Rome's suppression of Scripture. To say the least, it is extensive! Consider the following:
• Pope Gregory VII: forbade access of common people to the Bible in 1079, since it would "be so misunderstood by people of limited intelligence as to lead them into error."It is true that in many cases, the papacy suppressed Scripture because it was being used to teach against the church. But this is exactly the point the Reformers argued: Rome would not allow the Scripture to speak with authority and for that reason suppressed it. Wyclif wrote: "where the Bible and the Church do not agree, we must obey the Bible, and, where conscience and human authority are in conflict, we must follow conscience." For this doctrine and its further implications, his body was exhumed and burned, his ashes scattered in a nearby river, and his Bible translation banned. So much for the Protestant "canard" regarding the Roman Catholic attitude to Bible translation, teaching, and distribution!
• Pope Innocent III: compared Bible teaching in church to casting "pearls before swine" (1199).
• The Council of Toulouse (France, 1229): suppressed the Albigensians and forbade the laity to read vernacular translations of the Bible.
• The Second Council of Tarragon (Spain, 1234) declared, "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over. . . that they may be burned."
• In response to the labors of John Wyclif, the English Parliament (under Roman Catholic influence) banned the translation of Scripture into English, unless approved by the church (1408).
• The Council of Constance (Germany/ Bohemia, 1415) condemned John Hus and the writings of Wyclif because of their doctrine of Scripture and subsequent teachings. Hus answerd: "If anyone can instruct me by the sacred Scriptures. . . , I am willing to follow him." He was burned at the stake.
• Archbishop Berthold of Mainz threatened to excommunicate anyone who translated the Bible (1486).
• Pope Pius IV expressed the conviction that Bible reading did the common people more harm than good (1564).
Saturday, November 04, 2017
Rome was against Bible reading before they were for it
Richard Phillips at Reformation 21 has provided a helpful survey of all the times when “Bible reading in the vernacular” was condemned, prior to it being accepted at Vatican II:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Helpful to see this compiled as reference
ReplyDeletegreat list; i can't wait to send it to my favorite papistical apologist!
ReplyDeleteComment has been blocked.
Delete///St. Peter warns that the reason some people twist Scriptures to their own destruction is because they are ignorant (the Greek word amathes can be translated as "unlearned" as well). Therefore, people who are not sufficiently prepared and do not have enough knowledge to read and interpret Scriptures can end up misunderstanding it, falling into heresy and being lost because of that///
Schreiner writes in his commentary on 2 Peter: "The Pauline letters arose as a subject only because they were being distorted by the false teachers, and perhaps the converts of the false teachers as well. ..." -- this is not a caution against people from reading the Scriptures. This is a warning about false teachers. He does presuppose that believers are "firmly established in the truth" (1:12), and that it is "false teachers" who entice "the unstable". "The truth" is a result not of a "magisterium" but rather of an exercise of godliness (see 2 Peter 1:5-9).
There may not have been "Bible scholarship, various Bible tools, commentaries etc.", but this consistent body of belief was reinforced not with an "unbroken succession" but with a "rule of faith" that was known and taught by the apostles: "It is clear, then, for Irenaeus "tradition is not alive ... it cannot change, grow, or develop into something else" (Kruger citing Behr, "Christianity at the Crossroads, pg 138). Kruger continues: "Irenaeus contrasts the orthodox practice of looking back to the apostles with that of heretics who are listening to the presentWhen we consider the nature of second-century Christianity, this sort of unity should not really come as a surprise. While there was no hierarchical authority structure, there was a robust interaction, communication, cooperation and networking among churches during this period. The bottom line is that these elements (in the "rule of faith") are "God's great acts in history" -- believers could be "grounded in the truth".
///Reformation itself, with its doctrinal chaos and lack of possibility of objectively verifying any interpretation ///
There was not "doctrinal chaos". Luther and Zwingli agreed on 14.5 out of 15 of the points for discussion at Marburg in 1530. It's true that the Lutherans and the Reformed went their separate ways (and each had their separate influences in England), but there was not doctrinal chaos until Arminius and later the Pietists became more active several hundred years later. The "Mere Protestant" confession (and even "Roman but Not Catholic") shows a tremendous amount of doctrinal unity among the Protestant denominations.
///Also, this passage shows that misinterpretation of Scripture can lead to destruction///
Again, the "destruction" is the fruit of the false teachers, who (Schriner strongly argues) were looking for ways to justify their own immorality -- which is what leads to the destruction. You have got some fairly bad misunderstandings going on in your head over this.
///Therefore, no Protestant can objectively know whether he, or anyone else for that matter, does not twist Scriptures to his own destruction due to his ignorance, as St. Peter warned about.///
To the contrary, we do have "Bible scholarship, various Bible tools, commentaries etc.", and you will see conservative Protestant denominations (those that hold to the supernatural inspiration of Scripture) will be aligning more and more closely on a lot of things. There will always be false teachers around, seeking their own gain, but believers will be "firmly established" in the truth.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.