Spanish Inquisiton

Amo2 said:

I'm sorry my friend, but you have been mislead concerning this topic as well. Which is quite far off topic for this thread I might add. Nevertheless, a very important topic for people to know the truth about. Please do start another thread on this specific topic, that we might more fully address it, without hijacking this one.

As I have shared elsewhere, my family and extended family were largely nominally Catholic or Jewish. Some of the Catholic members of which were instructed by their priest not to read the bible, but rather to ask him if they had any questions about it. This was in the eighties I do believe. Twenty some odd years after the Vatican had finally removed the bible from their forbidden books list. As several Roman Catholic nations of the past made it illegal for their citizens to have or own a bible the venecular. Most non Catholic bibles have 66 books not 73, and for good reason. The bible is absolutely not the book of the Catholic church, which church was not even a thought in anyone's mind, when the books of it were written. There is much to say about this topic, though not in this thread. If you choose not to start another topic concerning it, I will as time allows. It is a very important subject.

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

That is at least a consistent position.

What is your take on Conrad Vine?

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

The Adventist church leadership in Germany was not terribly consistent in their liberty stance either:

Fatal Flirting: The Nazi State and the Seventh-day Adventist Church
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=jams

Europe: German, Austrian Churches Apologize for Holocaust Actions
Europe: German, Austrian Churches Apologize for Holocaust Actions

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

It wasn't "the bible", rather it was a specific Protestant translation with many doctrinal errors if my memory serves me correctly.

Click to expand...

The Liturgist said:

It’s totally false but then again the vast majority of allegations made against Roman Catholics in this thread are.

Click to expand...

The Index librorum prohibitorum (“Index of Prohibited Books”) was a direct outcome of the Concilium Tridentinum, or Council of Trent, the ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church that convened from 1545 to 1563. The Tridentine councilors reasserted many traditional dogmas that had been challenged by Protestant reformers, including transubstantiation, justification by good works, and the role of the Virgin Mary as intercessor. In 1546, the fourth Tridentine session determined which books of the Latin Bible were canonical and decreed that only the Catholic Church was authorized to interpret Scripture. In 1562, the eighteenth session mandated that a special conciliar commission would examine the growing problem of heretical literature. The Council’s action resulted in the publication of the first Tridentine Index librorum prohibitorum in 1564. Although it had been preceded by Spanish indexes beginning in 1551 and the Pauline Index published in Rome in 1559, the Tridentine Index, backed by the authority of the Council of Trent, initiated four centuries of rigorous censorial control within Catholic realms.

Click to expand...

Even before the publication of the first Tridentine Index librorum prohibitorum in 1564, the Inquisition in Spain had grown particularly aggressive in its local censorship, publishing its own indexes of prohibited books at Valencia in 1551 and at Valladolid in 1554 and 1559. Further editions were printed at Madrid in 1583 and 1612, Seville in 1632, and again at Madrid in 1640 (reprinted in 1667), 1707, 1747, and 1790. Backed by the strict enforcement of the Inquisition, the Spanish indexes were typically larger and more restrictive than the Tridentine Index and its derivative Roman editions, focusing particular attention on vernacular texts.

Click to expand...

As in pre-Reformation England, vernacular versions of the Bible were prohibited in sixteenth-century Spain for fear that such translations would give rise to unauthorized interpretations. Although the Inquisition effectively prevented Spanish printers from producing vernacular Bibles, printers in Protestant countries succeeded in making Spanish Bibles available to readers abroad. In addition, some copies were smuggled into Spain.

As the Inquisition could pursue Protestant agitators outside of Spain, the Swiss publisher of this Spanish New Testament concealed his identity by using the pseudonym “Juan Philadelpho” and claiming Venice as the place of publication. The small size of the New Testament allowed copies to be transported secretly by smugglers such as Julianillo Hernández, who carried wine casks filled with copies into Seville. Nevertheless, the Inquisition soon captured and executed Hernández, burned an effigy of the translator Juan Pérez de Pineda (c. 1500–1567), and destroyed all confiscated copies of the book.

Click to expand...

The Mexican Inquisition, usually working under the direction of the Spanish Inquisition, fortified the effort to censor books within Spain’s overseas dominions by printing official proclamations that served as updates to the Spanish Index librorum prohibitorum and the Index librorum expurgatorum. Most often published as single-sheet broadsides bearing the official seals and signatures of the ecclesiastical authorities, these decrees warned that violators of censorship laws were subject to excommunication.

Click to expand...

Valletta said:

Show us your evidence to support your claim that the Bible was removed from this Catholic forbidden books list in the 1960s. Why do you think there would be so many Catholic Bibles owned by Catholic families if they were forbidden to read them? Why did Catholics translate Biblical text into so many common languages? Individuals publishing Bibles with their own translations and own personal commentaries became a problem, and eventually the Catholic Church approved only versions that were accurate translations, true to the original Biblical texts.

There's one thing I can agree with you on, every indication is that the writers of the 73 books of the Bible had no idea that the Catholic Church would one day decide to put all of those books in one volume. In fact, what happened was that in the early centuries of Christianity the readings at mass varied from area to area. Catholics wanted only God-breathed text to be read at mass, and an effort to determine which texts were God-breathed and which were not took place. That effort spanned centuries and was not completed until the late 300s. Thus the Bible is the liturgical book of the Catholic Church--the readings used at mass are to be taken from the Bible. Jesus, His real Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, is present at the heart of the mass. Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is our "new covenant" or "new testament." While Catholics were in the process of choosing new books to be considered to be deemed Holy Scripture, those books for the first time began to be referred to as "books of the New Testament." Never before did "New Testament" refer to a set of books. All Bibles in Europe contained 73 books from the late 300s until the reformation, when Protestants came up with their own version of the Bible. As part of the Protestant tradition they started with the same 73 books chosen by the Catholic Church, dropped seven, and also as part of Protestant tradition kept the same order established by the Catholic Church. Luther wanted even more books dropped from the Bible, but was unsuccessful at getting more than the seven books dropped, For example, Revelation remains.
It was the Catholic Church that chose the books of the Bible, preached and preserved the Bible, and translated Biblical text into common tongues over all of the centuries. No Catholic Church--no Bible.

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

The easiest way of course to observe the truth or not of the statement, would be to examine the latest list of prohibited books on the Index of Prohibited Books.

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was on this list. I'm glad Catholics now have permission from the Vatican to read this historical account. I presume they do at least.

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

Many Catholics of course, have not obeyed Vatican or papal restrictions or mandates. A great many of which were excommunicated for doing so, and declared to be heretical Protestants. Almost all Protestant Reformers, were first Roman Catholics, who intended to bring about reform within Catholicism. Not be cast out of it, and then call others out as well. This of course though, was because people back then had no choice in the matter. As Catholicism was the nationally enforced religion of the state at that time. The factual argument of course against the claim that Roman Catholics gave us the bible, is first as already stated, Roman Catholicism did not exist during the days of any of the authors of holy scripture. Second would be the dispute regarding exactly when, what we call Roman Catholicism today actually came into being, and if those who brought these writings together were or even would consider themselves to be so. Yet another topic not exactly connected to the Spanish Inquisition. I might address this issue in more depth, though I am already getting spread pretty thin, addressing several others.

Click to expand...

The Liturgist said:

This Index did not contain the Bible. It may have contained some Bible editions published by Protestants, which the RCC disagreed with, but the Protestants likewise prohibited the printing of Roman Catholic approved editions of the Bible in England, Scotland and Wales, and made life as difficult as possible for Roman Catholics in Ireland. In the Netherlands at least Catholicism was tolerated as long as it was practiced in secret, but in England, Scotland and Wales, any Roman Catholic priests caught during the Elizabethan era would be executed (Oliver Cromwell extended the persecutions to Anglicans using the Book of Common Prayer, since Anglicans were in his mind no different from Roman Catholics, which was of course absurd, but that was the view of many “Dissenting” Protestants as they came to be known after end of the Cromwellian tyranny.

Click to expand...

History of Protestantism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Protestantism originated from the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. The term Protestant comes from the Protestation at Speyer in 1529, where the nobility protested against enforcement of the Edict of Wormswhich subjected advocates of Lutheranism to forfeit all of their property.[1]However, the theological underpinnings go back much further, as Protestant theologians of the time cited both Church Fathers and the Apostles to justify their choices and formulations. The earliest origin of Protestantism is controversial; with some Protestants today claiming origin back to people in the early church deemed heretical such as Jovinian and Vigilantius.[2]

Click to expand...

The Liturgist said:

Here is a comparison of lengths

Work	Word Count (Approx.)	Page Count (Approx.)	Notes
War and Peace	560,000–587,000	1,200–1,400	Novel, translation-dependent.
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire	1,000,000–1,100,000	3,000–3,500	Six volumes, includes footnotes.
Challoner Douay-Rheims Bible	800,000–850,000	1,200–1,500	Includes deuterocanonicals, annotations.
King James Version with Apocrypha	850,000–900,000	1,300–1,500	Apocrypha adds ~100,000–150,000 words.
Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)	100,000–150,000	300–400	Shortest, focused on Church history.
Collected Writings of St. Athanasius	500,000–600,000	1,000–1,200	Diverse theological works.
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (John of Damascus)	80,000–100,000	250–350 (500–600 diglot)	Systematic theology, shorter than Athanasius.
1962 Roman Missal	150,000–200,000	1,200–1,500	Liturgical text, high page count due to format.

Click to expand...

The Liturgist said:

This Index did not contain the Bible. It may have contained some Bible editions published by Protestants, which the RCC disagreed with, but the Protestants likewise prohibited the printing of Roman Catholic approved editions of the Bible in England, Scotland and Wales, and made life as difficult as possible for Roman Catholics in Ireland. In the Netherlands at least Catholicism was tolerated as long as it was practiced in secret, but in England, Scotland and Wales, any Roman Catholic priests caught during the Elizabethan era would be executed (Oliver Cromwell extended the persecutions to Anglicans using the Book of Common Prayer, since Anglicans were in his mind no different from Roman Catholics, which was of course absurd, but that was the view of many “Dissenting” Protestants as they came to be known after end of the Cromwellian tyranny.

Click to expand...

Index of Prohibited Books

The Index of Prohibited Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum) was a list of written works condemned as heretical or injurious to the Christian faith by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1563...

www.worldhistory.org

The Text​

The following text is the 10-point introduction to the Index of 1563 taken from A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions by Denis R. Janz, pp. 422-425, translated by H. J. Schroeder from his Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. The "biblia Vatabli" in Point III is a reference to the work of the French humanist scholar François Vatable (d. 1547), and Isidore Clarius in that same passage references Isidorus Clarius (d. 1555), who was one of the original delegates at the Council of Trent, but because he advocated for unity and discussion between Protestant and Catholic views in his writings, his preface and introduction to his translations were condemned and placed on the Index.

I: All books which have been condemned either by the supreme pontiffs or by ecumenical councils before the year 1515 and are not contained in this list, shall be considered condemned in the same manner as they were formerly condemned.

II: The books of those heresiarchs, who after the aforesaid year originated or revived heresies, as well as those who are or have been the heads or leaders of heretics, such as Luther, Zwingli, Balthasar, Friedberg, Schwenkfeld, and others like these, whatever may be their name, title or nature of their heresy, are absolutely forbidden. The books of other heretics, however, which deal professedly with religion are absolutely condemned. Those, on the other hand, which do not deal with religion and have, by order of the bishops and inquisitors been examined by Catholic theologians and approved by them, are permitted. Likewise, Catholic books written by those who afterward fell into heresy, as well as by those who after their fall returned to the bosom of the church, may be permitted if they have been approved by the theological faculty of a Catholic university or by the general inquisition.

III: The translations of writers, also ecclesiastical, which have till now been edited by condemned authors, are permitted provided they contain nothing contrary to sound doctrine. Translations of the books of the Old Testament may, in the judgment of the bishop, be permitted to learned and pious men only, provided such translations are used only as elucidations of the Vulgate edition for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures and not as the sound text. Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal. But if with such translations as are permitted, or with the Vulgate edition some annotations are circulated, these may also, after the suspected passages have been expunged by the theological faculty of some Catholic university or by the general inquisition, be permitted to those to whom the translations are permitted. Under these circumstances, the entire volume of the sacred books, which commonly called the biblia Vatabli, or parts of it, may be permitted to pious and learned men. From the Bibles of Isidore Clarius of Brescia, however, the preface and introduction are to be removed, and no one shall regard its text as the text of the Vulgate edition.

Click to expand...

The Liturgist said:

Why should Roman Catholics waste time reading an obsolete, inaccurate work that displays contempt not just for Roman Catholic, but for all varieties of Christianity, and also related religions, and is twice the length of War and Peace?

While a Roman Catholic is now free to waste time reading Gibbon, there are so many better histories that have been written since then, in part due to archaeological discoveries such as Pompeii and the recovery of manuscripts presumed lost shedding new light upon the history of the Roman Empire, in particular, after the adoption of Christianity, which Gibbon seems to view in the most negative light possible (and many argue, attributes the fall of the Roman Empire to the adoption thereof)?

Not only is The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire nearly twice as long as War and Peace (which I also don’t recommend; it’s a boring, schmaltzy, sentimental novel by a deist who rejected the Christian faith), but it is also longer than the Bible (with or without the additional books in the Old Testament one will find in various configurations in the Roman Catholic bibles like the Challoner Douai-Rheims (which despite being a translation of a translation, is a very good translation, due to the excellence of St. Jerome’s scholarship, which offers us a key insight into the condition of the Hebrew Bible in the fourth century before the standardization of the text by the Masoretes).

Additionally, the work is longer than the complete works of St. Athanasius (including On The Incarnation and other important texts, such as the 39th Paschal Encyclical, in which the 27 book New Testament canon was introduced to the world), the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea (who Gibbon falsely accuses of dishonesty), the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus, and the 1962 Roman Missal, all of which I personally encourage Roman Catholics to read before touching Gibbon (although the pre-1955 editions of the Roman Missal are better, and can be readily accessed online, along with the the 1962 version, and the Divine Office, also known as the Liturgy of the Hours, in various editions).

Here is a comparison of lengths

Work	Word Count (Approx.)	Page Count (Approx.)	Notes
War and Peace	560,000–587,000	1,200–1,400	Novel, translation-dependent.
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire	1,000,000–1,100,000	3,000–3,500	Six volumes, includes footnotes.
Challoner Douay-Rheims Bible	800,000–850,000	1,200–1,500	Includes deuterocanonicals, annotations.
King James Version with Apocrypha	850,000–900,000	1,300–1,500	Apocrypha adds ~100,000–150,000 words.
Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)	100,000–150,000	300–400	Shortest, focused on Church history.
Collected Writings of St. Athanasius	500,000–600,000	1,000–1,200	Diverse theological works.
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (John of Damascus)	80,000–100,000	250–350 (500–600 diglot)	Systematic theology, shorter than Athanasius.
1962 Roman Missal	150,000–200,000	1,200–1,500	Liturgical text, high page count due to format.

Click to expand...

Valletta said:

In the almost 2000 years of the Catholic Church there has been continued efforts for reform, because men are sinners. In fact our first pope denied Our Lord three times. Reforms were nothing new, but a tragic set of circumstances resulted in the reformation and so many coming up with their own religions. The Catholic Church is throughout the world, for most of history the rulers would adopt a religion and subjects would adopt the same religion--often because they had little choice. This has happened with various religions. The Bible did not magically appear, the historical record about the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible is solid. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. And I have pointed to Saint Jerome's mention about the Jews of his time rejecting some books that Protestants often bring up in trying to defend dropping seven books from the Bible. Pretending these historical events did not happen does not change the truth. I would be interested in hearing you tell exactly how you think the canon of the Bible came into existence.

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

View attachment 367156

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

The Apostle Peter was certainly not the first pope of the Roman Catholic church, nor did he consider himself such in any manner. He was Jewish, and ministered primarily to the Jewish believers. Yes Peter did deny the Lord three times, revealing the fallacy of placing any single sinful man, at the head of Christ's professed church. Nor is the Catholic church 2000 years old. The cost of freedom to believe as one wishes is certainly very high, but our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ most obviously considered it worth His own life. Some of your very declarations above are of course exactly what many Protestants contested. First, while they were still Catholics, then after they were excommunicated and persecuted for daring to exercise freedom of thought and mind. Which God Himself has always granted to all of humanity. Therefore, to set one's self up in His place, and refuse others this right which He has always granted is nothing short of anti-God and anti-Christ. Christ is the head of all His self chosen and professed followers. No other man.

God Himself has preserved His word in this world against all odds. Including the Church of Rome's efforts to forbid and or destroy all translations she does not approve of, as though God had called her to do this. It is no surprise though, that the Church of Rome would try to take credit for what God Himself has done. Then of course, there is the fact that if God was actually behind the Church of Rome's attempts to censor all bibles but those of which they approved, He certainly failed miserably. So, did God fail miserably, or was the Church of Rome wrong in thinking He wanted them to do this?

Click to expand...

Amo2 said:

That can't be correct. They have been printing new books by her every year now, for over a hundred years. Most compilations of her less numerous original works of course. Which I believe to be a mistake. Creating a lot of confusion and chaos concerning original context and or intent of meaning. Which humanity is already apt to do on their own regarding the works and words of others, without unending compilations added to the mess.

Click to expand...

Manuscript Releases — Ellen G. White Writings

m.egwwritings.org

2. Forbidden Books.​

Rule 4. General Rule.—Translations of a forbidden book into any language, if54they faithfully reproduce the original, are also forbidden.

A. The General Decrees Prohibit the Following Publications.​

Rule 5, a. Books defending heresies, i. e. doctrines contrary to divine revelation.

b. Books derogatory to God, the Blessed Virgin, the Saints.

c. Books vilifying the sacraments, the clerical or religious state, the hierarchy, the Church.

Rule 6. Books professedly treating of, narrating or teaching lewdness and obscenity.

Rule 7. Books teaching or recommending sorcery, Spiritism, Christian Science, or other superstitions.

Rule 8. Books defending as lawful or harmless Freemasonry, divorce, Socialism, suicide, duelling.

Rule 9. Those newspapers and periodicals which, not only now and then, but regularly and of set purpose, attack religion or morality, or propagate anti-Catholic views.

55Rule 10. Episcopal approbation, to be printed in the beginning or at the end of the book, is required for all editions of the Bible or parts of the Bible in any language, likewise for all prayer books, books of devotion and of practical piety. Without episcopal authorization such publications are forbidden, though they may have been issued by the most learned and pious men.

Note 1. Leaflets which are so small that they cannot be called books, or even booklets or pamphlets, do not fall under this law. But if they are not approved by the bishop, the duty of making sure that they contain nothing erroneous devolves upon those who use them.

Summaries of indulgences, however, no matter how small, always need episcopal approbation and may not be circulated without it.

Note 2. All editions of the Bible, edited by non-Catholics, in ancient as well as modern languages, are permitted to those, and those only, who are engaged in serious theological or biblical studies, provided, however, that the prolegomena and annotations do not of set purpose impugn the Catholic faith. It is not enough that the text itself is faithfully and completely rendered.

Note 3. An exception has also been made in favor of those classics, ancient and modern, which on account of their obscenity fall under rule 6. In as far as they are models of style they may be read by persons engaged in teaching university or higher college classes of literature, by those who are preparing for such a position in the near future, and by those who, on account of their profession, e. g. as critics or authors of literary works, cannot well do without them. (See note 4 above.)

Whenever we know, or discover while reading, that a book undoubtedly belongs to any one of these classes, we may be sure that it is a work which our Holy Mother the Church does not wish to see in our hands, and we must then act according to the words of Christ: “He who heareth you, heareth Me, and he who despiseth you despiseth Me.” No need of first looking up the catalogue of forbidden books; whether the volume in question is mentioned there or not, makes no difference. Nor does it matter what the literary character of the book is. An apparently learned history of the seizure of Rome in 1870, written with the obvious intention of maligning Pius IX, is forbidden just as well as a novel written for the same purpose, or the prayer book of some Protestant sect.

Click to expand...

Act 19:11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: 12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. 13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. 18 And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. 19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

Yes, they have put together compilations. They have also done manuscript releases.

The above is obviously from some time ago, and my understanding is that it comprised the published volumes at the time (and it looks like the index at the bottom).

More info on the compilations: Ellen G. White® Estate: Compilations--What They Are and What They Are Not

More info on the manuscripts:

Manuscript Releases — Ellen G. White Writings

m.egwwritings.org

View attachment 367159

Click to expand...