy. Ingo?
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Of course all of this Gordonesque theology could only be post-16th century because of the printing press. What about all those folks who could not read, let alone get their hands upon a copy of the bible before cheap printing?
Damned for all eternity I presume.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Well, yes, we agree on that, which means nothing more than that there is no epistemological argument that adequately proves anything here. The Romans could be right. They could be wrong. We just can't know, using the style of argument that we've dipped into for the last page.
Given the number of people who would like you to believe that Roman Catholicism is evil and Sola Scriptura is obviously correct, that is a major step forward. There is no 'obviously' because there is no objective way of measuring.
quote:
Once you realize that this philosophical style of argument ends in stalemate, you get to the point where you just leave it on the shelf until something better comes along. The only thing "proven" really is that the common epistemological arguments used against sola scripturists, if true (and we can't know), prove far more than those advancing them would probably like to prove. As it is we have a potentially valid argument that has nothing to do with anything, so the philosophers at least should be jumpin' for joy. Ingo?
Was there some sense I was meant to take from that paragraph?
Scripture-only people would like you to believe that the bible is easy to understand once you read it in the 'right' way. In truth they are as dependant on forms of practice and theology as the RCC.
That is all I'm saying.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Once you realize that this philosophical style of argument ends in stalemate, you get to the point where you just leave it on the shelf until something better comes along. The only thing "proven" really is that the common epistemological arguments used against sola scripturists, if true (and we can't know), prove far more than those advancing them would probably like to prove. As it is we have a potentially valid argument that has nothing to do with anything, so the philosophers at least should be jumpin' for joy. Ingo?
Was there some sense I was meant to take from that paragraph?
OK once again in English:
Your arguments prove nothing either way. Big woop from philosophers ( because they're arguments), big yawn from average citizen (because they prove nothing).
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
OK once again in English:
Your arguments prove nothing either way. Big woop from philosophers ( because they're arguments), big yawn from average citizen (because they prove nothing).
OK I must be missing something. Sola scriptura people say that the RCC is wrong because they base their theology on tradition and reason as well as scripture. Which I'm saying is a stupid position because everyone bases their theology on tradition, reason as well as scripture - whether they admit it or not.
I'm not trying to say whose theology is right, just that sola scriptura is a duff argument and proves nothing on its own.
I can make up a great theology based on the bible which is complete bollocks.
C
[ 17. February 2006, 20:56: Message edited by: Cheesy* ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Of course all of this Gordonesque theology could only be post-16th century because of the printing press. What about all those folks who could not read, let alone get their hands upon a copy of the bible before cheap printing?
Damned for all eternity I presume.
This is a legitimate concern. Partly it's addressed by my earlier comment:
quote:
You don't have to be able to read, you just need someone to read to you
Partly it is addressed by making sure the Bible is widely available in a language people can understand, hence the historic Protestant commitment to evangelism across cultures.
As an interesting historical note the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was bitterly opposed to putting out translations in the common tongue, and only put out an English translation (the Rhemist translation) after more than half a century, having previously argued that it was dangerous to do this; like putting a sharp knife into the hands of children.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Sola scriptura people say that the RCC is wrong because they base their theology on tradition and reason as well as scripture. Which I'm saying is a stupid position because everyone bases their theology on tradition, reason as well as scripture - whether they admit it or not.
The difference though is that SS people can change their minds if they can be persuaded that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong.
Whether that's a good thing or not is another matter.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sola Scriptura, whatever else it may be, is not useful
I think it's very useful, because it leaves you free to disagree with those people and go back to scripture itself to seek to understad it for yourself. Because only scripture is authorative, no-one can insist on the authority of tradition or position in the church or clever arguments or whatever that you have to believe it. You believe them if you think that is what scripture says.
Then how in hell do you handle the historical record that the CHURCH created scripture? (Please don't respond with scriptural citations here, please.) The Church chose the books, recognised which books were being used in the communities, recognised which books contained apostolic teaching - that the Church itself created Scripture.
x
AV
[ 18. February 2006, 16:19: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As an interesting historical note the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was bitterly opposed to putting out translations in the common tongue, and only put out an English translation (the Rhemist translation) after more than half a century, having previously argued that it was dangerous to do this; like putting a sharp knife into the hands of children.
In retrospect, it's hard to fault them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As an interesting historical note the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was bitterly opposed to putting out translations in the common tongue, and only put out an English translation (the Rhemist translation) after more than half a century, having previously argued that it was dangerous to do this; like putting a sharp knife into the hands of children.
In England, perhaps.
French translations of the Bible.
Spanish translations of the Bible.
Italian translations of the Bible.
Apologies that these links are in foreign languages - Wikipedia seemed the quickest source of information and I think the charts are clear enough. The first sentence of the Italian link says "The oldest translations into Italian, manuscripts and fragments, date back to the thirteenth century". The first sentence of the French link says "The article only includes complete Bibles."
It's worth pointing out that before a certain date there would be little point in making vernacular translations, because the vernaculars themselves were so fragmented that any translation you made would only be understood by speakers of the particular dialect you chose to translate it in. It would hardly be worthwhile making a translation in London English that would be incomprehensible in, say, the West Country or the Midlands.
[ 18. February 2006, 16:51: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I wonder if to mention the fact that there was disapproval over translating the Bible implicitly detracts from the high level of dissemination of religious doctrine that existed in England particularly post the 1215 IV Lateran Council. People knew what Christianity was about - E.Duffy 'The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580', R.N.Swanson:'Religion and Devotion in Europe c1215-1515'.
I'm presently doing some stuff on the York Mystery Plays which run though the entire Passion Cycle as a series of plays. Whilst it was probably written by some Augustinian Friars, it becomes a major lay event, following on from the Corpus Christi Procession on CC Day (until the c1440s I think) when it moved to the day before. The point behind all that is that they are very orthodox and really do give a clear message about Christianity. They were only stopped around 1576.
Similarly, whilst obvioulsy only those of a higher social strata would know latin, more latin would be known then throughout society than it is now, so we can't really compare that either.
Just some thoughts
NB:To be pedantic (and apologies for this)though, the Venerable Bede is supposed to have translated some of the Gospel of John in the 7th Century.
[ 18. February 2006, 17:21: Message edited by: Vesture, Posture, Gesture ]
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As an interesting historical note the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was bitterly opposed to putting out translations in the common tongue, and only put out an English translation (the Rhemist translation) after more than half a century, having previously argued that it was dangerous to do this; like putting a sharp knife into the hands of children.
In retrospect, it's hard to fault them.
I am sure there are Roman Catholics who, like you, still take this view. In fact I know very few Roman Catholics or, in particular, ex-Roman Catholics at the lay level who were encouraged by their priests to read their bibles for themselves. This despite the view of the Roman church that the Bible is, in fact, the infallible word of God. Like much within Romanism it is an attitude fraught with difficulties and contradictions in both theory and application.
On the other hand, I have met personally with Roman Catholics who have decided to study the Bible, to their great benefit.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm just referring to the plethorization of Protestant break-away groups caused in large part by the "every man should be able to interpret the bible for himself" nonsense which gave rise to the easy availability of copies of the Bible in the vernacular.
I thank God that I know the Bible better than any of you (mimicking st Paul here ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ), but I don't for that reason think I am competent to start my own Church.
PS you do realize I'm not a Roman Catholic, right?
[ 18. February 2006, 20:12: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Yes, I knew that Orthodox guy.
Breaking away from the Bible's teaching is, on my view, best explained by sin rather than the absence of a magisterium. Historical Protestantism ties inability to know the truth about God with the deliberate rejection of him, eg Romans 1:18-32 teaches this, on the Protestant view.
Romans tend to be somewhat more optimistic about the ability of reason, to find God (while still recognizing that sin is an issue, and not in principle ignoring Scripture), due in no small part to Thomas Aquinas, AIUI.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
A major part of the argument of Romans is to do with how Gentiles may be legitimately considered as the People of God. The suggestion that 1:18-32 is a description (to the point of caricature like a first century tabloid) of prejudiced Jewish opinion of Gentiles, which Paul goes on to expose as hypocrisy, is one that makes sense to me.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
I am sure there are Roman Catholics who, like you, still take this view. In fact I know very few Roman Catholics or, in particular, ex-Roman Catholics at the lay level who were encouraged by their priests to read their bibles for themselves. This despite the view of the Roman church that the Bible is, in fact, the infallible word of God. Like much within Romanism it is an attitude fraught with difficulties and contradictions in both theory and application.
On the other hand, I have met personally with Roman Catholics who have decided to study the Bible, to their great benefit.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Gordon, really - this is just plain silly.
Here's just one link you may profitably follow. Even you may find something there to help you.
Bible Alive
The vast majority of our Catholic parishes here in England sell the printed versions of this at the back of church.
I know there are equivalents in just about every language.
Get real, mate. Argue with the truth on your side, not some parody.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Yes, I knew that Orthodox guy.
You knew which Orthodox guy?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As an interesting historical note the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was bitterly opposed to putting out translations in the common tongue, and only put out an English translation (the Rhemist translation) after more than half a century, having previously argued that it was dangerous to do this; like putting a sharp knife into the hands of children.
As an interesting historical note, that is utter bollocks, and you should be ashamed to perpetuate such self-serving Protestants myths in this day and age. The simple reason why there were mostly Latin Catholic bibles for a long time is that for a long time most people who could read, would have read in Latin. And almost everywhere, the first Bibles in the major European vernaculars were - Catholic. From here:
- Italian 1472 (Protestant 1562)
- Spanish 1478 (Protestant 1567)
- French 1478-1530 (Protestant 1535-1545)
- German before 1450, 1477-1522 (Protestant 1522)
- Durch 1475 (Protestant 1526)
- Scandinavian before 1470 (Protestant 1541)
- Hungarian before 1500 (Protestant 1590)
If we only count complete bibles (as in the above), then the Protestants may have published the first bibles in some other European countries. But typically then, incomplete vernacular Catholic translations were available much earlier. England is a bit of a mess, see the link. Clearly lots of parts were published in the (Old) English vernacular from early on, but evidence that a Catholic complete bible in (modern) English was first are based on the statements by "Archbishop Cranmer, Sir Thomas More, Foxe the martyrologist, and the authors of the Preface to the Reims Testament, <that> the whole Bible was to be found in the mother tongue long before John Wyclif was born".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I'm just referring to the plethorization of Protestant break-away groups caused in large part by the "every man should be able to interpret the bible for himself" nonsense which gave rise to the easy availability of copies of the Bible in the vernacular.
I thank God that I know the Bible better than any of you (mimicking st Paul here ), but I don't for that reason think I am competent to start my own Church.
PS you do realize I'm not a Roman Catholic, right?
I said something like this and boy was I ripped a new one! LOL
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
I don't doubt that the Roman Catholic church today sells Bibles. Not to do so would be to close the stable door several hundred years after the horse had bolted and produced respectable bloodlines in most countries of the world.
Nor do I doubt that the Roman church produced some translations in the vernacular at the time up to and including the time of the Reformation. But in the case of English church history (from where my specific example was taken) it is a simple matter of historical fact that under the 1408 Constitutions of Oxford it was forbidden to translate the Bible into English. What's more, this was not legal fiction—the ban was rigidly enforced in the early 16th century by Cardinal Wolsey and Sir Thomas More. William Tyndale's translation of the Bible was printed in 1526 and illegally distributed (refer said ban) in England from that time on. Tyndale was burned as a heretic in 1536.
Lo and behold, after years of arguing how dangerous it was for regular dudes to have the Bible in their own language, the Romans produced the Rhemist translation of the New Testament in 1582, all the while insisting that it ought to be based on the Latin Vulgate, which was according to them a far superior version than the Greek and Hebrew texts that helped form the basis of other translations (The translators of the relatively recent Jerusalem Bible, thankfully reflected a better historical and linguistic knowledge than this).
It's an unavoidable fact that in England, the Roman Catholic church did everything it could to keep vernacular translations of the Bible out of the hands of laypeople, and used whatever political power they had (considerable) to threaten people with fines, imprisonment, torture and execution if they tried to break down the barriers knowingly erected by the Church.
Until 1582, when (several generations of bible horse having already bolted) they produced their own nag and tried to enter it in the race.
This is all out as part of the historical record, whether viewed from a Protestant perspective, a Catholic perspective, or the perspective of a secular revisionist. Whatever hat you are wearing, the conclusion is undeniable: the Roman church did not want the average English person reading the Bible in their own language, and legislated and acted ferociously to see that it did not happen, right up to the point where, in the mercy of God, they lost the power to do so.
As for contemporary practice within the Roman church, that will doubtless vary from place to place. But the experience of RC friends in Sydney and Melbourne suggests that in these parts at least Bible reading and knowledge is not well encouraged amongst the laity. Given the high view that the Roman church has of scripture, this ought not to be so.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As an interesting historical note the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was bitterly opposed to putting out translations in the common tongue, and only put out an English translation (the Rhemist translation) after more than half a century, having previously argued that it was dangerous to do this; like putting a sharp knife into the hands of children.
In retrospect, it's hard to fault them.
I dunno.
I love my bible.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
You can count Henry VIII's Great Bible of 1538 (1st edition 2,500 copies) as Catholic. Archbishop Arundel's constitutions of 1409 did not prohibit translations, in fact they tacitly legitimised pre-wycliffite translations. Pope Innocent III, when asked about vernacular Bibles in Metz, did not ban them but ordered that the translations be checked for orthodoxy.
The point I really want to raise here is there is with the more massed Dissemination of the Bible and and the Reformation etc, just as much censorship and crackdowns are operated by all whose Bible doesn't accord with one doctrine or another ie: Not using the Geneva Bible in emerging Reformed countries for example which was particularly, in the late 16th/17th century, led to fairly unpleasant consequenses.
I wonder therefore if this debate about Bibles is a method of approach which is comming from a wrong angle ?
[ 19. February 2006, 09:16: Message edited by: Vesture, Posture, Gesture ]
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
TBH I think the question about who got in first with their vernacular translation is not the key issue, although the RC church has much to be ashamed of in the way it treated the early translators and disseminators of the English Bible. And as I've said the facts concerning Tyndale's martyrdom and the view taken of his Bible by the RC church are incontestable.
I simply see little evidence in the cities where I've lived and ministered that the Roman denomination takes its own high view of scripture seriously enough to encourage laypeople to read it for themselves.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I simply see little evidence in the cities where I've lived and ministered that the Roman denomination takes its own high view of scripture seriously enough to encourage laypeople to read it for themselves.
And I've seen exactly the opposite. I know many groups that meet together to read the Bible, and other works. And I've heard more of the Bible as part of a Mass than I ever have during a Sydney Anglican meeting. We can trade stories all day, but I'd be interested in knowing: how many Catholic parishes have you visited?; how many practising Catholics did you survey?; have you been to a Catholic Bookstore and seen the devotional section?
And as far as Bibles in English go, others have covered it well, but my understanding was [and if I'm wrong I'd like to be corrected] more to do with the fact English was seen as a base language, not capable of communicating the truth of God's Word. English as a language was always looked down upon, unlike French or other continental languages.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceesharp
Shipmate
# 3818
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I simply see little evidence in the cities where I've lived and ministered that the Roman denomination takes its own high view of scripture seriously enough to encourage laypeople to read it for themselves.
And this is why my children were presented with their own Bibles by their schools at their First Communion (actually they already possessed Bibles anyway) and my son was required to have a Bible when he started secondary school, as was I in 1966.
Posts: 629 | From: West Midlands, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Isn't reading Scripture one way to get an indulgence in the RCC? (Though I realise that may not exactly be a redeeming argument in Gordon's eyes...)
Also, though there is no way I'm going to try to justify burning martyrs, AIUI the problem with Tyndale's translation was not that it was in the vernacular, but that it included extensive anti-Catholic commentaries, and also he was not a licensed translator so there was no guarantee it was accurate. I may be wrong on this, though.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
And as far as Bibles in English go, others have covered it well, but my understanding was [and if I'm wrong I'd like to be corrected] more to do with the fact English was seen as a base language, not capable of communicating the truth of God's Word.
You.are.joking.
In all my years of reading in the history of the 16th century English Reformation I've not once seen any such assertion made by writers of the period. I don't say that such an assertion was never made, but I seriously doubt that if it was, it was more than a bit of Continental (French/Spanish) racism against the pig-ignorant English. If Bonner, Gardiner, More, Wolseley or any other Henrician Catholic ever argued this anywhere, I will eat my dial-up modem for lunch.
On the other hand I've read more than once the 16th century Roman notion that the great unwashed ought not to be granted access to the teaching of the bible, but ought to rely on the authority of the priest to teach it to them. That's why copies of Tyndale's Bible in English were confiscated and burned by the authorities.
If you are right about Roman Catholics at lay level, in Sydney or in Melbourne, being encouraged to read their Bibles and understand it for themselves, I would be delighted. It is not the testimony of my friends converted from the Roman church. The Bible studies I am currently editing were written by one man, an ex Roman Catholic, who was and is deeply concerned by the level of biblical illiteracy that he has both experienced and encountered within the Roman church in Sydney.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Yeah, The word of the priest is more important than the Word of God. Of course that's what we believe.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rosamundi
Ship's lacemaker
# 2495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't reading Scripture one way to get an indulgence in the RCC? (Though I realise that may not exactly be a redeeming argument in Gordon's eyes...)
Devout reading of Scripture for at least one half-hour gains a pleniary indulgence subject to the usual conditions.
I have three copies of the Bible - one was given to me by a priest at my Confirmation, one's a copy of the KJV with Deuterocanonicals, and one's this edition of the New Jerusalem.
When I did my RCIA course, every session involved referring to the Bible to answer questions and illustrate points. I was encouraged to read it, both on my own and as part of a study group.
FWIW, I last read my Bible at 11pm last night, in front of the Blessed Sacrament exposed.
The Daily Prayer of the Church, the Divine Office, contains portions of Scripture every day, and Mass during the week has one reading from the Old or New Testament, depending on season, one Psalm, and one reading from the Gospel. Sunday Mass has a reading from both the Old and New Testaments, a Psalm, and a Gospel reading. The sermon typically is an exposition on one or all of the readings.
Deborah
--------------------
Website.
Ship of Fools flickr group
Posts: 2382 | From: here or there | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ah, I'm so glad we cleared it up. So, those of us who are intelligent are able to understand the Bible properly and are thus is perfect agreement with Caleb Woodbridge, whereas those of us who aren't are clearly - quite clearly even - incapable of understanding the Bible and are therefore total dunderheads.
Thanks for the clarification
No, that's not what I've said at all - quite the opposite in many ways. I don't hold that in the slightest and would appreciate it if you tried to engage with what I'm trying to say rather than stereotyping me.
My point is that everyone is fallible, and so no-one, including myself, can claim the authority of scripture for what they think scripture means. Is that a hard point of view to understand?
When I said "it's a matter of understanding the Bible properly", I didn't mean that's something easily achieved, or that it's even possible to achieve more than partially, or that we can have certainty that we have done that.
Cheesy's examples seemed to me to be contrived attempts to come up with deliberately awkward things to show that the Bible "isn't authorative" rather than his genuine view of what the Bible says...
...okay, I've just rereading what I wrote earlier, I see that it appears that I'm being dismissive of what Cheesy may actually hold, which wasn't what I meant at all, and for my misunderstanding of what was said and my insensitivity in my reply, I wholeheartedly apologise.
I'll try and explain what I think more clearly: I think that any seeming contradiction between scripture and our other knowledge is only a seeming contradiction, and would disappear if we only understood things perfectly. There would need to be a particularly strong contradiction between scripture and other facts to outweigh the things that make me believe that I can trust the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
Then how in hell do you handle the historical record that the CHURCH created scripture? (Please don't respond with scriptural citations here, please.) The Church chose the books, recognised which books were being used in the communities, recognised which books contained apostolic teaching - that the Church itself created Scripture.
My view is that the Church recognised what is factually the case - that certain writings are the reliable record of God's revelation of himself, inspired by him. We know the Bible to be authorative because the church recognised this, but the Bible is authorative because that's factually the case whether or not the church recognises it. It's always possible to disagree with the church on the basis of the evidence, but I haven't found any reason to do so.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
rosamundi
Ship's lacemaker
# 2495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If you are right about Roman Catholics at lay level, in Sydney or in Melbourne, being encouraged to read their Bibles and understand it for themselves, I would be delighted. It is not the testimony of my friends converted from the Roman church. The Bible studies I am currently editing were written by one man, an ex Roman Catholic, who was and is deeply concerned by the level of biblical illiteracy that he has both experienced and encountered within the Roman church in Sydney.
I am not necessarily convinced that anyone should take the word of a convert about what was wrong with their previous church. Having swum the Tiber myself, I know I am not to be trusted about Charismatic churches, because the mind plays funny tricks on one, playing up the bad and de-emphasising the good about someone's previous religious experience, even if only to reassure the converter that "yes, I was right all along, I remember it being terrible at the Church of Thing, we don't do that here, ergo I must be right." You should have seen my face when I discovered there are Charismatic movements within the Catholic Church.
Deborah
--------------------
Website.
Ship of Fools flickr group
Posts: 2382 | From: here or there | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
