Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!koriel!lll-winken.llnl.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!psuvm!auvm!KRYPTON.CHEM.BUFFALO.EDU!rweiss
From: rweiss@KRYPTON.CHEM.BUFFALO.EDU (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Studying Scripture
Message-ID: <199405190224.WAA02264@krypton.chem.buffalo.edu>
Date: 19 May 94 02:24:21 GMT
Sender: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD
Lines: 98
Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU                              *
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: ********************************************************
Comments: * The following "Approved" statement verifies header   *
Comments: * information for gateway passage.  No approval of the *
Comments: * content is implied.                                  *
Comments: ********************************************************
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4802
In-Reply-To: <199405182352.TAA01702@krypton.chem.buffalo.edu> from "Lou Nunez"
              at May 18, 94 07:48:37 pm

Lou Nunez wrote...

>
> Joe Dunn had written that within the last 60 years, the US Catholic Church
> prohibited the laity from reading the Bible. I have asked for verifiable,
> written documentation and received none. I have asked people of that generatio
n
> and no one remembers such an injunction. Today, I spoke with no less an
> authority than Fr. Peter Stravinskas, noted author, and he informed that
> there was no such injunction.
>
> The only evidence Joe came up with was the Council of Toulouse, a local
> council held in Southern France.

"...Pope Innocent III was of the opinion that the Scriptures were too deep
for the common people, as they surpassed even the understanding of the
wise and learned. Several synods in Gaul, during the 13th century, prohibited
the reading of the Romanic translation, and ordered the copies to be burnt.
Archbishop Berthold, of Mainz, in an edict of January 4th, 1486, threatened
with excommunication all who ventured to translate and circulate the
translations of sacred books, especially the Bible without his permission.

"The Council of Constance (1415), which burnt John Hus and Jerome of Prague,
condemned also the writings and the bones of Wiclif, the first translator
of the whole Bible into the English tongue, to the flames; and Arundel,
archbishop of Canterbury and chancellor of England, denounced him as
that `pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who, as a complement of his
wickedness, invented a new translation of the Scriptures into his mother
tongue.'

"Pope Pius IV (1564), in the conviction that indiscriminate reading of Bible
versions did more harm than good (plus detrimenti quam utilitiatis), would
not allow laymen to read the sacred book except by special permission of
a bishop or an inquistor. Clement VIII (1598) reserved the right to grant
this permission to the Congregation of the Index. Gregory XV (1622), and
Clement XI (in the bull _Unigentius_, 1713), repeated the conditional
prohibition. Benedict XIV, one of the liberal popes, extended the
permission to read the Word of God in the vernacular to all the faithful,
yet with the provisio that the translation be approved in Rome and
guarded by explanatory notes from the writings of the fathers and
catholic scholars (1757).

"This excludes, of course, all Protestant versions, even the very best.
They are regarded as corrupt and heretical and have often been committed
to the flames in Roman Catholic countries, especially in connection
with the counter-Reformation of the Jesuits in Bohemia and elsewhere. The
first edition of Tyndale's New testament had to be smuggled into England
and was publicly burnt by order of Tunstall, bishop of London,
in St. Paul's church-yard near the spot from which Bibles are now
sent to all parts of the globe.

"The Bible societies have been denounced and condemned by modern popes
as a `pestilence which perverts the gospel of Christ into a gospel
of the devil.' The Papal Syllabus of Pius IX (1864), classes `Societates
Biblicoe' with Socialism, Communism, and Secret Societies, calls
them, `pests frequently rubked in severst terms,' and refers for proof,
to several Encyclicals from November 9th, 1846, to August 10th, 1863.
[_History of the Christian Church_, Schaff, v. VII, p18-19]

[...]

> JD>RCC.  If one wants to be infallible, it helps if you can write the rules 50
0
> JD>or more years after the fact.  I guess in 500 years will will find out what
> JD>the RCC is ACTUALLY teaching today.
>
> No one has denied the validity of that Council. What is questioned is your
> statement that a local council's decrees are binding on the whole church.

[...]

Whoa.

Time out, even.

In the discussion of the Canon of Scripture, and how `the Roman Catholic
Church decided what was Scripture'; there were quite a few claims that
referred to the Councils (synods) of Ephesus, Hippo and Carthage (Laodicea
is conveniently ignored). Ken Smith, I believe, said something to the effect
that the Church through these Councils decided --- and nothing was allowed
to be deleted or added.

Now, it should be pointed out, that these were *local* councils.
Hippo, Ephesus and Carthage were not universal (ecumenical) councils.

What has been put forward on one discussion, that of the Canon, is that
local councils gave us a decisive Canon. What is now being put forward
on another discussion is that a local council's decisions are not
decisive for the whole Church.

Which assertion is 'true?' Is the local council binding, as in the case
of the RCC claim of canon; or is the local council non-binding, as in the
RCC explanation of the Bible being placed on the Index of Forbidden Books
as in the case of the vernacular Bible and the Cathars of southern France.

--
*       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *
robert weiss
rweiss@krypton.chem.buffalo.edu