Spiritually Speaking, Isn't This The Worst, Most Illogical Argument You Have Heard?

You are correct. There really is no logical conclusion in that argument, it falls flat and in on itself.

Andrew L is the only one who tried, so far, and his history is wrong. English isn't the only language of the common people. People in other countries spoke other languages and already had translations of the Bible in their language long before King James did it.

Latin WAS the common language of anyone who could read. it wasn't the spoken language, but of the educated people (which were the only people of that time that could read) they could all read Latin. So the Bible was something they could pick up and read.

The Church never tried to keep the Bible from the common man. During the Reformation many translations were thrown together and passed out to people as the "Word of God" when in fact they were very bad translations. The Catholic Church did confiscate and burn these books because they weren't really Bible's since they were so badly translated. The thinking being that a mistranslation was worse than no Bible at all. The last thing they wanted was for individuals to believe they were getting sacred scripture only to find out that what they had followed was a book full of errors. The Catholic Church had a responsibility to protect the Word of God and to protect the people.

St. Jerome said, and the Catechism reiterates, that "ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." Just because some Catholics take no interest in Scripture does not mean that the Church encourages such a position, in fact they do not.

There is a short history of the formation of the Bible here in my blog:

http://fiatvolvntastua.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-it...

This is a response I wrote to someone making claims about the Church prohibiting one from reading Scriptures.

Did the Church really forbid the reading of the Bible?

You are trying to come to conclusions without complete knowledge and with misunderstanding. The Church has the responsibility as the teaching authority given by Christ to protect the deposit of the Sacred Tradition, of which the Bible is a part. It has another responsibility to be the shepherd for those the Holy Spirit brings to faith. The quotes you have listed in your question illustrates the Church doing exactly what Christ commissioned the Church to do which is to halt the distribution and use of heretical interpretations. Authority for interpretation according to the Bible is the Church and not individuals.(2 Peter 1:20)

Another error you make is assuming that most people knew how to read an write in their vernacular language. The fact is that educated people knew how to read and write Latin and it was much more likely that if one read that it was Latin only. There are also great advantages for the Church to have a common language which is Latin. What that meant was that one could travel throughout the world and understand the Mass wherever they were. Today the use of vernacular language to the Church is similar to what happened at the Tower of Babel. It is a hindrance to theological understanding instead of being helpful.

Another error you make is assuming that the vernacular translations that were banned were accurate to the original texts. They were not and many lacked acceptable scholarship. Such heretical texts were sure to cause misunderstandings and cause people to understand the Scriptures incorrectly.

Another error you make is assuming that the culture then is the same as today. There was little difference between Church and state and the lines continued to be blurred. The harsh methods that were used in those days were common place if if we can find the horrendous today. If you remember Calvin murdered so many in Geneva that he got the name the butcher of Geneva. They were murdered for opposing His teachings. Looking back this treatment was wrong even though it was for the right intentions. BTW, the quotes were taken out of context in that you failed to take into account the culture of the era when coming to your conclusions.

Your errors continue in presuming that the Church would forbid anyone from reading the Bible because Catholic doctrines and dogma are contrary to the Church. This is impossible if one trusts and believes in Jesus' teaching. Jesus said that His Church is the enduring Church that is the "pillar and ground of the truth". It was Catholic Christians who wrote the New Testament and the Church that canonized those books that they judged inspired all under the authority given to the Church by Jesus. Since the Church wrote the Bible and canonized it, is it not logical that the Church would, in fact encourage people to read it? Of course and the Church always has; just not heretical interpretations. So, if you really believe that the Church has doctrines and dogmas contrary to the Bible you are in need of further study and the grace of the Holy Spirit to recognize His Church from the book about His Church. Truly the Catholic Church is the only Church with a legitimate claim of being a Bible Church since the NT is about the Church.

As a Catholic, I read your question and see the testimony of the Church in being responsible in its commission by Christ to His Church. The Church is protecting God's Word and shepherding His faithful. We can be further encouraged to know that His Church, the ark for humanity from an evil world, will be the enduring pillar and ground of the truth until He comes again. God bless!

In Christ

Fr. Joseph

Being judgemental is a mental illness: too much noise in the head, too little joy. Condescension and Condemnation are symptoms. Condemnation is an attempt to convert others to the same misery. Condescension is a hiding away from reality. The one who condemns is more irritating to be around, but they might have a better chance of eventually getting well. At least they still have a spark a life in them! This should not stop us facing reality clearly. For instance, I condemn the Nazis and am glad that some quite drastic things were done to stop Hitler.

You are in error..... if you would take the time... it is an extensive effort... you can dig all kinds of historical information debunking the selective history published to the masses by the papists..... starting with the FACT that they are NOT the first "church" and that there is no honest connection between the papists and the Apostles of Christ.... and the fact that they did indeed deliberately keep the general population from The Bible right up to the time of the printing press... that started the people turning against the papists.... on up to Luther and others splitting off from the papists..... even in modern times there is a tendency among the "catholics" not to personally study The Bible, but to take the priests instructions.... I have been told that by many catholics when talking to them about The Bible.... they have no interest in personal study because the priest tells them what is in it and what it means.....

Yea, umm I don't think anyone is going to read this , well, Question. you are not writing a novella.

And really if you study the history of Christianity, you will see there is well documented proof that the church has altered and omitted A LOT from the original text. Sorry, but education trumps wishes every time.

[you are speaking of two different eras. first the church did not translate it into the latin vulgate](sorry about that statement you are correct, I was thinking of the old testament to greek.(Septuagint) the church forbid the reading of the bible by the common man. this is why they were translating. in fact it is this that caused King James in 1600 to gather up the most renown scholars to translate the bible.

He was tired of the church twisting the scripture for their own means.

Second if they did commission it later on, it was so that the priests could read it, not the common man.

all of the quotes you mention are picked and chosen. We all know how easy it is to take scriptures out of context

they took pages out maybe to satisfy theirselves. They still had to read it, maybe they did not want to feel guilty. or perhaps in case one was released.

the king James does not include the apocrypha.

I am not going to argue with you. I know little more than you do. All I can say is that people generally accept what they see or hear and do not bother to do research. oh and I am not saying that is what they did, I am suggesting that it is quite possible. I was not there, I do not share a mind. Could have been an accident I don't know and don't care. What matters is you and I today. Read the bible, study it, apply it. The past is not going to save you.

Yes it is. And I tend to ignore answers by anyone who calls us papists...

You are arguing with people who hate. It is like trying to be logical with a drunk. Can't be done. But I, for one, appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

Protip:

No one is going to read all that