Burned at the stake for the Bible

[Thomas]

Education of Nick the Pilot, including a brief history of the Bible in English, 1

Hey, Thomas, are you talking to me again?

Yes. As a child, as I said.

You were so absorbed in repeatedly calling me a hypocrite, I thought you had stopped talking to me.

No, I re-addressed that. I will treat you as a child whilst you continue to act like one.

I'll just keep bringing this discussion back to issues you continually refuse to address.

You see, I have addressed every issue you have raised. But I have invalidated your points, which, being unable to respond, you choose to ignore and then manipulate my responses as if I were agreeing with you. Very childish, as no-one is taken in.

1. Did God allow a heretic to become Pope? (That seems to be what you are saying.)

No, although I can see it might seem that way to you. The Pope is elected by the community, not God, and the community is neither infallible, nor a puppet of God. The community acted in all good faith in electing Honorius (the pope in question), and hoped in faith they had made the right decision. As electing a Pope does not constitute a dogmatic statement on a question of faith or morals, it is not under the charism of infallibility. As man is human, and thus can err, neither ordination nor election guarantees perfection.

Honorius voiced his understanding of the issue as he saw it, but his answer to the question of Sergius did not decide the issue (he advises caution), did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, nor claim to speak with the voice of Peter. He condemned nothing, nor defined anything — therefore nothing can be said to be stated infallibly.

So God is not imputable for Honorius's election, nor his error.

2. Why is it that Genesis 2:5 does not make any sense at all?

It does, silly. I've explained it more than once, but obviously it's too complex for you — it requires a certain subtlety of mind to conceive of two accounts of the same thing from different metaphysical viewpoints — the creation of the soul and its physical manifestation.

3. Is it true that the church refused to let people read the Bible in English?

No. Although I do admit the persistence of this error demonstrates our pretty dismal performance in public relations over the past 500 years, except in the case of the modern media and yourself, neither of whom seem interested in the truth.

A little history lesson:
At the request of Pope Damasus in the late 4th century, St. Jerome undertook the creation of the Latin Vulgate — 'vulgate' means "the common speech of a people; the vernacular" – Latin had replaced koine Greek as the lingua franca of the West.

This text would serve as the authoritative Scripture for the Western Church for the next fifteen-hundred years — what was condemned were inaccurate or polemical translations of the original text, such as those of Wyclif and Tyndale.

It might be hard to grasp, but Latin did not die with the Roman Empire, and throughout the Middle Ages (even until quite recently), anyone who was literate read and wrote in Latin. I have a report from the 19th century of the captains of an English and a French naval vessel who conversed in Latin, being the only tongue they had in common — it was the language of learning and culture across Europe.

Thus, for the literate people of England, the Vulgate served as the primary Bible during the entire Middle Ages. However, there were 'Enlglish' translations undertaken and produced:

Bishop of Sherborne (639-709) wrote Old English translation of the Psalms, although this is disputed.

Caedmon (7th century) sang poems in Old English based on the Bible stories, (not translations per se — but orthodox).

The Venerable Bede, a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church (one of two Englishmen to hold that title) translated the Gospel of John into Old English.

The Vespasian Psalter, an interlinear translation found in a manuscript of the Book of Psalms, dating around 850AD, in the Mercian dialect.

Eleven 9th century glosses of the Psalms are known, including Eadwine's Canterbury Psalter.

King Alfred the Great had a number of passages of the Bible circulated in the vernacular in around 900.

Between 950 and 970, Aldred added a gloss in the Northumbrian dialect of Old English to the Lindisfarne Gospels.

At around the same time, a priest named Farman wrote a gloss on the Gospel of Matthew.

In approximately 990, a full and freestanding version of the four Gospels in idiomatic Old English appeared, in the West Saxon dialect: the Wessex Gospels.

At about the same time, a priest of Dorsetshire named Ælfric produced a translation of the Pentateuch with Joshua and Judges.

The "Caedmon Manuscript" (initially ascribed to Caedmon), dates from between 700-1000. It includes Biblical material in vernacular verse.

The Norman conquest of England (1066) marked the beginning of the end of the Old English language (Saxon and other dialects), the introduction of French on a wide scale, and the emergence of Middle English as a result. From this time we have various manuscripts such as the paraphrase of Orm (ca. 1150) and the Salus Animæ (ca. 1250).

The existence of translations during this period is affirmed by the original preface to the King James Bible and Sir Thomas More, who wrote: "The whole Bible long before Wyclif's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read."

I haven't finished yet ...

 

[Thomas]

Education of Nick the Pilot, including a brief history of the Bible in English, 2

By the late 14th century, English as a recognisable language (to us) began to emerge.

Several translations of parts of the Bible, eg the Psalters attributed to William Shoreham and Richard Rolle appear, among others.

The translation of the Vulgate attributed to John Wyclif appeared in 1380. The Synod of Oxford (1408), condemned the translations. They were seen as inaccurate and polemical (such as we view the Jehovah's Witnesses version today).

Regarding the laity, records in the form of literature, legal documents, correspondence, etc., provide ample evidence that they were exceedingly familiar with Scripture. Though the common people of that time were largely illiterate (therefore the Bible in any language was not much use), a strong oral tradition of Scripture puts contemporary man to shame. Homilies, personal prayer, drama, and art — notably Passion Plays — and popular piety in the writings of the English mystics all served to educate the masses in Scripture. Churches themselves were "visual Bibles," something destroyed by the reformation — in statuary and iconography, stained-glass windows, liturgies and vestments, rites and rituals, secular as well as sacredotal — served to teach the Bible.

With the arrival of the printing press, the first printed Bible in the vernacular in England was produced by Tyndale. Under Protestant influence (of Luther, principally) the translation included anti-Catholic footnotes and was considered in error by the bishops of England.

The fair-minded St. Thomas More wrote of Tyndale's translation:

to find errors in Tyndale's book [was] like studying to find water in the sea."

Not surprisingly, the translation was condemned and copies, smuggled from Europe, were burned.

During the 16th century, a host of English Bibles emerged. The Coverdale Bible, the Geneva Bible (written in Geneva by Protestants), the Bishops Bible (done under Queen Elizabeth by the Church of England to counteract the Calvinist influence in the Geneva Bible).

So already the Reformers were disputing amongst themselves the authentic version of the text.

In Europe, an authentic and Catholic translation of the New Testament was produced in Rheims (France) by 1582. The Old Testament was then translated at the English College in Douay (France) and completed in 1609.

The Church authorised the translation "with the object of healthfully counteracting the corruptions whereby the heretics have so long lamentably deluded almost the whole of our countrymen."

The translation was based upon the Latin Vulgate and compared with the original Greek.

Bishop Challoner significantly revised the Douay-Rheims Bible in the 18th century to eliminate obscure words and render the text more readable.

The quality of the Catholic Douay-Rheims version influenced the translators of the King James Version — widely regarded, even today, as one of the best English translation of the Bible ever undertaken.

+++

To repeat then, no, it is not true the Church refused to let the people read the Bible in Engish, it's been producing Bibles in the common tongue of the people of the British Isles, from Saxon days on!

They refused to let the people read erroneous translations of the Bible into English, for very good reasons.

Two things:
Thanks for making me take the time to research this topic so I can, once and for all, knock your cock-eyed notions into a cocked hat.

Perhaps you might like to contact the makers of the TV programme you watched, and inform them their research (or rather lack of) and its (ignorant and erroneous) conclusions, is a crock of the usual muddled, mischievous and sensationalist muck-raking crap.

Now ... I have treated you like a grown-up, I only hope you can persevere through this, I know it's a lot to read, but it is worth it.

All that remains is the hypocrisy of your own position to resolve.

Thomas
PS: To the mods: I have taken much from web sources without attribution. It's all primarily from wiki, thus open-source, but I have checked where I can, as I get penalised for using wiki as a source in my essays. I would crave your indulgence on this occasion, for the sake of brevity ... I'm on a pretty safe bet that these two posts (1 and 2) are an exercise in futility as Nick the Pilot will ignore or distort anything that does not match his presuppositions — in all probability, water off a blind duck's back.

If anyone wishes me to attribute sources, I'll backtrack.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

4. Why does a group of gods say they created man in Genesis 1:26,
"Let us make man..."

There is no group of gods, just your ignorance of a widespread Hebraic literary style in respectful and formal address. Even today, here in England, the monarch refers to him/herself as 'we', a direct derivation of that mode of address.

...yet a single God says He created humanity in the very next sentence, in Genesis 1:27?
"So God created man in his [singular] own image...."

Drawn from a parallel oral tradition, therefore a different literary style.

In your previous response to this question, you said the sudden changing from plural to singular, etc., was just "a figure of speech."

Did I? How remiss, if I did. I should of course have said, 'a literary technique' The evidence is there in a number of texts from the earliest antiquity. Of course, one is ignorant of such scholarly matters, one is liable to jump to erroneous conclusions.

If God is so perfect, why did He allow such a confusing "figure of speech" to be used? Don't you claim the Bible is perfect?

No. We even point out where there are errors, such as duplications of text. We do however claim the Bible transmits the data of Revelation, and in that aspect is Perfect beyond measure. To quote St John:
"We announce to you the eternal life which dwelt with the Father and was made visible to us. What we have seen and heard we announce to you, so that you may have fellowship with us and our common fellowship be with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:2-3).
That, Sacred Scripture does perfectly, and infallibly. By God's grace he allowed the writer to be himself, the Bible is not a work of 'automatic writing' or any such neo-spiritualist nonsense, but under the charism of the Holy Spirit.

5. You claim I am hypocritical. I have said nothing hypocritical. The ball is now in your court regarding issue #5.

I shall leave others to be the judge of that. To me, the evidence is ample and irrefutable. I don't doubt you don't see it. I don't doubt you don't want to. Children rarely like to admit their mistakes.

6. Why did a Pope, who allegedly had infallibility available to him, sit back and let people be burned at the stake for their religious beliefs? He could have stopped the burnings with the simple writing of one letter?

Just like a child ... why ... why ... why! This is a whole new question, and you've had more than enough to be going on with. So many questions, you're getting over-excited and exhaust yourself, and in my experience, this always ends in tears before bedtime.

You never know, if you try really hard, you might work it out for yourself, but I wouldn't push it.

If not, when you grow up, you'll understand. To quote St Paul:
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child."
1 Corinthians 13:11

When I see evidence of the end of your childish ways, I'll answer the question.

Until then ... patience, my son, it'll make a man of you!

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Nick —


OK ... but again ... we always have done for as far back as history goes, so we are improving, even if only in minute increments.

In the last century people have killed far more over the conceptions of fulfilling a political ideal, so you can't blame God or religion for that, it's obvious the fault lies with people ... my point being that getting rid of religion will not stop the killing ... people will find other means of justification.


The way to the esoteric is through the exoteric ... the exoteric is the veil of the esoteric ... and the way you're talking about, we call ressourcement theologie 'a return to the source' ... we're doing exactly that.


That's a matter of opinion. I question your depth of knowledge of the Church. I don't think it's shallow at all ... the more I look, the deeper it gets.


There you go ... only because you have the evidence via Weil. If you had not come across her, I doubt you would have come across that view of the Church. Nor was Weil infallibly equipped to comment on the whole Church ... her experience is necessarily subjective, with all the implications of that. To me it seems she 'suffered' her genius ... and she was wrong on certain aspects.

You even quote:

Weil always stood off from that possibility of experience, even though it was the one she desired.

My point is, it seems you are drawn to Weil, better to be drawn to the source of that 'supernatural power' — something she never allowed herself to do.

It also shows that the power of which she speaks works through the Church — regardless of the 'exoteric' vision of the Church — I would not put 1937 as our Golden Age. So she, on one occasion, saw one person. I wonder how many times that miracle is repeated, every day?

There are some Catholics who can clearly see the 'shallowness' of Weil's approach to the Church. She tried to engage it intellectually ... doesn't work.


OK. I'm sorry ... but that's your experience, it's not mine.

Look for poetry: T.S. Eliot, or David Jones (can't think of more, mystical poetry is not my strong suit).

Look for theologians like de Lubac, Congar, Danielou, von Balthasar, Charles Journet ...

Look for mystic theologians like Matthias Scheeben or Emile Mersch...

Look for mystics like St Pio, Adrienne von Speyr, Caryll Houselander, Ruth Burrows ...


The post-Vatican II Church is a radically different institution. I believe it's mission would have been a lot more luminous and realised a lot sooner had not the liberalising element made a complete mess of it where they were allowed free rein (notably US and Holland).

Christ did not reach everybody ... and large numbers deserted Him, so I do not believe the Church is failing if not everybody falls on their knees before Her. Rather, it's incumbent on people to reach out to the Church too ...


Not if the liberals have their way.


We've had the humility to admit all our mistakes ... it's just not enough for the world.

I think the eye of the beholder has become more opaque, I happen to think the Church is more esoteric outwardly now, than she has ever been — the Liturgy post Vatican-II has lost much of its solemnity, but is far more inclusive of the congregation than ever before.

I too think we're not doing enough ... I walked away from the Church at 16 and was nigh on 40 before I came back ... but then I'm in there, doing it, trying to put that right ... but I'm doing it by seeking the good, and trying to bring out the good, whereas I'm constantly faced with those who are only interested in the bad — or those like Nick the Pilot intent on inflicting as much damage as possible — you will excuse me if I show a certain lack of patience.

As Wil would point out, we're always looking for someone else to blame to let ourselves off the hook.

OK, you've got complaints — but that is not the universal experience, that is yours to deal with. I and many others see it differently, but then those others, like me, are in it, not outside, bitching ... we do our bitching inside, to those who can actually make changes ... we make our voices known where they might do some good, not where it serves not good purpose at all.

To say the Church is a purely exoteric organisation is nonsense, but you won't see the esoteric unless you're in it ... that's the way it works.

You talk of the metaphysical poets, but look what religion was doing in the 17th century ... there will always be sin in the members, Nick, because we're human, but to assume that's all there is, is to look superfically.

Look at any era of the Church, and look at the great theologians and mystics of that era ... was the Church then in her golden age? I don't think so ... so why assume there should be any difference now?

That somehow the church has 'changed' I think is the error of modernity ... She remains the same (that's the main complaint we suffer, we don't change) ... but the world changes, and the world moves further away ... and becomes more egocentric, and more and more demands the Church comes to man on his own terms.

Ain't gonna happen, Nick, Jesus didn't, and nor will His Church. It's on His terms, or nothing, and if the alternative is crucifixion, then we'll be crucified for what we believe, He was, after all.

In short Nick, and others, for your own soul's sake ... if the Church is not for you, walk away, find something that is, and go for it ... but don't do nothing, and then hold us responsible for nothing happening.

Thomas

I agree that getting rid of religion doesn't solve anything. What we've done to religion reveals what we are. It doesn't change by getting rid of religion since the same results just take a different form.

The esoteric must begin with the exoteric. The change of inner psychological direction is known as metanoia. However a person is very vulnerable in these times and easily fall victim to all sorts of charlatans and false prophets including within the Church.

I know from experience that though there may be a minority in the church that are genuine, the majority form a corrupt political machine within which there is much too much arrogance and suffering. I know I could never get a straight answer out of priests so know many others are in the same boat. They have taken the deep idea of the faith of Christ and devolved it into belief in Christ and the church to everyone's disadvantage.

I was interested in esoteric Christianity before I knew of Simone. You simply do not appreciate those like Simone Weil and Meister Eckhart who the church also wanted to get rid of.

She was in tune with the supernatural power. Why do you think she had contact with higher consciousness.

Without the intellect in this day and age the church will often produce slaves with blind faith. It was Simone's intellect and pure heart that didn't allow her to fall victim to false prophets and false gods. Yes the Friday night bingo players concerned about what others are wearing would think her weird and shallow. I'll stick with Simone.

You mention T.S. Eliot and it was he that wrote the introduction to Simone Weil's "The Need for Roots."

Luke 17:

1Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3So watch yourselves.

Little ones means people new to the inner experience that have just experienced a quality of metanoia.The church has a way of controlling people through guilt rather then allowing them the experience of remorse. Naturally they condemn others to avoid guilt and continue in justified hypocrisy. This causes people to sin. Guilt is an expression of ones personality and their vanity rather then experiencing any genuine inner understanding.. They are often deprived of the true value of what the teaching offers because of their attitude. They don't know the harm they do but Jesus was well aware of this destructive potential within humanity in general


In short Christianity is for me while Christendom is not. I consider myself fortunate to have learned the distinction.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you answered,

1. Did God allow a heretic to become Pope? (That seems to be what you are saying.) --> No. The Pope is elected by the community, not God…. As man is human, and thus can err, neither ordination nor election guarantees perfection.

--> What you are telling us is, out of the billions of people on this planet, God has chosen to give ‘infallibilty’ only one person. If God did this, then it only makes sense that He would have put in some safeguards that such ‘infallibility would not be misused. The fact that no such safeguards exist show that God has erred in giving such ‘infallibility’ to one man. Or – more likely – that no such ‘infallibility’ exists.

2. Why is it that Genesis 2:5 does not make any sense at all? …it requires a certain subtlety of mind to conceive of two accounts of the same thing from different metaphysical viewpoints — the creation of the soul and its physical manifestation.

--> Let’s take a look at "two accounts of the same thing from different metaphysical viewpoints." What you are saying is, one story was told, then another accounting of the same story was then told. Unfortunately, this does not agree with what the Bible says. The Bible gives a clear timeline of events. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the same story is being repeated. Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "OK folks, let’s take another look at the Seven Days of Creation from another metaphysical viewpoint." What the Bible says is that all of these events occurred in a single timeline.

3. Is it true that the church refused to let people read the Bible in English? --> No.

--> Thank you for that answer. I see that you even insult the people who wrote that TV program. Quite frankly, their story is quite accurate – people were forbidden to read or even possess a Bible written in English.

The TV show says that man who printed the Bible was put to death for what he did. We will leave it up the readers of this Forum whether to accept your version of the story, of the TV program's version which characterizes his death on the grounds of religious freedom.

You said,

"…the translation included anti-Catholic footnotes and was considered in error by the bishops of England.

--> Anti-Catholic footnotes? What did such 'anti-Catholic' footnotes say?

While you do not admit he was put to death for printing the Bible in English, you admit he was put to death for printing a Bible which contained ‘anti-Catholic footnotes." Such is the desire of the church to squash any 'unofficial' interpretations of the Bible? We can now see how it is the official policy of the church to oppose religious freedom, and the freedom to read any Bible we choose.

Not surprisingly, the translation was condemned and copies, smuggled from Europe, were burned.

--> Thank you for admitting your intolerance of Bibles that you do not approve of. We can now see how it is the official policy of the church to burn books it does not approve of. Does the church still burn such books? According to the story, the copies were stolen (you would call them 'confiscated.') Does the church still have the right to burst into my home and 'confiscate' a Bible in my own home that the church does not 'like'?

"So already the Reformers were disputing amongst themselves the authentic version of the text."

--> Such is the power of religious freedom. It is a shame you disapprove of religious freedom.

4. … "So God created man in his [singular] own image...." --> Drawn from a parallel oral tradition, therefore a different literary style.

A parallel oral tradition? Let’s take a look. The first 25 verses of Genesis describe God in the singular. Then, suddenly, one verse starts talking of God in the plural. But in the very next verse, God suddenly reverts back to the singular, and continues in the singular for the rest of the chapter (six verses).

A parallel oral tradition? Are we to assume the first 25 verses of Genesis are one ‘oral tradition,’ followed by one line of a different ‘oral tradition,’ followed by a return of six more lines of the first ‘oral tradition’?

6. Why did a Pope, who allegedly had infallibility available to him, sit back and let people be burned at the stake for their religious beliefs? He could have stopped the burnings with the simple writing of one letter?

My question goes unanswered.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Oh, Thomas, one more thing. I just wanted to point out to everyone that these pesky questions about 'parallel oral traditions,' etc., are exactly why the church does not want to people to read the Bible line-by-line by themselves, are exactly why the church only wants 'church-approved' Bible studies, and exactly why people have been murdered by the church in order to prevent these 'pesky' questions from coming up in the first place.

 

[Thomas]

What you are telling us is ...

No, I'm telling you the truth, but it's not what you want to hear, so you don't hear it.

You also appear to be getting irritable ... so my advice is give it up, Nick, you've lost this one, and you're clutching at straws now, and only making yourself look worse.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Nick — that vision and inspiration of hers that you have quoted at least twice now, of the radiance of the person having received the Eucharist was a vision of the institutional church — it was not of a member of some interior intellectual class, nor a member of some elite esoteric order, was it?

Just someone going to Mass, that's all ... so the very thing she sought was the very thing she stood apart from ... she was shown a sign, and turned it into an intellectual exercise, when the answer, far, far simpler, was staring her in the face all along.

Without the intellect in this day and age the church will often produce slaves with blind faith.

Then the responsibility of the intellectual is to lead, not to remove themselves into a private elite.

And again, that person infused by the Eucharistic Presence whom Weil saw, was most probably one of the 'slaves with blind faith' ...

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:3 and, to mine own namesake:
"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
John 20:29

In short Christianity is for me while Christendom is not. I consider myself fortunate to have learned the distinction.

As I see it, 'Christianity' is what we are given, 'Christendom' is what we make of it, with all its beauty, its splendour, and its tragedy ... I don't think we can escape that, any more than we can ignore history or pretend it never happened.

But I'll not pursue that ... I wish you luck — in my experience that distinction results in a sterile intellectualism or a pseudo-Hermetic fantasia ... hopefully yours is different.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

"I am not a Catholic; but I consider the Christian idea, which has its roots in Greek thought and in the course of the centuries has nourished all of our European civilization, as something that one cannot renounce without becoming degraded." Simone Weil

Hi Thomas

Nick — that vision and inspiration of hers that you have quoted at least twice now, of the radiance of the person having received the Eucharist was a vision of the institutional church — it was not of a member of some interior intellectual class, nor a member of some elite esoteric order, was it?

Just someone going to Mass, that's all ... so the very thing she sought was the very thing she stood apart from ... she was shown a sign, and turned it into an intellectual exercise, when the answer, far, far simpler, was staring her in the face all along.

We don't know who he was but we do know where she was and people who have practiced esoteric Christianity will visit such places as well.

For those like her, the mind as well as the body and emotions participate in the transformative development of ones being that the teaching has the potential to provide. She writes:

"The idea of purity, with all that this word can imply for a Christian, took possession of me at the age of sixteen, after a period of several months during which I had been going through the emotional unrest natural in adolescence. This idea came to me when I was contemplating mountain landscape and little by little it was imposed upon me in an irresistible manner.

Of course I knew quite well that my conception of life was Christian. That is why it never occurred to me that I could enter the Christian community. I had the idea that I was born inside. But to add dogma to this conception of life, without being forced to do so by indisputable evidence, would have seemed to me like a lack of honesty. I should even have thought I was lacking in honesty had I considered the question of the truth of dogma as a problem for myself or even had I simply desired to reach a conclusion on this subject. I have an extremely severe standard for intellectual honesty, so severe that I never met anyone who did not seem to fall short of it in more than one respect; and I am always afraid of failing in it myself.

Keeping away from dogma in this way, I was prevented by a sort of shame from going into churches, though all the same I like being in them. Nevertheless, I had three contacts with Catholicism that really counted."

You cannot understand people "born inside" from an exoteric secular perspective. She rejects what she is inwardly obligated to reject -- secular domination. She senses the work of false gods and prophets within the sacred so simply cannot blindly accept it.

Then the responsibility of the intellectual is to lead, not to remove themselves into a private elite.

This is what she has done without the intention to do so. She never wrote for publication. But the purity of her life's efforts and her search have made her the "Patron Saint of Outsiders" for people that feel what she felt and feel something real from the publications of her writings they are attracted to. She has become a leader much to the annoyance of the secularists but for the good of seeking the deeper truths beyond secular beliefs:

"In the Church, considered as a social organism, the mysteries inevitably degenerate into beliefs." Simone Weil

Simone rejected distorted beliefs normal for the secular rather than the depth of the teaching itself which transcends our fallen capacity to understand.

As I see it, 'Christianity' is what we are given, 'Christendom' is what we make of it, with all its beauty, its splendour, and its tragedy ... I don't think we can escape that, any more than we can ignore history or pretend it never happened.

Quite true. and for Christendom to succeed and grow in power it must kill Christianity. We choose what side we are on.

But I'll not pursue that ... I wish you luck — in my experience that distinction results in a sterile intellectualism or a pseudo-Hermetic fantasia ... hopefully yours is different.

I wish you the same. In my experiences the depth and inner experiences of Christianity exceed anything I've experienced from Christendom. We have our respective directions.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

The question that keeps popping up is why? Why did the church confiscate Bibles and burn them? Why did the church forbid people to have English Bibles, yet allow them to have Bibles written in a foreign language? Why was the man who printed the first English-language Bible put to death? Why does the church not want people to sit down and analyze the Bible line by line, word by word? Why cannot I not walk down to a local Catholic church and attend a true Bible Study Class, even today?

The answer is simple. Any open-minded person who reads Genesis 1:26 is going to ask, "Hey, wait a minute, why does this one verse mention God as plural, yet all of the other verses in the same chapter mention God as singular?" And, such a person who reads Genesis 2:5 is going to ask, "Hey, wait a minute, why does it say here that no man existed, when it says back in Day Six of the Creation Story that man had already been created?"

These are exactly the kinds of questions that Catholic priests hate to hear. (Believe me, I know, from personal experience.) The church does not want to hear these kinds of questions. This is why the church has done everything it can to stop people from reading these verses for themselves, and asking such ‘pesky’ questions. (Fortunately, it had failed in both tasks.)

I asked several questions.

What did those 'anti-Catholic' footnotes say?

My question goes unanswered.

Are you saying that the first 25 verses of Genesis are of one ‘oral tradition,’ followed by one verse of a different ‘oral tradition,’ followed by a return to six more verses of the first ‘oral tradition’? Why does the Bible contain a 'parallel oral tradition' of only one verse?

My questions go unanswered.

Why did a Pope, who allegedly had infallibility available to him, sit back and let people be burned at the stake for their religious beliefs? He could have stopped the burnings with the simple writing of one letter?

My questions go unanswered.

I add a new question.

If, by your own admission, the church used to seize and burn Bibles, why doesn't the church do that any more?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

My questions go unanswered.

No, you have already decided the issue — you have accepted what you saw on TV, it was on TV so it must be true — no other answer will suffice if it does not affirm what you saw on TV.

Let me recall your original post:

I was especially amazed by how the Catholic and Episcopal churches forbid the Bible to be written in English, and forbid its members to read the Bible all by themselves.

The obvious implication being that this was news to you.

I have demonstrated — with historical data — that the Catholic Church did not forbid the Bible in English, it's been producing texts since the 9th century, nor did it forbid its members to read the Bible all by themselves. In short, that the PBS programme was ill-researched and opted for a sensationalist presentation of its material.

So your question have in fact been answered. The answers are not what you want to hear.

Whether you choose to accept my responses, or the PBS view of history, is another matter, but the questions were answered.

It seems PBS is your 'bible' on this issue.

I suggest you take your questions up with them, you'll most probably get the sensationalist answers you're looking for.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

Nick the Pilot

The answer is simple. Any open-minded person who reads Genesis 1:26 is going to ask, "Hey, wait a minute, why does this one verse mention God as plural, yet all of the other verses in the same chapter mention God as singular?" And, such a person who reads Genesis 2:5 is going to ask, "Hey, wait a minute, why does it say here that no man existed, when it says back in Day Six of the Creation Story that man had already been created?"

These are exactly the kinds of questions that Catholic priests hate to hear. (Believe me, I know, from personal experience.) The church does not want to hear these kinds of questions. This is why the church has done everything it can to stop people from reading these verses for themselves, and asking such ‘pesky’ questions. (Fortunately, it had failed in both tasks.)

This has been my experience as well. Only in mid life have I come to see that there is no contradiction. It just requires understanding the nature of the Trinity. However in my teens I got the impression that there was something "wrong" with such questions. This negative attitude was a major reason for staying away from the church.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick and Nick and all –

I'm signing out of this debate now, having done all that was reasonably asked of me. No doubt we shall talk down the line, but for the moment, this is my closing statement on matters at hand.

These are exactly the kinds of questions that Catholic priests hate to hear.[/I] (Believe me, I know, from personal experience.) The church does not want to hear these kinds of questions. This is why the church has done everything it can to stop people from reading these verses for themselves, and asking such ‘pesky’ questions. (Fortunately, it had failed in both tasks.)

The access to Bible Study, theology, etc., is more open now than it has ever been ... my own case is an example, I'm a 'walk off the street' guy who now has access to theologians who teach in the universities in Rome, and every priest I have met delights in the idea of my doing a theology degree. I have even been offered access to documents that haven't seen the light of day (for lack of interest, i might add) for a thousand years.

The model we have established is currently being copied in the US to provide outreach and distance learning programmes there. Curiously we also have a sibling outfit in the Middle East! The Lord moves in mysterious ways, indeed.

But then I took the responsibility upon myself to seek out priests who challenge me ... like doctors, dentists, teachers, musicians, poets and bosses, I assumed there would be some good, some bad, some indifferent ... it seems a fact of human nature. I see no reason why a priest should be different, they are human after all. Nor am I perfect. When I heard about this course, I checked it out with a few people I knew and respected.

Nor did I expect that the first priest I met must necessarily fulfil all my requirements, there are others issues in the world, and on the average parish priest's plate, than mine alone.

+++

For my part, the cry now is 'gimme a break!' ... besides a reading list as long as your arm, which includes Bultmann, Barth, Rahner and a number of other 'saints and sinners' — even heretics! — there's Derrida and Lacan, archaeology and Quantum Physics ... Furthermore, I am being 'actively encouraged' to learn Greek, or Latin, or better, both! So that I can read the texts in the original and thus draw my own conclusions, and not live on the 'interpretation' of someone who may well provide a translation suited to his own point of view.

So I would say that your experience in your part of the world was unfortunate, and as a Catholic I am saddened by it, I will even apologise for it on behalf of my Church ... but I don't accept that as sufficient reason to give up, or cry 'sour grapes'.

Not saying we're perfect, not saying there isn't a long way to go, and a lot to be done, but that's why I'm in there, doing what I can do. Nothing ever changed for the better any other way than by rolling your sleeves up and getting on with changing it.

You can live in and argue in the past as much as you like. I'm over fifty now, half way to sixty, even ... time is no longer my luxury — my productive years are fewer than they once were, my days, as they say, are numbered, I haven't my youth to waste. I can no longer afford to live in the past, nor rest on complaint, nor blame someone else for my situation. I'd be one bitter old ******* if I settled for that. I'm ******* enough as it is, according to some...

I've got somewhere I want to be by the time I shuffle off this mortal coil. I want to be equipped for my transitus according to my nature.

And as I get older, I find I have less patience with complaint — it's such an unproductive exercise if not accompanied by fruitful action.

There's a prayer, it's a good one:
"God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
courage to change the things we can,
and wisdom to know the difference."

So take a word of wisdom ... if you don't like it, and can't change it, then move along, there's no good for you here. Don't hang around criticising and carping because it's not for you. Time spent criticising just draws more bitterness into yourself.

Go out and live a life ... And God speed,

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Nick and Nick and all –

I'm signing out of this debate now, having done all that was reasonably asked of me. No doubt we shall talk down the line, but for the moment, this is my closing statement on matters at hand.



The access to Bible Study, theology, etc., is more open now than it has ever been ... my own case is an example, I'm a 'walk off the street' guy who now has access to theologians who teach in the universities in Rome, and every priest I have met delights in the idea of my doing a theology degree. I have even been offered access to documents that haven't seen the light of day (for lack of interest, i might add) for a thousand years.

The model we have established is currently being copied in the US to provide outreach and distance learning programmes there. Curiously we also have a sibling outfit in the Middle East! The Lord moves in mysterious ways, indeed.

But then I took the responsibility upon myself to seek out priests who challenge me ... like doctors, dentists, teachers, musicians, poets and bosses, I assumed there would be some good, some bad, some indifferent ... it seems a fact of human nature. I see no reason why a priest should be different, they are human after all. Nor am I perfect. When I heard about this course, I checked it out with a few people I knew and respected.

Nor did I expect that the first priest I met must necessarily fulfil all my requirements, there are others issues in the world, and on the average parish priest's plate, than mine alone.

+++

For my part, the cry now is 'gimme a break!' ... besides a reading list as long as your arm, which includes Bultmann, Barth, Rahner and a number of other 'saints and sinners' — even heretics! — there's Derrida and Lacan, archaeology and Quantum Physics ... Furthermore, I am being 'actively encouraged' to learn Greek, or Latin, or better, both! So that I can read the texts in the original and thus draw my own conclusions, and not live on the 'interpretation' of someone who may well provide a translation suited to his own point of view.

So I would say that your experience in your part of the world was unfortunate, and as a Catholic I am saddened by it, I will even apologise for it on behalf of my Church ... but I don't accept that as sufficient reason to give up, or cry 'sour grapes'.

Not saying we're perfect, not saying there isn't a long way to go, and a lot to be done, but that's why I'm in there, doing what I can do. Nothing ever changed for the better any other way than by rolling your sleeves up and getting on with changing it.

You can live in and argue in the past as much as you like. I'm over fifty now, half way to sixty, even ... time is no longer my luxury — my productive years are fewer than they once were, my days, as they say, are numbered, I haven't my youth to waste. I can no longer afford to live in the past, nor rest on complaint, nor blame someone else for my situation. I'd be one bitter old ******* if I settled for that. I'm ******* enough as it is, according to some...

I've got somewhere I want to be by the time I shuffle off this mortal coil. I want to be equipped for my transitus according to my nature.

And as I get older, I find I have less patience with complaint — it's such an unproductive exercise if not accompanied by fruitful action.

There's a prayer, it's a good one:
"God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
courage to change the things we can,
and wisdom to know the difference."

So take a word of wisdom ... if you don't like it, and can't change it, then move along, there's no good for you here. Don't hang around criticising and carping because it's not for you. Time spent criticising just draws more bitterness into yourself.

Go out and live a life ... And God speed,

Thomas

Hi Thomas. I hope you achieve what you desire. As for me I don't complain but rather offer an alternative so as to help open the mind. I feel for those tht have been hurt but also support the parts of Catholicism that are open to reason. For example a Catholic University in Australia has yearly lectures on the ideas of Simone Weil. Now that is progress.

The School of Philosophy Simone Weil Lectures on Human Value - ACU National (Australian Catholic University)

In 2009 the Royal Institute of Philosophy in London has a lecture on Simone open to the public. These and more efforts to come offer an alternative to the dark side of Catholicism. I hope to be part of an effort in New York.

The Royal Institute of Philosophy

Simone Weil is called the "New Saint" because she didn't deny her intellect but rather learned how to use it beyond the limitations of binary associative thought so as to compliment the needs of the heart. These efforts will gradually have a purifying effect on the church for the benefit of all parties concerned. Being involved with such efforts is far beyond just complaining.

 

[iBrian]

Interesting - I've got to admit, my own reading of the subject was that the early Catholic church saw itself as a guardian of the Bible, but that in such guardianship, came the politics of controlling the message - ie, the point underlining everything regarding the Bible is that you had to go through the priests of the Catholic Church in order for a layman to access the Bible.

While there may have been a valid spiritual argument about protecting the correctness of "the word", we all know too well that through the millenia the Papacy has certainly been an extremely political animal, sometimes very much more concerned with the political well-being of itself, than the spiritual well being of the flock.

Preventing the texts from being copied, read, made accessible to the layman, was a way to keep the Church empowered over the layman - none could go through Jesus with The Church. By printing the Bible, Tyndale and similar were empowering the layman at the detriment of the political power of the Catholic Church because the Church could now be questioned, and even argued as wrong.

Remember, the conservatism within Catholicism sought to maintain and protect it's own world view - it's brushes with Gallileo and similar for challenging that are legendary, because it diminished the influence of the Church with it.

I didn't see the PBS program, but I was under the impression that it was a commonly accepted fact within secular historical studies that the Roman Catholic church saw translation of the Bible as a threat because it directly circumvented the role of the church as sole authority in spiritual matters. While those trying to translate it may have been reformers, and therefore against the Roman Catholic Church in the first place, I don't see any argument that the Roman Catholic Church itself actively supported the printing of the Bible outside of Latin, precisely because of the reasons above.

2c.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

We discussed,

"My questions go unanswered. --> No..."

--> I have two responses.

(1) You have not answered the questions.

(2) There are people out there — Catholics included — who are reading this discussion. These people are genuinely interested in hearing your answers to my questions. If you won't do it for me, do it for them.

"The access to Bible Study, theology, etc., is more open now than it has ever been ..."

--> I am glad to hear that. The theme of the 20th century was openess and questioning. The church is being swept along in this new atmosphere, and I am glad to hear it.

"I'm a 'walk off the street' guy...."

--> It think it is obvious that you have worn the robes of Bishop, perhaps even Pope, in more than one previous reincarnation. Have you considered this possibility?

"The model we have established is currently being copied in the US to provide outreach and distance learning programmes there."

--> I am glad to hear of such progess within the church.

"For my part, the cry now is 'gimme a break!' "

--> This is the main difference between us. I actually enjoy questions about things like Genesis 1:26, Genesis 2:5, etc., and I feel no need for a break from such questions. This is fun! I am truly sorry that you do not see this as fun.

"...that's why I'm in there, doing what I can do."

--> It sounds like you are committed to discussing the issues. I await your return to such discussions.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Nick A,

We discussed,

These are exactly the kinds of questions that Catholic priests hate to hear. --> This has been my experience as well. Only in mid life have I come to see that there is no contradiction."

--> I agree that, when we finally get to what the real 'truth' is, there will be no contradictions at all. I can see that you are committed to making progress no matter what.

"It just requires understanding the nature of the Trinity."

--> Well, I think it takes a lot more than this. But this is a good start.

"However in my teens I got the impression that there was something "wrong" with such questions."

--> Yes. I was shocked when I asked a Catholic priest something, and I was told my ideas were heretical. (I was not even allowed to discuss my question.) Such thinking is the very picture of religious intolerance. (Fortunately, I have since found a belief system which actually encourages such 'pesky' questions.)

"This negative attitude was a major reason for staying away from the church."

--> Sadly, I still see this attitude in the Catholic Church today. There is no room for people with 'pesky' questions — people such as you and I — within the Catholic Church. Thomas says he is looking for priests that will challenge him — he is not looking for priests who will allow him to challenge them.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Brian,

You said,

"...you had to go through the priests of the Catholic Church in order for a layman to access the Bible."

--> I agree. I would add that 'pesky' questions about the Bible have always been discouraged.

"...through the millenia the Papacy has certainly been an extremely political animal, sometimes very much more concerned with the political well-being of itself, than the spiritual well being of the flock."

--> I agree. Even Thomas admits the church confiscated and burned Bibles, contrary to the very idea of religious freedom.

"Preventing the texts from being copied, read, made accessible to the layman, was a way to keep the Church empowered over the layman - none could go through Jesus with The Church."

--> I agree.

"By printing the Bible, Tyndale and similar were empowering the layman at the detriment of the political power of the Catholic Church because the Church could now be questioned, and even argued as wrong."

--> The sad thing is, even today, the church does not see what is wrong with that.

"...it's brushes with Gallileo...."

--> If I remember correctly, Gallileo died in prison, a prisoner of church doctrine.

"...I was under the impression that it was a commonly accepted fact within secular historical studies that the Roman Catholic church saw translation of the Bible as a threat because it directly circumvented the role of the church as sole authority in spiritual matters."

--> I say it was a threat for two reasons. One reason is the reason that you have cited — 'political' power in spiritual matters. The other reason is to hide intentional changes in the Bible.

 

[Quahom1]

Brian,

You said,

"...you had to go through the priests of the Catholic Church in order for a layman to access the Bible."

--> I agree. I would add that 'pesky' questions about the Bible have always been discouraged.

"...through the millenia the Papacy has certainly been an extremely political animal, sometimes very much more concerned with the political well-being of itself, than the spiritual well being of the flock."

--> I agree. Even Thomas admits the church confiscated and burned Bibles, contrary to the very idea of religious freedom.

"Preventing the texts from being copied, read, made accessible to the layman, was a way to keep the Church empowered over the layman - none could go through Jesus with The Church."

--> I agree.

"By printing the Bible, Tyndale and similar were empowering the layman at the detriment of the political power of the Catholic Church because the Church could now be questioned, and even argued as wrong."

--> The sad thing is, even today, the church does not see what is wrong with that.

"...it's brushes with Gallileo...."

--> If I remember correctly, Gallileo died in prison, a prisoner of church doctrine.

"...I was under the impression that it was a commonly accepted fact within secular historical studies that the Roman Catholic church saw translation of the Bible as a threat because it directly circumvented the role of the church as sole authority in spiritual matters."

--> I say it was a threat for two reasons. One reason is the reason that you have cited — 'political' power in spiritual matters. The other reason is to hide intentional changes in the Bible.

How ironic. The "catholic priest" in my family, challenged us to ask "pesky" questions about the bible. I asked him a question once, that he couldn't answer, and he stated such. I then said incredulously "but you're a priest!"

His reply?

"The best thing that a priest can ever hope to become, is human..."

 

[Thomas]

Hi Brian —

I've got to admit, my own reading of the subject was that the early Catholic church saw itself as a guardian of the Bible, but that in such guardianship, came the politics of controlling the message - ie, the point underlining everything regarding the Bible is that you had to go through the priests of the Catholic Church in order for a layman to access the Bible.

I think it's more you have to come to the Church for its Scripture — certainly we insist it's authentic interpretation is guaranteed with us. Even the Protestants came to the Catholic English translation (Douay-Rheims) as the basis of their English (King James) version.

While there may have been a valid spiritual argument about protecting the correctness of "the word", we all know too well that through the millenia the Papacy has certainly been an extremely political animal, sometimes very much more concerned with the political well-being of itself, than the spiritual well being of the flock.

That's a valid criticism, and I haven't denied it.

Preventing the texts from being copied, read, made accessible to the layman, was a way to keep the Church empowered over the layman

A common misconception, and largely our fault. As I have listed, the Bible, or parts of it, was available in the vernacular from about the 9th century. Research into documents of the era show the layman had an informed sense of the Bible's contents — more informed than today, I might hazard to guess.

The Church never 'prevented' texts from being copied, but did contain editorial control, as it were — and exercised that control when She saw counterfeit or propagandist translations being circulated.

Nor was redaing the Bible in the vernacular ever listed as a capital offence, as far as I am aware.

By printing the Bible, Tyndale and similar were empowering the layman at the detriment of the political power of the Catholic Church because the Church could now be questioned, and even argued as wrong.

Frankly I don't buy that — or rather, Tyndale's motive was political, not nearly as 'empowering' as he implied. Tyndale actively supported the new Reformation order, which dealt with the layman just as the Old order had done.

It's unlilely a farmer would have the interest or the wherewithall to argue doctrine — to do that would require a working understanding of theology and philosophy — which suggests a literate education, and that literacy would be Latin, not English.

Today, I will not be fully accepted as a critic of Scripture, unless I can at least read Latin, and ideally Latin and Greek.

Might I also point out that scientific documents, like Copernicus' "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" were written in Latin. In fact I think it's safe to say that all scholarly texts were written in Latin, because that was the language of the educated — and in many fields that is still the case.

Remember, the conservatism within Catholicism sought to maintain and protect it's own world view - it's brushes with Gallileo and similar for challenging that are legendary, because it diminished the influence of the Church with it.

Yes, but consider ... most of the established scientific community were wedded to the Aristotelian model, and they too sought to see Galileo brought down. We do not however attack astronomy today, because at one point astronomers thought Galileo was wrong.

As I have shown, the Church favoured Copernicus' heliocentric model when he presented his data, a hundred years before Galileo. What they didn't want, and what they ended up with, was a debate about the validity of Scripture. What Galileo thought was his personal reputation would carry all before him — even the Church. He was wrong.

And as has been remarked, the Church's treatment of Galileo was 'enlightened' by any standard of the day — sadly a treatment that does not reflect in all her dealings with the world, but in this instance, it is actually a subject of historical note.

I didn't see the PBS program, but I was under the impression that it was a commonly accepted fact within secular historical studies that the Roman Catholic church saw translation of the Bible as a threat because it directly circumvented the role of the church as sole authority in spiritual matters.

No.

While those trying to translate it may have been reformers, and therefore against the Roman Catholic Church in the first place, I don't see any argument that the Roman Catholic Church itself actively supported the printing of the Bible outside of Latin, precisely because of the reasons above.

May I point out the first book printed was ... the Bible? As a typographer, I can offer you a series of historical notes wherein the Church has been the patron of the printing press.

Then of course, the implication is that if one can reads it, one understands it — something which Scripture itself points out is an erroneous assumption.

Thomas