question...

[kdmom]

Anthony,
I'm new around here so you'll have to excuse me if this is a silly question but what does your last post have to do with Balerinabeth's question??????

 

 

 

[VOW]

To Anthony:

Good question, why would he risk his life, to disagree with the path doctrine was going.

Martin Luther let his ego get in the way of his faith. He disregarded the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit would remain with the Church He had created with Peter, and felt Luther felt he knew more than the leadership in Rome.

Luther believed he alone could translate the Bible into the common German language, and disobeyed a directive from Rome to use the COMMITTEE of translators. In doing so, Luther had free rein to insert words that HE felt should be added, and he also did some heavy duty editing to the Old Testament and threw out books HE did not consider to be "inspired," even though they HAD been part of the Canon for 1500 years. Luther also wanted to ditch some of the NEW Testament, but his advisors talked him out of it.

It was also upon the advice from these same advisors who convinced him to break completely away from Rome, instead of reconciling.

WHY did Luther do such things? Because he thought HE was more important than the Catholic Church.

A man of God who calls his leadership a bunch of "braying donkeys" isn't fulfilling the office of his calling, IMHO.

Luther opened the door for anyone who wished to read something into the Bible that had not been taught in 1500 years. That is the reason that the non-Catholic Christian churches cannot agree even amongst themselves as to what the Bible says.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by kdmom
Anthony,
I'm new around here so you'll have to excuse me if this is a silly question but what does your last post have to do with Balerinabeth's question?????? 

 

Like this reply, my last post is a reply to another person post/question.

 

[VOW]

To Anthony:

Beg pardon, but your information is in error. It was NOT "death to anyone who published the Bible." Guttenburg published the Bible before Luther was even BORN. And translations in the local vernacular had been around since the 800s.

PLEASE do not perpetuate falsehoods!!


Peace,
~VOW

 

[kdmom]

Originally posted by Anthony
Like this reply, my last post is a reply to another person post/question.

Thanks for answering.

Boy trying to follow a train of thought or topic around here is terribly difficult huh....

 

[VOW]

To KDmom:

All the "trains of thought" around here take the scenic route!




Peace,
~VOW

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by VOW
To Anthony:

Beg pardon, but your information is in error. It was NOT "death to anyone who published the Bible." Guttenburg published the Bible before Luther was even BORN. And translations in the local vernacular had been around since the 800s.
PLEASE do not perpetuate falsehoods!!
Peace,
~VOW

Gutenberg's invention was not an immediate commercial success: the medieval manuscript tradition was considered inseparable from the sanctity of the text. Some believed the reproduction of identical Bibles to be diabolical; some early printers in Catholic cities were even martyred as heretics
http://www.uwm.edu/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/clspg004.htm

Tyndale was a man of heroic stature and died a martyr’s death. In England alone, more than 1,000 people were burned between 1400 and 1557 for the sake of the Gospel. Tyndale’s books and tracts (or "pestilent glosses" as his enemies referred to them) were smuggled into England wrapped in bales of wool or cloth, or sacks of flour by fellow "Lollards". 
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0crimesofwilliamtyndale.htm

  

  

  

 

 

[kdmom]

Anthony,
What I understand is the Catholic Church was not opposed to anyone reading scriptures (of those who even could hundreds of years ago anyway). It was the "interpretation" the church was concerned with.

They did not wish for Catholics to be reading heretical interpretations of scriptures.
There is a difference between that and saying Catholics were not allowed to read the scriptures you know.

 

[VOW]

To Anthony:

Although the Bible was available in the vernacular in much of Europe, the only version of the Scripture tolerated in England was St. Jerome’s Latin translation which dated back to the 4th century.

Hmmm...and I have information that says otherwise:

The earliest precursor to the English-language Bible was a paraphrase of Genesis written around 670 in Anglo-Saxon by Caedmon. Bede, who died in 735, translated into Anglo-Saxon at least the Gospel of John. There were several editions of the Bible in Middle English, the language of Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. The best book on this subject, now out of print but worth a trip to the library, is Fr Hugh Pope's English Versions of the Bible. (From What Catholics Really Believe)

Peace,
~VOW