Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Toulouse Council of 1229

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Toulouse Council of 1229

    A friend of mine posted this item that has been floating around Facebook:

    33622884_1747437048678120_1565481155229122560_n.jpg

    Anybody have any information on whether this is true, or the background information?
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

  • #2
    It pertained to reading vernacular translations of the Bible, not the Bible per se.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      It pertained to reading vernacular translations of the Bible, not the Bible per se.
      Wouldn't this still be an effective ban on reading the Bible for those who did not speak Latin?
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        Wouldn't this still be an effective ban on reading the Bible for those who did not speak Latin?
        Mostly for those who didn't read Latin.

        But then back then most of those in Europe who were literate tended to have at least a working understanding of Latin. In fact, in a book on the Middle Ages I just finished reading the author, Morris Bishop, said that not only could most literate people read Latin, their mastery of it far exceeded ours.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          This is not about Tollhouse Cookies?
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            This is not about Tollhouse Cookies?
            When I glanced at the title I first thought this was something about Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Mostly for those who didn't read Latin.

              But then back then most of those in Europe who were literate tended to have at least a working understanding of Latin. In fact, in a book on the Middle Ages I just finished reading the author, Morris Bishop, said that not only could most literate people read Latin, their mastery of it far exceeded ours.
              More or less. This was more a case of bias against the vernacular (and the fact that the Pope had not authorized any translation into the vernacular) than against the laity reading the scriptures per se.

              Keeping everything in Latin was a pretty effective barrier against the laity in general, however.

              In England (granted a few centuries difference), the vernacular translation chained in churches was so popular that people were reading it aloud during services.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #8
                One Catholic apologetics board I came across suggested an analogy of modern day Protestant ministers who would tell their flock not to read the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation.
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  More or less. This was more a case of bias against the vernacular (and the fact that the Pope had not authorized any translation into the vernacular) than against the laity reading the scriptures per se.
                  Exactly, literacy was not exactly high back then. And unauthorized translations were viewed with suspicion -- partly because groups like Waldensians, Paterines, and Cathars/Albigensians (all active around this time) were very vocal advocates for vernacular translations. This wariness if not outright distrust can still be seen in comments from various popes of the 19th century like Pius VII, Leo XII and Gregory XVI.

                  For instance, from Pius VII's 1829 papal encyclical "Traditi Humilitati":

                  5. We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church’s laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation. Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules of this Index were published by the Council of Trent;[8] the ordinance required that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with commentaries from the Fathers. The sacred Synod of Trent had decreed[9] in order to restrain impudent characters, that no one, relying on his own prudence in matters of faith and of conduct which concerns Christian doctrine, might twist the sacred Scriptures to his own opinion, or to an opinion contrary to that of the Church or the popes. Though such machinations against the Catholic faith had been assailed long ago by these canonical proscriptions, Our recent predecessors made a special effort to check these spreading evils.[10] With these arms may you too strive to fight the battles of the Lord which endanger the sacred teachings, lest this deadly virus spread in your flock.






                  Still, as I noted, anyone who was literate at the time almost certainly knew Latin if not for reading Roman works but also as a lingua franca of at least the the majority of Europe.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    1. The 1582 Reims NT was banned in Elizabethan England

                    2. It is quite normal to find editions of Orthodox or Catholic Bibles printed by Protestant publishers, that leave out the OT books that Protestantism (but not those other two Christianities) regards as non-canonical.

                    Yet nobody would claim that Protestant publishers are trying to “ban the Bible”, or that the Protestant critics of the NWT “oppose the Bible”, or that the Elizabethan govt. “was against the Bible”.

                    In all these cases, the relevant authorities were not “opposing/suppressing the Bible” - they were against the circulation of (what they judged to be) false or falsified versions of it. And considering how widespread the misuse of it is today, ISTM that such caution is more than justified. It would not be difficult to argue that excessive familiarity with it has bred contempt for it, and that its use ought to be restricted to those who can be trusted not to abuse it. Every heresy quotes it - as St Vincent of Lerins noted, 1500 years ago - and the result of this is to undermine its authority.

                    What the critics of the Catholic policy towards its availability seem never to have considered, is that the ready availability of it has led to these evils.

                    IMO, the action of the Council of Toulouse was fully justified, and needs absolutely no apology, given the seriousness of the danger from Catharism in the South of France.

                    As for reading the Bible in Latin, that is not at all difficult. The Latin of the Vulgate is much simpler than that of Cicero, and is no more challenging than French or Spanish. Ignorance of Latin is a great impoverishment
                    Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 05-29-2018, 01:21 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                      1. The 1582 Reims NT was banned in Elizabethan England
                      As was every other non-authorized translation (an authorized translation into the vernacular was first published in 1539 (the 'Great Bible'). Your point?
                      2. It is quite normal to find editions of Orthodox or Catholic Bibles printed by Protestant publishers, that leave out the OT books that Protestantism (but not those other two Christianities) regards as non-canonical.
                      Is it? One would think that, almost by definition, a Catholic Bible would include all the books Catholics regard as canonical. I am not aware of any Orthodox Bible which fits your criteria.
                      Yet nobody would claim that Protestant publishers are trying to “ban the Bible”, or that the Protestant critics of the NWT “oppose the Bible”, or that the Elizabethan govt. “was against the Bible”.

                      In all these cases, the relevant authorities were not “opposing/suppressing the Bible” - they were against the circulation of (what they judged to be) false or falsified versions of it. And considering how widespread the misuse of it is today, ISTM that such caution is more than justified. It would not be difficult to argue that excessive familiarity with it has bred contempt for it, and that its use ought to be restricted to those who can be trusted not to abuse it.

                      Every heresy quotes it - as St Vincent of Lerins noted, 1500 years ago - and the result of this is to undermine its authority.

                      What the critics of the Catholic policy towards its availability seem never to have considered, is that the ready availability of it has led to these evils.

                      IMO, the action of the Council of Toulouse was fully justified, and needs absolutely no apology, given the seriousness of the danger from Catharism in the South of France.
                      The danger seems rather more to have been TO the Cathars, not against them - given their eventual bloody suppression by the Inquisition. One could argue that depriving the laity of the means of understanding scripture is the cause of all the divergent interpretations you so fear; if Catholic teaching had been grounded in scripture, the laity would've had a convenient guide for interpreting it.
                      As for reading the Bible in Latin, that is not at all difficult. The Latin of the Vulgate is much simpler than that of Cicero, and is no more challenging than French or Spanish. Ignorance of Latin is a great impoverishment
                      If one has the opportunity to learn Latin, yes. For much of the world's population, that's only a very recent phenomenon.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment

                      widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                      Working...
                      X