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!
ReplyDeleteAlthough some of these restrictions may seem over the top today, in general I agree that unlimited access to Scripture for everybody can ba harmful to souls, and we find warnings about it already in Scripture itself:
ReplyDelete2 Peter 3:16 "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
As we see here, 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. Therefore, limitation of access to Scripture in certain historical circumstances (Medieval people did not have access to Bible scholarship, various Bible tools, commentaries etc. as we do today, many of them were indeed unlearned and - unlike today - had little opportunity to change that) and leaving it to be taught to people by competent members of the Church makes complete sense. Reformation itself, with its doctrinal chaos and lack of possibility of objectively verifying any interpretation (every interpretation is a private opinion, and obviously everyone claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit with their contradictory interpretations) is a confirmation of that.
Also, this passage shows that misinterpretation of Scripture can lead to destruction - that is a problem for those who claim that denominational variety is a good thing. How can Protestants know which doctrines are essential and cannot be subject to misinterpretation and which are adiaphora? Again, there is no way to know it, since every view on this matter is in the realm of private opinion, which is objectively unverifiable in the Protestant paradigm. 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. Some of the doctrines which might be seen as adiaphora can in fact be essential in the view of God and people who reject them can be damned as heretics - but there is no way to figure it out in Protestant paradigm.
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.
//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). //
DeleteThis ignores the main aspect of St. Peter's warning - what leads to the rise of false teachers and people being deceived by them is the fact that they are ignorant, not learned enough to properly interpret Scriptures, and that there are aspects of Scripture which are difficult to understand. Thus, everyone who is not qualified enough but attempts to interpret Scripture can either become a false teacher or fall prey to one. An obvious solution is to limit access to Scripture to those who are qualified to interpret it - in the Medieval period this required a more significant limitation of this access then today.
//"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"."//
To the contrary, St. Irenaeus recognized the authority of presbyters who in succession pass on tradition received from the apostles. Not only did he see hierarchy of the Church as authoritative and essential for maintaining purity of the doctrine, but explicitly distinguished tradition as authoritative besides Scripture:
"2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition." (Against Heresies 3.2.2)
(continued)
Delete//There was not "doctrinal chaos". Luther and Zwingli agreed on 14.5 out of 15 of the points for discussion at Marburg in 1530.//
They could not come to agreement on such a crucial point of theology as the Eucharist, which resulted in Luther calling Zwingli and his followers "blasphemers", claiming that Zwingli "became a heathen altogether" and that he "despairs the salvation of his [Zwingli's] soul". Likewise, Calvin claimed that on this point Luther "sinned from ignorance and the grossest extravagance", calling his views on the Eucharist "absurdities" (Letter to Martin Bucer, 1538). The doctrinal chaos is present in the very historical foundations of Protestant revolt.
//"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."//
Again, why - according to 2 Peter 3:16 - people misinterpret Scriptures to their own destruction? Due to ignorance/being unlearned (amathes), and due to Scriptures being "difficult to understand". Some of the false teachers St. Peter warns about could not properly interpret Scripture due to their lack of preparation to do that, which resulted in their destruction. You completely ignore this aspect of St. Peter's warning.
//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.//
I'm talking about epistemology - each interpretation is just a private, fallibe one and cannot be objectively verified. Nobody in Protestantism can objectively verify which doctrine is essential in the eyes of God and which is adiaphora, which leads to disastrous effects - such as John Piper leaving up to his pastors the decision whether divorced can remarry or not (so, we don't know whether God allows remarriage or not - it is up to individual Piper's pastor to decide. If God does not, than we have Church sanctioned adultery going on). Statement from his own "church" decree, which correctly recognizes worldwide doctrinal chaos on this issue in Protestantism:
"Among the membership of Bethlehem in 1989 complete unanimity does not exist concerning the question what divorces and what remarriages are Biblically permissible. *This lack of unanimity is a reflection of the evangelical church worldwide.*"
So, we just don't know - it is up to you or your pastor, not God. Such are fruits of the reformation.
Another example is the 180 degrees turn on the issue of contraception since the 1930 Labeth Conference is another example of that - apparently, almost everyone in Protestantism was wrong on this issue either before 1930 or now. Such is the result of rejection of the Magisterial authority, the only authority which guarantees a consistent Christian epistemology. Anything else ultimately leads to "me and my Bible" and lack of possibility of objectively verifying truthfulness of any doctrine or theological claim.