Roman Catholic..anything wrong with it?

[Erose]

Thanks for the clarification. It is definitely human nature.

Actually it is due to our fallen nature. True human nature is without sin.

 

[DamianWarS]

Thank you, that was informative. Clearly the early version of the Greek text was less them perfect but when through various rounds of revision. The way I get it Erasmus used the Vulgate to back edit the Byzantine text and relied on later versions of the Byzantine text. Stephanus appears to have made a substantial contribution to the revision of TR and the insidious textual variation of TR, has made it questionable but I think it's weathered the criticism fairly well. We do well to consider the enormity of the work Erasmus undertook, which should help to bring some of the mistakes more understandable.

Textual criticism is an important part of exegetical work but too much weight is placed on it. It distracts from the centuries of meticulous work that has made the Scriptures, in the originals, the best preserved writings from antiquity.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Erasmus' work was heavily influenced by the vulgate and he had to reverse translate some of the end of Revelation back to Greek. It was in an environment where the vulgate was king and his bias towards the vulgate is just him trying to maintain the scripture as best he thought. Stephanus did actually do a lot of revisions and he used 15 manuscripts where Erasmus used 6 manuscripts. the TR of course led to the KJV and both have been extremely fundamental in the growth of the Church especially protestant.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Anyone that disagrees with you is a "rant".....I am glad Revelation 17 and 18 justice is just around the corner for the harlot religion and it's daughters.

It's fundamentally impossible to have a valid debate when people often resort to the Gish Gallop, which refers to a rapid fire pace of arguments that frequently are loaded; each argument can be properly unraveled and discussed given time, but the rapid pace of the arguments usually results in one's opponent seeming "weak" while giving the impression that one has made a valid argument through this process. I see it quite frequently in anti-Catholic "arguments", though I've seen the inverse as well, Catholics using a similar tactic in an anti-Protestant offering. In both cases there is the assumption of correctness, without substantiation of argument, and virtually little chance of anything resembling a meaningful debate on any subject.

Instead of offering a litany of "Everything icky about them thar Catholics", it would be far more valid of an argument approach to say, "Here is an issue that I have about X" and then Catholics can respond by explaining first what they actually believe on the subject, and offer their point, which can then be responded to with a counter-point.

Fundamentally I frequently see what amounts to as arguments like this, and while not a Gish Gallop, is also present in your OP, the "argument" is as follows, "These people believe differently than I do, therefore they are wrong. How can they justify being so wrong?" In this case this is a different fallacy, known as a Loaded Question, the common example used to describe a Loaded Question is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A Loaded Question fallacy presumes and then offers a question in which the one who is supposed to answer is expected to agree with the presumption.

Again, these sorts of fallacies exist not just in anti-Catholic arguments, but also in anti-Protestant arguments (and, of course, everywhere else).

All of which results not in debate, but a shouting match.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[kepha31]

the KJV was finished publication in 1611. For its greek portions it is based off of the 1550 edition of the textus receptus (TR) which was a bunch of revisions from the original of 1516 by a dutch man named Erasmus. Erasmus was the best theologian there was in Holland at the time and although he thought there was abuse in the catholic church he didn't engaged the reformation and instead thought it best to reform from within. Calvinism seems to have been most influential in Holland and it hit in the mid 16th century after Erasmus had died.

Stephanus is credited with the 1550 edition which the KJV uses as its base greek text but what he did is make it more readable than change the text. Stephanus was born before the reformation so of course he was a Catholic but later became a protestant. He was well acquainted with ancient languages but I see him more a businessman than a theologian. Even still he's the guy who is responsible for the greek base text that the KJV is based on.

The reformation is birthed in the wake of the invention of the printing press (in the mid-15th century) and this is no mistake. Because of the printing press more people had access to scripture so more people had things to say about it. This was the renaissance and the TR parallels the reformation and it's rise. Tydal made his english translation off of an early version of the TR which got him burned at the stake and luther made his german version also from the TR. Erasmus may have taken a more conservative approach to reforming but he undoubtedly was a key player to the reformation. At the time Catholics valued the scripture in Latin, Greek and Hebrew but did not value translations of scriptures into modern languages; they actually were quite opposed to it.

Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's fundamentally impossible to have a valid debate when people often resort to the Gish Gallop, which refers to a rapid fire pace of arguments that frequently are loaded; each argument can be properly unraveled and discussed given time, but the rapid pace of the arguments usually results in one's opponent seeming "weak" while giving the impression that one has made a valid argument through this process. I see it quite frequently in anti-Catholic "arguments", though I've seen the inverse as well, Catholics using a similar tactic in an anti-Protestant offering. In both cases there is the assumption of correctness, without substantiation of argument, and virtually little chance of anything resembling a meaningful debate on any subject.

Instead of offering a litany of "Everything icky about them thar Catholics", it would be far more valid of an argument approach to say, "Here is an issue that I have about X" and then Catholics can respond by explaining first what they actually believe on the subject, and offer their point, which can then be responded to with a counter-point.

Fundamentally I frequently see what amounts to as arguments like this, and while not a Gish Gallop, is also present in your OP, the "argument" is as follows, "These people believe differently than I do, therefore they are wrong. How can they justify being so wrong?" In this case this is a different fallacy, known as a Loaded Question, the common example used to describe a Loaded Question is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A Loaded Question fallacy presumes and then offers a question in which the one who is supposed to answer is expected to agree with the presumption.

Again, these sorts of fallacies exist not just in anti-Catholic arguments, but also in anti-Protestant arguments (and, of course, everywhere else).

All of which results not in debate, but a shouting match.

-CryptoLutheran

Arguments about what, I've spent some time looking at Catholic theology and I've fielded a lot of arguments against Biblical Christianity. What arguments are you talking about?

 

[FinishedCross]

There are things we will never see eye to eye on so the debate at this point is a bit meaningless. There are extremists on both sides of the spectrum and there are the level-headed ones. I am mildly extreme and tend to have highly negative views of Catholicism based on my interpretation of the book of Revelation.

The book of Revelation isnt the Gospel though. But its become its own religion since 1844 in America. You cant make a religion from a portion of the NT - it wont work.

Overly focusing on a specific section of the Bible is the sign of a cult.

Trying to figure out end time signs from current news and Revelation is called 'sorcery' - not Christianity.

 

[FinishedCross]

I believe that most of Revelations has come to pass, AD70.

Same here.

 

[Jeepneytravel]

Same here.

You would both be wrong...read Revelation carefully and especially the beast powers in Rev 13 and Rev 17...see the similarities to the "harlot" and her "daughters"?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

You would both be wrong...read Revelation carefully and especially the beast powers in Rev 13 and Rev 17...see the similarities to the "harlot" and her "daughters"?

There are plenty of Christians, myself included, who interpret the harlot as representing Rome, not the Catholic Church.

But you probably knew that.

 

[FinishedCross]

Ah, so you're a preterist. I'm a futurist, in fact, a historic premillennialist. We all have our views.

Your not allwed to have your own views (on some things). This isnt Judaism or Freemasonry... or philosophy.

If you believe the wrong thigs, then you will surely believe in the wrong Jesus amd therefore the wrong God.

Things like the millenial Kingdom is a clever trick to get you to deny that Jesus completed his work on the cross. It's a trick to get you to deny that Jesus ever came, and to rewind 2000 years and have you wait alongside with Jews for their Messiah (the false one).

But they have a LOOOOONG history of false Messiah's and a more recent history of taking Christians along with them into their abyss of futureness and their revolutionary spirit.

Why? Because God is unseen and eternal. God is Good. The Good is unseen and eternal. So Satan competes with God by that witch is also in the unseen. and because it's not eternal, it's always changing and starting over and revolutionizing. why? for the sake of being Good. So Satan is always trying to compete with the Good. The false light of Lucifer. The false Christ. Those who deny that Jesus is the Messiah is of the anti-Christ.

Question: does this MODERN acience fiction.. this.. 'invention' of 1000 years end up indirectly DENYING that Jesus is the Messiah?

Funny, I see the Rabbi's preaching the exact same message. Maybe not with 1000 years but everything else is so similar. They say they will take control of the earth with their Messiah and will live super long lives. And all the goy will supoort them and work under them, serving them.

So question: Who are YOU serving?

And last Question:I know the above answer withh be Jesus. But talk is cheap - by your deeds of being anti-Catholic, which master are you serving? Still Jesus

Somthen Jesus is the enemy of the the Catholic Church?

Then that means Jesus is the Author of Protocols of Zion, Protocol No. 17 - "WE SHALL DESTROY THE CLERGY". It mentions how the Catholic Church and the Pope has been a GREAT HINDRANCE in their plans.

So basically Jesus is on the same side of the Protocols of Zion and Freemasonry. Bacause those are the ONLY two groups (really one body) that actively work to destroy the 'Papal Court' as the document says.

And thats who's side you are on. Those are them you call Master and who you are serving through you actions.

We live in a Freemasonic founded countntry made tp protect cults. A dogma of Freedom that TAKES OVER the dogmatic freedom in Christ and his Church. So none of this stuff shouldnt actually surprise people.

 

[kepha31]

Jeepneytravel said: ↑
Anyone that disagrees with you is a "rant"....

Everybody knows what a rant is, and I only use the term when an actual rant takes place.

.I am glad Revelation 17 and 18 justice is just around the corner for the harlot religion and it's daughters.

harlot-duh-babble-on psychosis from the Christian Taliban. Tell your doctor how you feel about the largest charity in the world, he has medications that can help you.

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the harlot of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

Hunting the harlot of Babylon | Catholic Answers

 

[Jeepneytravel]

Everybody knows what a rant is, and I only use the term when an actual rant takes place.
harlot-duh-babble-on psychosis from the Christian Taliban. Tell your doctor how you feel about the largest charity in the world, he has medications that can help you.

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the harlot of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

Hunting the harlot of Babylon | Catholic Answers

..

Just to clue you in, it is the Roman Catholic Church, and Dave Hunt was right if as you claim he calls the Roman church the harlot riding the beast in Rev 17 and they all work contrary to your denial...no hunting to do..it is there in plain sight....

 

[kepha31]

..

Just to clue you in, it is the Roman Catholic Church, and Dave Hunt was right if as you claim he calls the Roman church the harlot riding the beast in Rev 17 and they all work contrary to your denial...no hunting to do..it is there in plain sight....

Sorry this is so long but I have "0" tolerance for "Bible Christian" hate propaganda, ignorant of the fact that the first 40 popes were killed by pagan Romans.

LIE #1 (in part)
"...Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City—the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered—and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west.

LIE #2

Hunt notes that the harlot will be a city "known as Babylon." This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name is "Babylon the Great."

The phrase "Babylon the great" (Greek: Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as "the great city" seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to "the great city." That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses "will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified."

"The great city" is symbolically called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called "Sodom" in the Old Testament (cf. Is. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1–3, 46–56). We also know Jerusalem is the "the great city" of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was "where [the] Lord was crucified."

Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one "great city" ("the great city"), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts—Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon.

This suggests that Babylon the great may be Jerusalem, not Rome. Many Protestant and Catholic commentators have adopted this interpretation. On the other hand, early Church Fathers often referred to Rome as "Babylon," but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians.

Hunt tells us, "The woman is called a ‘harlot’ (verse 1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome."

Here Hunt admits that the prophets often referred to Jerusalem as a spiritual harlot, suggesting that the harlot might be apostate Jerusalem. Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the description, since through the cult of emperor worship it also committed spiritual fornication with "the kings of the earth" (those nations it conquered).

To identify the harlot as Vatican City, Hunt interprets the fornication as alleged "unholy alliances" forged between Vatican City and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with other nations are "unholy."

He also confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome, and he neglects the fact that pagan Rome had "unholy alliances" with the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor worship).

LIE #4 Clothed in Purple and Red

Hunt states, "She [the harlot] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy." He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.

Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.

Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.

The purple and scarlet of the harlot are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons: (a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally; (b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation ("the righteous acts of the saints;" 19:8); implying that the clothing of the harlot should also be given a symbolic meaning; and (c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the harlot may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26).

Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.

It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.

Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).

LIE #5: Possesses Great Wealth

Hunt states, "[The harlot’s] incredible wealth next caught John’s eye. She was ‘decked with gold and precious stones and pearls . . . ’ [Rev. 17:4]." The problem is that, regardless of what it had in the past, the modern Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. In fact, it has run a budget deficit in most recent years and has an annual budget only around the size of that of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Furthermore, wealth was much more in character with pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem, both key economic centers.

LIE #6 A Golden Cup

Hunt states that the harlot "has ‘a golden cup [chalice] in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.’" This is another reference to Revelation 17:4. Then he states that the "Church is known for its many thousands of gold chalices around the world."

To make the harlot’s gold cup suggestive of the Eucharistic chalice, Hunt inserts the word "chalice" in square brackets, though the Greek word here is the ordinary word for cup (potarion), which appears thirty-three times in the New Testament and is always translated "cup."

He ignores the fact that the Catholic chalice is used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper—a ritual commanded by Christ (Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25); he ignores the fact that the majority of Eucharistic chalices Catholics use are not made out of gold, but other materials, such as brass, silver, glass, and even earthenware; he ignores the fact that gold liturgical vessels and utensils have been part of the true religion ever since ancient Israel—again at the command of God (Ex. 25:38–40, 37:23–24; Num. 31:50–51; 2 Chr. 24:14); and he again uses a literal interpretation, according to which the harlot’s cup is not a single symbol applying to the city of Rome, but a collection of many literal cups used in cities throughout the world. But Revelation tells us that it’s the cup of God’s wrath that is given to the harlot (Rev. 14:10; cf. Rev. 18:6). This has nothing to do with Eucharistic chalices.

LIE #7: The Mother of Harlots

Now for Hunt’s most hilarious argument: "John’s attention is next drawn to the inscription on the woman’s forehead: ‘THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH’ (verse 5, [Hunt’s emphasis]). Sadly enough, the Roman Catholic Church fits that description as precisely as she fits the others. Much of the cause is due to the unbiblical doctrine of priestly celibacy," which has "made sinners of the clergy and harlots out of those with whom they secretly cohabit."

Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline—a discipline in the Latin Rite of the Church—and even this rite has not always been mandatory. This discipline can scarcely be unbiblical, since Hunt himself says, "The great apostle Paul was a celibate and recommended that life to others who wanted to devote themselves fully to serving Christ."

Hunt has again lurched to an absurdly literal interpretation. He should interpret the harlotry of the harlot’s daughters as the same as their mother’s, which is why she is called their mother in the first place. This would make it spiritual or political fornication or the persecution of Christian martyrs (cf. 17:2, 6, 18:6). Instead, Hunt gives the interpretation of the daughters as literal, earthly prostitutes committing literal, earthly fornication.

If Hunt did not have a fixation on the King James Version, he would notice another point that identifies the daughters’ harlotries with that of their mother: The same Greek word (porna) is used for both mother and daughters. The King James Version translates this word as "harlot" whenever it refers to the mother, but as "harlot" when it refers to the daughters. Modern translations render it consistently. John sees the "great harlot" (17:1, 15, 16, 19:2) who is "the mother of harlots" (17:5). The harlotries of the daughters must be the same as the mother’s, which Hunt admits is not literal sex!

LIE #8 Sheds the Blood of Saints

Hunt states, "John next notices that the woman is drunk—not with alcohol but with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus . . . [cf. verse 6]." He then advances charges of brutality and killing by the Inquisitions, supposed forced conversions of nations, and even the Nazi holocaust!

This section of the book abounds with historical errors, not the least of which is his implication that the Church endorses the forced conversion of nations. The Church emphatically does not do so. It has condemned forced conversions as early as the third century (before then they were scarcely even possible), and has formally condemned them on repeated occasions, as in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 160, 1738, 1782, 2106–7).

But pagan Rome and apostate Jerusalem do fit the description of a city drunk with the blood of saints and the martyrs of Jesus. And since they were notorious persecutors of Christians, the original audience would have automatically thought of one of these two as the city that persecutes Christians, not an undreamed-of Christian Rome that was centuries in the future.

#9: Reigns over Kings

For his last argument, Hunt states, "Finally, the angel reveals that the woman ‘is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth’ (verse 18). Is there such a city? Yes, and again only one: Vatican City."

This is a joke. Vatican City has no power over other nations; it certainly does not reign over them. In fact, the Vatican’s very existence has been threatened in the past two centuries by Italian nationalism.

Hunt appeals to power the popes once had over Christian political rulers (neglecting the fact that this was always a limited authority, by the popes’ own admission), but at that time there was no Vatican City. The Vatican only became a separate city in 1929, when the Holy See and Italy signed the Lateran Treaty.

Hunt seems to understand this passage to be talking about Vatican City, since the modern city of Rome is only a very minor political force. If the reign is a literal, political one, then pagan Rome fulfills the requirement far better than Christian Rome ever did.
Hunting the harlot of Babylon | Catholic Answers

Hunt's book deceives a lot of people because it meets some sick need.

​

 

[DamianWarS]

Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.

the Church condemned any unauthorised translations since Wycliffe and at the time of the reformation felt it would fuel the protestant movement so for political reasons forbade it. There were previous translations of the bible in other languages but these were translations of translations and typically not available to mass audiences.

The language of the Church was Latin not greek or hebrew. Erasmus himself reverse transitioned his text from Latin in some portions but to him this was less of an issue as the Latin text was considered authoritative so it was the next best thing he also heavily used the latin text and often preferred its wording. Catholic's released the Douay–Rheims Bible at the end of the 16th century but even this was translated from the latin text. This is just a reflection of the strong value of Latin within the church and for some reason they had an allergy from moving away from Latin.

The printing press was a bit like the internet because it allowed a mass amount of media to be spread and this also meant content that the Church did not support and so they wanted to control it. But it was right technology, the 16th century was the right time and Erasmus created the right greek text, the next step was translating and printing despite the censorship of the Church. Tyndall created the first english translation from the hebrew/greek but because it was not authorized by the Church he was burnt at the stake for it.

This was the 16th century not the 21st. I believe the reformation was warranted but I also recognize that reform happened within the church as well as Erasmus had hoped. The Catholic church we see today is not the same as it was. Like ourselves the church is in constant need of reform.

 

[kepha31]

the Church condemned any unauthorised translations since Wycliffe and at the time of the reformation felt it would fuel the protestant movement so for political reasons forbade it. There were previous translations of the bible in other languages but these were translations of translations and typically not available to mass audiences.

The language of the Church was Latin not greek or hebrew. Erasmus himself reverse transitioned his text from Latin in some portions but to him this was less of an issue as the Latin text was considered authoritative so it was the next best thing he also heavily used the latin text and often preferred its wording. Catholic's released the Douay–Rheims Bible at the end of the 16th century but even this was translated from the latin text. This is just a reflection of the strong value of Latin within the church and for some reason they had an allergy from moving away from Latin.

"sola scriptura" are Latin words.

The printing press was a bit like the internet because it allowed a mass amount of media to be spread and this also meant content that the Church did not support and so they wanted to control it. But it was right technology, the 16th century was the right time and Erasmus created the right greek text, the next step was translating and printing despite the censorship of the Church. Tyndall created the first english translation from the hebrew/greek but because it was not authorized by the Church he was burnt at the stake for it.

This is a common mistake and often repeated. anyone familiar with the history of the Catholic Church, which for 2,000 years has been preserving and protecting the Word of God, recognizes how ludicrous this is. It was is only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available. All Christians everywhere owe it a great debt for that.

So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.
Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.
Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time...
...Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry VIII again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."
Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. The Catholic Church burning Tyndale at the stake is false.
Tyndale's Heresy | Catholic Answers

This was the 16th century not the 21st. I believe the reformation was warranted but I also recognize that reform happened within the church as well as Erasmus had hoped. The Catholic church we see today is not the same as it was. Like ourselves the church is in constant need of reform.

That's why we have councils.

 

[Goatee]

You would both be wrong...read Revelation carefully and especially the beast powers in Rev 13 and Rev 17...see the similarities to the "harlot" and her "daughters"?

Interpretation...

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Interpretation...

The interpretation of Revelation is a touchy topic. I tend not to get into eschatology.

 

[Jeepneytravel]

That is uncalled for!

It's Bible get used to it!

 

[Jeepneytravel]

Interpretation...

It's very clear, unless of course someone such as youself is in denial.....

 

[JRichard68]

I swear if I see anything else about Revelation 17 and 18 in this thread I'm going to throw up.
@Jeepneytravel - do you have anything of substance?