- Feb 5, 2002
- 182,506
- 66,079
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You know how that goes. Instead of going to the source they just continue to spout out misinformation.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You know how that goes. Instead of going to the source they just continue to spout out misinformation.I did my best.
Yeah. Apparently, I am only allowed to root for the Bears, or anyone playing against the Packers.Nah! We have a sense of humor!
To my knowledge he corrected Vance one time in regard to the order of love, that's what bishops are supposed to do, instruct. Vance put out a very nice message for our new pope.He's apparently considered a "centrist with progressive tendencies" and was critical of Vance and MAGA even while he was still a Cardinal.
It looks to me like Trump and his Christian pals might have formidable new enemy.
I mean yeah, he’s the fourteenth or fifteenth one to take the name Leo for the office.
That's always been a problem, all the way back to Jesus on the mountaintop being tempted by the devil. These days the Traditional Christians are doing pretty well. It's mostly Christians in the US who have embraced the devil's offer.Pope Francis and his predecessors often entered the political realm rather than staying true to teaching God's word. I believe that is a mistake and I view it as evidence that the Pope is NOT the "Vicar" of Christ nor is the Catholic Church the "universal" church of Jesus.
Excuse my ignorance but then, what do you need a church leader for if you can just read the words right out of the book?
That is a pretty vicious and blatantly anti-Catholic analogy.I think the original rationale was rooted in a couple different things:
1) many in those leadership positions actually get theology degrees (meaning they were able to put aside an amount of time to study the materials that an average person wouldn't have
2) when many of these positions were founded/formed, illiteracy was a massive issue, so even a person had the time and motivation to want to learn it for themselves, they lacked the ability to do so.
(and even when reading rates started to improve, they ended up opting to use only Latin as the official language for a lot of it -- keeping it out of reach of even more people)
For those who recall, that was one of the big catalysts for the protestant reformation. Martin Luther wanted the texts to be available in the vernacular (common languages) so regular people could read it themselves, reducing the Catholic church's control over biblical interpretation.
I've used a software analogy in the past, I would imagine I would be considered a pretty important guy (and would wield a certain amount of power) if I was the only one in an entire city who knew how to write code. If I caught a whiff that some others were trying to learn to code so they could see what the app was doing, and I intentionally converted it over to use an obscure programming language, and hid the copies that were in an "easier to interpret" language, that would be even more dubious.
You forget that the primary role of the Pope--and all Traditional Christian clergy--is sacerdotal.Human nature is what it is...when a person (or people) get certain positions of power/prominence, they're not terribly eager to part with it and go back to being "just a regular guy among many"
How that ties in to present day, it's the people willingly keeping those positions in a status of prominence, not because they actually revere the position, but because it provides an 'authority to appeal to', that can be selectively invoked, as a convenient counter-balance to other forms of authority they disagree with.
For example: People who disagree with their own country's policies on immigration may toss in the "even the Pope says XYZ about immigrants" in hopes that it'll change the opinions of others to one that may more closely match their own.
I was born-again in an independent Baptist church back in 1978. My profile gives some more of my background. I'm sure that there are millions of Christians around the world, and also in America, that don't believe in sacerdotalism to the same extent which the Catholic Church does.You forget that the primary role of the Pope--and all Traditional Christian clergy--is sacerdotal.
That is a pretty vicious and blatantly anti-Catholic analogy.
Except for the Anglicans, the Orthodox churches (uniate and otherwise) Oriental Churches, Copts, Thomas Christians, Chaldeans, Syriacs,I was born-again in an independent Baptist church back in 1978. My profile gives some more of my background. I'm sure that there are millions of Christians around the world, and also in America, that don't believe in sacerdotalism to the same extent which the Catholic Church does.
Historically factual would be fine. For instance, it is an historical fact that the Bible has always been available in any language a significant number of people were able to read. The first vernacular translations started appearing in the 2nd century. The first English Bible was Wycliffe's, over a century before the Reformation. Luther's vernacular Bible was in German, but the first German Bible was printed in 1410, also about a century before the Reformation.If the historically factual aspects of what occurred and what led to the protestant reformation is perceived as "viciously anti-Catholic", I can't help that.
Why Christians Were Denied Access To Their Bible For 1,000 Years
Wouldn't you assume that the newly established Church would want its devotees to immerse themselves in the sanctioned New Testament, especially since the Church went to great lengths to eliminate competing Gospels?www.huffpost.com
In the same way that a Jewish person's views on Jesus could be perceived as "anti-Christian"
Historically factual would be fine. For instance, it is an historical fact that the Bible has always been available in any language a significant number of people were able to read. The first vernacular translations started appearing in the 2nd century. The first English Bible was Wycliffe's, over a century before the Reformation. Luther's vernacular Bible was in German, but the first German Bible was printed in 1410, also about a century before the Reformation.
Here's my take though, on how the Pope will present himself to the world. There is the liberal way, the conservative way and then the Catholic way and that doesn't mean being a centrist. I'm hoping Pope Leo XIV will bring new fresh ways to the table that others seem to overlook. The liberals are DOA on all matters except possibly the environment and helping the less fortunate (though their plans stink but at least they are going in the right direction). However, there is no one to counter the conservative juggernaut and that is where Pope Leo XIV and the Trump administration will butt heads. Alot of people don't agree with the way Trump is handling things but the alternative (the Democrats) is garbage.I don’t know. Being a centrist I think he will be willing to weigh in both sides of issues people have. That is what I’m hoping for. Being extreme on either side seems to plug the ears.
Printed or written out by hand? The printing press had not been invented until 1440, but carved block printing had been around.but the first German Bible was printed in 1410, also about a century before the Reformation.
Not sure which bible from 1410 is exactly meant, but there were translations made before that time.Printed or written out by hand? The printing press had not been invented until 1440, but carved block printing had been around.
Translations yes; printed editions not so much.Not sure which bible from 1410 is exactly meant, but there were translations made before that time.
Biblical literature - Medieval, French, German | Britannica
Biblical literature - Medieval, French, German: Until the Reformation, Dutch Bible translations were largely free adaptations, paraphrases, or rhymed verse renderings of single books or parts thereof. A popular religious revival at the end of the 12th century accelerated the demand for...www.britannica.com
I don't think there were woodcut printing versions of the entire bible. Just imagine the work of creating so many woodcuts.Translations yes; printed editions not so much.
There are a number of misconceptions. Keep in mind that before a Catholic named Gutenberg printed the first book, and he chose a Bible, the vast majority of people were illiterate. After Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people in Europe, the Latin Vulgate, translated under the direction of Saint Jerome, became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. At that time in Europe, essentially if you were in the tiny percentage that could read and write--you spoke Latin. Now eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. But until very recent times you could find masses in Latin throughout the world and many Catholics used to understand at least some Latin.Early English Bible Translations (Pre-Reformation)
1️⃣ Old English translations (7th–11th centuries):
Portions of the Bible were translated into Old English, often in monasteries. These included:
- Caedmon’s Hymn (7th century) — a paraphrase of biblical stories.
- The Venerable Bede reportedly translated the Gospel of John into Old English around 735, though that text is lost.
- Alfred the Great (9th century) also promoted translations of biblical and religious works into Old English for educational purposes.
But these were fragmentary, and literacy was still very low outside the clergy and nobility.
2️⃣ Middle English translations (14th–15th centuries):
The big name here is John Wycliffe.
- Wycliffe and his followers (the Lollards) produced the first complete English translation of the Bible in the 1380s — from the Latin Vulgate, not the original Hebrew and Greek.
- The Church really did not like this. The official stance was that scripture should be in Latin, interpreted by clergy.
- In fact, in 1408, the Constitutions of Oxford prohibited translating the Bible into English without church approval — which was basically never granted.
- Wycliffe’s Bibles were copied by hand and circulated secretly. Possessing one could get you in serious trouble.
Why Was It Such a Big Deal?
The medieval Catholic Church believed that:
- The Bible was too complex for laypeople to interpret properly without guidance.
- Unauthorized translations risked heresy and misinterpretation.
- Church authority and doctrine were deeply tied to Latin scripture and liturgy.
In short: Before the Protestant Reformation, there were English Bibles, but they were rare, unofficial, and often illegal.
So to say "they were always available" is a tad misleading. Hard to come by and illegal is still technically "available", but not widely available to the masses.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?