Q. Why did the Catholic Church persecute Tyndale and others who translated the Bible into
A. What the Catholic Church objected to, contrary to what many have heard, was the quality of the translation. Not that it was translated into English. The Church has historically made many translations into vernacular languages. I would recommend Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham son of a Presbyterian minister.
“There were Bibles and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, and Hungarian before the invention of the printing press. In English Caedmon translated much of the Bible into English at the end of the 7th century. Other translations were made by several different people in the 8th century. And St Thomas Moore said,
“The whole Bible, long before Wycliff’s day, was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into English and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read. “The Clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good or such as be already reproved for naught as Wycliff’s was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff’s days, they remain lawful and be in some fold’ hand. I myself have seen and can show you Bibles, fair and old, which haven known and seen by the bishop of the diocese, and left in laymen’s hand and the women’s too, such as he knew for good and Catholic fold, that used them with soberness and devotion
-St. Thomas More”
In the preface of the King James Version, after speaking about Greek and Latin versions said: “The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood,…but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not only by the voice of their minister but also by the written word translate.
After enumerating many converted nations that had vernacular Scriptures, wrote about England…
“Much about that time (1360), even in King Richard the seconds days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable in that age..So that to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England or other countries…but hat been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.”
Graham goes on to quote Cranmer, Foxe, and Mr. Karl Pearson who speak about the fact that there were English Bibles and other vernacular languages before Wycliff.
“The Catholic Church has much to answer for, but in the fifteenth century it did not hold back the Bible from the folk
…”( Karl Pearson, Academy, August 1885)-Where We Got The Bible
Q. This is true, of course, in some situations like the argument over sprinkling or full immersion for Baptism, yet I do not believe Baptists, who feel very strongly about full immersion, would declare Presbyterians as heretics because of this belief. At the same time, however, this difference in a non-essential of the faith would generally make a Baptist not want to go to a Presbyterian church. Yet I believe most Baptists would look upon a Presbyterian as a brother in the faith and vice-versa.
A. This is true today but at the time when some of these churches split there was a lot of acrimony
Q. The unity is in Spirit not in organization, just as the Church of Christ is made up of a body of believers, not a denomination (of which I consider Catholic only one of the many). I feel very unified with most other Christian churches and would embrace them as brothers. In fact, in my life I have belonged to Lutheran, Presbyterian USA, Evangelical Presbyterian, Calvary Chapel and one completely non-denominational church, all of which I believed were true churches of Christ.
A. Yes, I agree, Protestants are very magnanimous toward denominations that believe differently but the Catholic Church is generally viewed, as an entirely different matter, and a dangerous one at that.
Q. In this I was referring to the Pope who you purport to be able to infallibly provide answers to questions of doctrine so this man is, in essence, a mediator between you and God, just like I guess Moses was before Jesus came and imparted His Holy Spirit to live in us and negate the need of a mediator. We are essentially now in the very presence of God as the rendering of the curtain in the Temple signified.
A. Yes, Jesus is the one mediator but what does He mediate? Salvation.
This does not preclude an organized teaching Church. The Pope does not in any way consider himself equal to Christ but His servant for the benefit of the people of God.
But I have never heard the Pope accused of usurping His mediation. He is no more of a mediator than a Protestant pastor, teacher, translator or other authority whose teaching you respect. The difference is that we trust, and have always trusted that God will protect us from false teaching so we can rest in His divinely appointed guide. You reject the authority that we believe Christ bestowed on our Church and her ministers. But you are trusting Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin etc. to be trustworthy guides of the faith.
The commentary in your Bible is from a Protestant point of view. The commentary in a Catholic Bible will view it differently.
Long before I was Catholic when our Sat. Bible study was still going and our Thurs Bible study was looking into Eternal Security I realized that commentary and even word choice for translations will usually reflect the background of the commentator or translator. They explain away verses that don’t agree with their theology. But it could be viewed that everyone does this. So the fact that your Protestant Bible commentary dismisses John 21 as talking about the sacrament of confession is to be expected. Just as it would be expected that Catholic commentary would view it as the institution of the sacrament of confesssion.
Q. Yes, but keeping the Bible in Latin greatly diminished the audience that would be able to read the Word of God for themselves.
A. But as a matter of fact anyone who could read could read Latin so there was in point of fact, no diminishment of the audience. And the reason for Latin being kept even though it became a dead language was precisely because as a dead language it would remain stable and the meanings of words would not evolve as they do in living languages. Thus the word of God was preserved more precisely. The use of Latin was not a way for the Catholic Church to keep the Bible away from the faithful.
Q. The number of different Protestant denominations is not generally a test of differences in doctrine…
A. I would agree that not all 40,000 denominations are all that different but many of them did begin due to very real differences regarding doctrine or what was thought at the time to be very important.
Q. And so the diversity of the Protestant churches are there more so because of many factors such as ethnic background, geographic location, preferences in worship such as type of music and liturgical format. As a rule, these diverse churches are united in the essentials of the doctrines of the Christian Faith but with freedom in the non-essentials.
A. I find it interesting that Protestants always have no problem with the lack of unity in their churches despite the express wishes of Christ. Due to the continuous splits in Protestantism the number of essentials that all Protestants agree upon shrink each year.
Q. I do not hate the Catholic Church,
A. I did not mean that you did. that was just his quote.
Q. but yes I do disagree with some of her doctrines that I believe are not in agreement with the Bible,
A. I have not found one thing, not one doctrine or dogma that contradicts anything in the Bible. They only contradict Protestant interpretation of certain verses. The reason there are no contradictions is because the books of the New Testament were written by people who held Catholic beliefs.
And there are beliefs that are not explicitly spelled out as clearly as Protestants demand of Catholics. But they never notice that they accept beliefs like the incarnation and the Trinity that are not clearly spelled out in Sacred Scripture either. They are derived from Sacred TRADITION which is the Teaching of the Apostles.
Q. 1 Timothy 2:5 says “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” I believe we are at odds on this belief that is an essential to my Faith.
A. No we believe this too. Protestants accuse Catholics of multiplying mediators because of the intercessory prayer of the Saints. If that creates other mediators then so does asking a friend to pray for us or prayer chains, etc.
Filed under: Latin |