Burned at the stake for the Bible

[Penguin]

Well slappa-my-thigh and call me a pheasant. I never knew all that. Seriously! I need to get out more.
How come when those poor people in Africa ask to build a Catholic church they are refused funding and then told to fund it themselves??

 

[Thomas]

Hi juantoo —

The Battle Royale between Mary Queen of Scots and Bloody Mary cost many lives, some of which are highlighted in that book, and that would have occured in the mid-1500's. During the 1600's the focus of the Anglican church shifted...and it was Puritans who were put to the torch.

There's a very complex set of currents playing into history here ...

Henry VIII was pro-Rome (he was awarded the title 'Defender of the Faith' by the pope for his criticism of the Reform movement), but he wanted a divorce. So a split was inevitable. Rome never understood this distant and minor king. What was all the fuss about? Why didn't he just put her away, and take a mistress, as the European kings did? They'd jumped through hoops for him once, now he wanted them to jump back again ...

So Henry's 'anglicanism' is a variation of Catholicism, but with the head of state as head of the Church.

Henry died, and his son, Edward, was too young to rule, so the Earl of Northumberland took over. He was a hardline reformer, and went for the Catholics with a will ...

Edward died, and Mary assumed the throne. She had been raised in a county house and never trained for the role she was to assume. Her court rang rings round her, Catholic Parliamentarians wanted revenge against the Aristocratic Protestants and she was obliged to respond. Now began a spate of burnings on a grand scale, and hence her reputation, 'Bloody Mary'. She made disasterous decisions both in her private and public life, was easily outmanoeuvred by her enemies, and was executed.

Elizabeth assumes the throne, and now England is caught up in a nationalist, anti-Catholic frenzy (Mary was going to marry into the Catholic Spanish royal family, and the propaganda machine made this out to be the fall of England). But the people were tired of religious bloodshed ... then the Pope made a fatal mistake: He said that Catholics were not obliged to remain loyal to a bad monarch.

The Protestants seized upon this, and treason replaced heresy as a crime: Anyone who was Catholic was a traitor. In a patriotic fervour, Catholics were burnt in great numbers, more than Protestants under Bloody Mary in fact, but this was treason, not heresy...

(Interesting historical aside. The Church has been condemned for not condemning nor calling on Catholics to defy the Nazis — but the Pope was advised that if he did so, then the Nazis could arrest anyone who was Catholic for treason — looked what happened under Elizabeth I. If the Pope condemned them, more innocents would suffer.)

Historians reckon Elizabeth favoured an 'AngloCatholicism' as her father envisaged, but Parliament and her court was having none of that! She had to tread a very careful line ...

Historians also trace strong Catholic sentiments in the works of William Shakespeare ... another interesting and relatively recent line of study.

The 'Puritans' were a broad church, difficult to classify. The definition of a Puritan was one who "strove for a worship purified from all taint of popery".

There were moderates who were willing to retain government by bishops (although they preferred the title "superintendent"), and were much like the Scottish Presbyterians of today; there were the strict Presbyterians who wished for the Calvinistic form of government and order of worship; and there were the Free Churchmen or Independents who repudiated all coercive power in the Church and wished all men to be free in forming congregations. They — being independent-minded — were at first persecuted by Anglicans and Presbyterians alike, and in 1620 sought religious freedom in the New World ... Twenty years later however, under Oliver Cromwell, they became the predominant party, fought a civil war, and executed the king.

Interestingly, it was Puritans who fled those torchings who settled in America (Plymouth Rock and Massachussetts Bay Colony) who later sponsored the witch trials in Salem.

Indeed. It was the same Puritans who carried out the witch-hunts in England. Matthew Hopkin, 'the Witchfinder General' was paid for every witch he disposed of, and became the richest man in England!

The accusation of witchcraft, it seemed, became a near bulletproof method for people to settle scores with their neighbours.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"...a lively and vibrant faith."

--> I would not describe a church which burns to death ex-members as 'lively and vibrant.'

 

[Thomas]

Hi Tao —

What I take issue with is this idea that people "liked" the taxes and tithes collected by the local branches of Rome incorporated.

I doubt people like taxes or tithes of any sort.

Or that they were fair or gave anything back to the community.

Well I don't necessarily agree with that. There is St Peter's, which is a huge attraction for the Catholic community. It's a focal point for the Catholic world.

Also, from the small parish church to the great Cathedrals, all were built on donations from the faithful, and they took great pride in what they produced.

My own parish church was built in the later 1800s, after Catholics were allowed back into England, by donation and by subscription amongst the Irish labourers who flocked to these shores ... no-one held a gun to their heads. No-one holds a gun to mine when I make donations towards its upkeep and repair.

I have avoided going into the wealth / corporate status of the CC because it is such a huge and complex task to do so.

Yes, and I suggest it's beyond your capacity and mine to offer a fair representation on this board.

But perhaps it is time. By viewing the history of the CC as a power/wealth ambitious corporation you get a real picture of what it is.

Really? Or do we get your idea of what it is? I'm sure, going by your track record, if people here wanted a balanced and even-handed view of the Church, your name would be on the top of their lists

A clutch of paragraphs from THE VATICAN BILLIONS by Avro Manhattan:

And hey-ho, the authority we quote is a world famous anti-Catholic — a polemicist by anyone's measure. Does this clinch the argument? I don't think so, Tao.

It does strike me as odd that such an apparently notoriously secretive, power-hungry, wealthy and influential organisation, which apparently manipulates governments, nations and world politics towards its own nefarious ends, without ever showing its hand, is quite ready to air all of our dirty secrets to someone with renown anti-Catholic reputation?

Thomas

 

[Tao_Equus]

Also, from the small parish church to the great Cathedrals, all were built on donations from the faithful, and they took great pride in what they produced....

My own parish church was built in the later 1800s, after Catholics were allowed back into England, by donation and by subscription amongst the Irish labourers who flocked to these shores ... no-one held a gun to their heads. No-one holds a gun to mine when I make donations towards its upkeep and repair.

Maybe no gun was held but that does not mean to say there was no pressure, or even coercion, to give. But I will detail examples of that at another time.

Yes, and I suggest it's beyond your capacity and mine to offer a fair representation on this board.


Really? Or do we get your idea of what it is? I'm sure, going by your track record, if people here wanted a balanced and even-handed view of the Church, your name would be on the top of their lists

It maybe that you would be unable to offer a fair and balanced view but how would I not? I do give you my word that I will only present information that I can find and try to avoid adding my own commentary. And I will tell you here and there that my only purpose will be to demonstrate one thing and one thing alone; that the CC has the resources to end global poverty if it had that inclination.

And hey-ho, the authority we quote is a world famous anti-Catholic — a polemicist by anyone's measure. Does this clinch the argument? I don't think so, Tao.

Well you expect me to find anything directly from the Vatican? Of course it is from someone who is disgusted at CC hypocrisy.

It does strike me as odd that such an apparently notoriously secretive, power-hungry, wealthy and influential organisation, which apparently manipulates governments, nations and world politics towards its own nefarious ends, without ever showing its hand, is quite ready to air all of our dirty secrets to someone with renown anti-Catholic reputation?

Thomas

Thats what makes a good researcher. I have already uncovered some very interesting stuff from embedded spies and disillusioned ex-catholics that tells a damning story. I already knew that the CC had a dark history, I now look at the paperwork confirming it. And I will return to the Catholic Extermination in Croatia 1941-45 in which the pope sanctioned the murder of 700,000 men, women and children. I never knew about the 'financial' aspect of that till today.

tao

 

[mee]

This is patently silly mee. Are you trying to tell us that your organization doesnt tell your flock not to do this or that or the other thing??


quote]
it would never tell their flock to not read the bible, in fact it promotes what the bible teaches instead, now thats more like it should be.






keeping the bible from people is just plain silly, and that is what happened in the past , and those who kept the bible away from the people ,even claimed to represent the God of the bible . now thats what i call plain silly

 

[mee]

John Wycliffe, a respected Oxford scholar, preached and wrote powerfully against the unbiblical practices of the Catholic Church, basing his authority on ‘God’s law,’ meaning the Bible.


The church found many reasons to despise Wycliffe. First, he condemned the clergy for their excesses and immoral conduct.


what most enraged church leaders was that Wycliffe wanted to give people the Bible in their own language.

The clergy were also furious with Wycliffe for teaching that the "bare text," the original inspired Scriptures with nothing added, had greater authority than the "glosses," the ponderous traditional explanations in the margins of church-approved Bibles.


It was the undiluted message of God’s Word that wycliff wished to make available to the common man.

the young Tyndale was often seen crossing verbal swords with the local clergy.

Tyndale matter-of-factly challenged their opinions by opening the Bible and showing them scriptures.


As The Cambridge History of the Bible puts it,
Scripture made him happy, and there is something swift and gay in his rhythm which conveys his happiness.


) we wouldnt use that word GAYnowadays would we, not in that context anyway)


Tyndale’s goal was to let the Scriptures speak to the common man in terms as exact and simple as possible



His studies were showing him the meaning of Biblical words that had been shrouded in church doctrine for centuries.


Intimidated neither by the threat of death nor by the vicious pen of his powerful enemy Sir Thomas More, Tyndale incorporated his findings in his translation.

 

[17th Angel]

I am really suprised you, being you lol were not aware of this? John Wycliffe was one of the lucky ones

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Is it true that people were forbidden to read a Bible written in their own vernacular?

Is it true that people were forbidden to possess a Bible written in their own vernacular?

 

[wil]

I thiink this is the issue. We've got to air our dirty laundry over and over and over again till everyone knows we know and can move on.

In the US we are guilty. Guilty of damn near wiping out the natives, the buffalo, of thinking blacks were less than human, of slavery...it goes on and on. We need to admit it till we are blue in the face.

Same with Catholics and Protestants, we are guilty, guilty of a ton of atrocitiies a ton of wars and quit sugar coating it all. If we don't we'll be arguing forever and covering up forever. Get over it, it is in our past, we all need to quit denying it and realize it is probably worse than anything ever published.

 

[Dream]

Thomas, what lessons would you say there are to learn from the big church split. Other than the JW's, what good would you say has come as a result?

 

[wil]

Thomas, what lessons would you say there are to learn from the big church split. Other than the JW's, what good would you say has come as a result?

my side hurts...stop it.

 

[mee]

Toward the latter part of the fourteenth century a Roman Catholic clergyman named John Wycliffe, scholar and lecturer at Oxford, denounced the spiritual indifference and ignorance he found among the clergy high and low.


If ignorance of the Bible was appalling among the clergy, what of the common people, many of whom never knew there was such a book as the Bible!

Said Wycliffe: "To be ignorant of the Scriptures is to be ignorant of Christ." So Wycliffe took the Latin Bible and made the first complete translation of the Bible into English. This was about 1382.


The Roman Catholic Church did not appreciate Wycliffe’s efforts.

He was bitterly opposed.

Writing to the pope in 1412, Archbishop Arundel called Wycliffe "that wretched and pestilent fellow of damnable memory . . . who crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue." Church authorities put a ban on any further translation of the Bible into the English tongue.



​

 

[mee]

And not forgetting
Ben Teradion

 

[mee]

in 155 C.E., a professed Christian named Polycarp faced a test when he was ordered to revile Christ.
His response was: "Eighty-six years have I served Him, and He has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who has saved me?" Because of his refusal to deny Christ, Polycarp was burned at the stake.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil,

You said,

"Get over it...."

--> I disagree, because 'it' is not over yet. I grew up in the Catholic church, went to a Catholic high school, and even applied to become a priest. Not once in all those years was I ever offered an opportunity to attend a Bible study class in any Catholic building nor was one ever held that I knew of.

Not once.

There is still an atmosphere in Catholocism that the people cannot be trusted to interpret scripture, that they must depend on the clergy to do it for them. This is exactly the point that was made in the public TV program that I cited when I first started this thread. It is this same sad mentality that led the church to murder people after labeling them heretics. (At least Thomas admits heretics were indeed murdered by the church.)

My point is, the church still does not want the people to read the Bible for themselves. The church still wants the people to rely on priests to interpret the Bible for them.

'It' is not over yet, and everyone needs to know it.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, what lessons would you say there are to learn from the big church split.

That we don't listen.
Too much head; not enough heart.
Holy innocence is better than worldly knowledge.

what good would you say has come as a result?

None.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

That we don't listen.
Too much head; not enough heart.
Holy innocence is better than worldly knowledge.


None.

Thomas

Your mistake is believeing that the secular church is capable of holy innocence. The reality is far closer to what Jesus describes

Matthew 15

16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

If the church doesn't have it, it cannot teach the young so all we have are people acting parts. The value of the head is that it can see the con job for what it is and see that it is not Christian but rather Christendom raising the sincere question if Christianity exists and if it does, where is it?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

I grew up in the Catholic church, went to a Catholic high school, and even applied to become a priest. Not once in all those years was I ever offered an opportunity to attend a Bible study class in any Catholic building nor was one ever held that I knew of.

Yes, that is a problem — basically a shortage of well-trained priests. The priests that are there are often faced with not enough time to devote to Scripture in the face of pastoral issues considered more important. The good scholars can often be poor pastoral advisers.

The again, every mass is a bible study class, if we pay attention, with readings from the Old Testament, the Gospels and the Epistles, the whole Liturgy is structured on Scripture. But I agree with you that if one wants to understand then one needs instruction in the tradition of exegesis. The homily should be just that, referencing the readings (unless immediate pastoral concerns take priority), thus the Liturgy encompasses (or should) Scripture study. I fully accept that not every priest is a scripture scholar to suit every taste, however, but nor can they be, I think.

But the good news is that is changing — since Vatican II — but again, we all know we are now dealing with the tragic outcome of the liberalism of the last half century which did so much damage, the American seminary system being a prime example (and might be an aspect of your particular problem — depends when you were asking).

There is still an atmosphere in Catholicism that the people cannot be trusted to interpret scripture, that they must depend on the clergy to do it for them.

No, that's not quite right.

I think everyone would agree there's more to Scripture than meets the eye — instruction is needed — the evidence of the abundance of the misinformation as well as its misinterpretation is beyond doubt (one has to comprehend what it is in essence before one can understand its particularities), again we are back to the point that just because you can read it does not mean you understand it, as what one assumes of what one is reading will invariably determine what one gets from it.

So there is every good reason to assert that assistance is needed in the correct interpretation of Scripture. In this case that assistance is the Apostolic Teaching, which comprises both Scripture and Tradition, the voice of which is the Church itself. The role of the Magisterium then, as the successor of the Apostles, is as guarantor of that teaching, as Christ affirmed.

It is this same sad mentality that led the church to murder people after labeling them heretics. (At least Thomas admits heretics were indeed murdered by the church.)

Well as they were executed within the law, 'murder' is an incorrect term. Secular as well as sacerdotal authorities sanctioned the execution within the law.

It was a bad law. In my history (socially as well as spiritually) there were things done in the name of the law that I do not condone. I do understand the circumstance however, which is tragic one, ontologically founded in our fallen nature.

Do I condemn them? Yes. Can I forgive them? Yes, for according to Christ, I must. He will be the judge of men, not I.

My point is, the church still does not want the people to read the Bible for themselves. The church still wants the people to rely on priests to interpret the Bible for them.

Not quite right — the Church does want the people to read the Bible for themselves, but understand that the Church is the authority when it comes to affirming a correct interpretation ... without that, the evidence is plain that people to often choose to find in what they read what they were looking for.

There are a myriad contradictory theories about what Scripture is, and a myriad more about what its says ... they can't all be right, so a vast number must be wrong.

The Church affirms only that which She received (anything 'new' is solidly founded on what went before); She alone can trace an unbroken heritage and inheritance of the deeds and words of the Lord. If one is looking for an 'authentic' tradition, She's the only one there is.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Is it true that people were forbidden to read a Bible written in their own vernacular?

Is it true that people were forbidden to possess a Bible written in their own vernacular?