Hi M.M.,Thank you for your comments on Kyle's post. This is turning into an interesting discussion. Serious charges have been leveled. I offer some responses composed mainly of quotations and/or citations from works of scholarship. I hope these responses will help clear up some misconceptions about the Catholic Church's attitude towards Scripture. I finish with some questions.
1) Quotations:
"Versions of the whole or of part of the Bible in the language of the common people appear first in England [with Bede] and Germany in the eighth cent., in France and Hungary in the twelfth, in Italy, Spain, Holland, Poland and Bohemia in the thirteenth. The decree of the Council of Trent makes no reference to such versions, but the question was raised in the deliberations of the Council, and Cardinal Madruzzo emphatically declared that they should be not only permitted but encouraged." [E. Power, (A CATHOLIC COMMENTARY ON HOLY SCRIPTURE: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 3]
Another scholar, writing in the same work of reference, has this to say about the time, purpose and extent of the restrictions placed upon the common people with respect the possession and reading of the Bible :
"The first known measure of this kind [prevention of circulation of Bibles amongst Catholic faithful] is found in two letters of Innocent III to the Church of Metz. They were written at the end of the twelfth cent. with reference to a conventicle of men and women who (most probably under Albigensian or Waldensian influences) had several parts of the New Testament and the Moralia of St. Gregory translated into French. In clandestine meetings these lay folk, men and women, read and discussed the said writings, and showed contempt for the reprimands of their pastors, who evidently regarded their practices as dangerous or schismatic. The Pope ordered a diligent inquiry to be made into the aims of the group, but gave instructions that kindness was to be used towards them in the meantime, in the hope of bringing them to a better mind.
"We do not know the sequel of this case, but a Provincial Synod of Toulouse in 1229 prohibited the use of vernacular Scriptures to the laity. The motive of this enactment is plain enough considering that it was made, as it were, in the very heart of Albigensian territory.... There was no question of suppressing the vernacular versions as such.
"By their fruits they are known. Bible study which produces or propagates heresy is a bad thing. In fact, as St. Augustine noted, 'heresies have not arisen except when the good Scriptures were not well understood, and what was not well undestood in them was rashly and boldly asserted,' In Jo. Tr. 18, I. The circumstances of the times have always to be taken into account, and laws which today seem severe must be judged accordingly." [William Leonard and Dom Bernard Orchard, ibid., 11.]
Henry Graham lists dozens of vernacular Bibles that existed in pre-Reformation-pre KJV throughout Europe (pp. 98-109). Interestingly, Graham notes that those countries in which vernacular versions were most easily obtained maintained the Catholic faith, while England, for example, in which the vernacular Bible was scarce, rejected the Catholic faith (104-5). This would tell against the claim that access to Scripture results in a 'true' understanding of the Gospel message, thus implying a rejection of the Catholic faith. The facts seem to tell otherwise.
2) Comments on Context:
It is important to understand that the documents you cite from the 18th and 19th centuries have a very specific target: Bible Societies. Whether or not one agrees, the Catholic assessment of such groups deemed them dangerous and heretical. For the popes, the eternal salvation of souls was at issue. Their censures and prohibitions do not express a general policy toward Bible reading or vernacular translations. These pronouncements represent, rather, the care of spiritual fathers for their children, or, to change the metaphor, shepherds for their flock. What father wouldn't warn his children against grave dangers, or what shepherd wouldn't set a watch, drive away wolves, lead his flock to safe pastures? Who would let one he cares for enter ignorantly or heedlessly into places of danger?
I'm sure you can understand, M.M., the inner logic of the Catholic attitude towards Bible societies. As you would not allow those in your care to read bad translations of the Bible or to keep company with blasphemers and heretics, so the popes and bishops did what they could to stem the tide of bad translations, heretical commentaries and false doctrines being propagated among their flock as a result of the activities of the Bible societies. With this in mind, the inner logic--I understand that you will dispute the premises of the Catholic position--of the actions of the popes becomes perfectly reasonable.
3) Questions:
You appear to believe that any suppression of the distribution of the texts of Scriptures in the vernacular is sinful and thereby disqualifies, on this ground alone, the Catholic Church.
I don't see how the suppression--even complete--of the distribution of the text of Scripture contradicts Scripture. While I think it is reasonable or even a better policy to make vernacular versions of the Bible widely available, I'm not aware of the Bible teaching that suppression of the physical, vernacular text is wrong.
a) Is it your position that any suppression is always wrong? If so, could you provide the scriptural rationale that you used to arrive at your position?
It appears that the original issue at hand is the attitude and practice of the Catholic Church from, roughly, 500-1500 with respect to the availability of the Bible, especially in the vernacular languages.
b) Is there any evidence of Baptist vernacular versions in these years?
c) Depending on how you answer "b", given that the Catholic Church had a relative monopoly on the text of Scripture, if their intent was to prevent the Bible from falling into the hands of the common folk, for fear of the unvarnished vernacular versions unmasking the diabolical deceptions of the Catholic cult [forgive the alliterative flourish], why didn't the Catholic authorities attempt to round up and destroy all the Bibles? They admittedly had a great deal of power, wealth and influence.
Thanks for your patience and willingness to discuss these matters. I hope all is well for you and yours. I was sorry to hear of the house trouble you've been having. I hope things are flowing smoothly now.
Best,
J.
P.S. For more on this see: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/08/was-catholic-church-avowed-enemy-of.html. The author provides quotes from many non-Catholic sources, further supporting the contention that the Catholic Church never suppressed the Scriptures.
On the Albigensian heresy see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm.
For the Waldensian: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment