A Reformation paper for class

For those deep thinkers out there.

Moderator: tuttle

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12300
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: A Reformation paper for class

Post by tuttle » Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:23 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:46 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:35 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:39 am
Catholicism of the late middle ages was certainly not happy to encourage people to know Scripture or worship in their own language. To wit:
[…] The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). […]
Source: Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

This is a perfect example of what the reformers sought to reform. Before, oh about Gregory VII or so, it wasn't a big deal for the Bible or services to be of the vernacular. The reformers knew that and sought to return to the practice.

The revulsion and fear of Scripture in the common tongue was alive and well, long before 1517, and indeed was one of the many things that sowed the soil for the Reformation.
You're throwing in with Beghards, Beguines and what I can only assume are Spiritual Franciscans (Fraticelli)?

Just wonderin'.
Well, to be fair, it IS the Schaffer-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Never heard of it? Not surprised. It's based on the Realencyklopedie für protestantiche Theologies und Kirche. It's more biased than Rusty, but slightly less old, having come out in 1914.
I was looking for a summation of actual historical prohibitions. That seemed to fit the bill rather well. The source may be biased, but the information is accurate.
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 16268
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: A Reformation paper for class

Post by hugodrax » Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:35 pm

tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:23 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:46 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:35 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:39 am
Catholicism of the late middle ages was certainly not happy to encourage people to know Scripture or worship in their own language. To wit:
[…] The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). […]
Source: Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

This is a perfect example of what the reformers sought to reform. Before, oh about Gregory VII or so, it wasn't a big deal for the Bible or services to be of the vernacular. The reformers knew that and sought to return to the practice.

The revulsion and fear of Scripture in the common tongue was alive and well, long before 1517, and indeed was one of the many things that sowed the soil for the Reformation.
You're throwing in with Beghards, Beguines and what I can only assume are Spiritual Franciscans (Fraticelli)?

Just wonderin'.
Well, to be fair, it IS the Schaffer-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Never heard of it? Not surprised. It's based on the Realencyklopedie für protestantiche Theologies und Kirche. It's more biased than Rusty, but slightly less old, having come out in 1914.
I was looking for a summation of actual historical prohibitions. That seemed to fit the bill rather well. The source may be biased, but the information is accurate.
A Goosian statement of brobdignagian proportions.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18457
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: A Reformation paper for class

Post by wosbald » Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:52 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:21 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:35 pm
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:39 am
Catholicism of the late middle ages was certainly not happy to encourage people to know Scripture or worship in their own language. To wit:
[…] The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). […]
Source: Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

This is a perfect example of what the reformers sought to reform. Before, oh about Gregory VII or so, it wasn't a big deal for the Bible or services to be of the vernacular. The reformers knew that and sought to return to the practice.

The revulsion and fear of Scripture in the common tongue was alive and well, long before 1517, and indeed was one of the many things that sowed the soil for the Reformation.
You're throwing in with Beghards, Beguines and what I can only assume are Spiritual Franciscans (Fraticelli)?

Just wonderin'.
I'm not throwing in with anyone. I'm merely pointing out how the Roman Church in the late middle ages was increasingly prohibiting Bibles and books in the vernacular.
Yes, but your original point seemed to be that the Church was discouraging people from knowing Scripture.

So, unless you're throwing-in with Beghards &c as having an authentic "knowing" of Scripture — a knowing which Catholicity was trying squelch, then I'm not tracking you.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 36280
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: A Reformation paper for class

Post by Del » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:00 pm

tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:23 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:46 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:35 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:39 am
Catholicism of the late middle ages was certainly not happy to encourage people to know Scripture or worship in their own language. To wit:
[…] The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). […]
Source: Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

This is a perfect example of what the reformers sought to reform. Before, oh about Gregory VII or so, it wasn't a big deal for the Bible or services to be of the vernacular. The reformers knew that and sought to return to the practice.

The revulsion and fear of Scripture in the common tongue was alive and well, long before 1517, and indeed was one of the many things that sowed the soil for the Reformation.
You're throwing in with Beghards, Beguines and what I can only assume are Spiritual Franciscans (Fraticelli)?

Just wonderin'.
Well, to be fair, it IS the Schaffer-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Never heard of it? Not surprised. It's based on the Realencyklopedie für protestantiche Theologies und Kirche. It's more biased than Rusty, but slightly less old, having come out in 1914.
I was looking for a summation of actual historical prohibitions. That seemed to fit the bill rather well. The source may be biased, but the information is accurate.
You can have the point. It seems that there were some regions where the Church/political leaders tried to suppress unauthorized translations of Scripture.

The difficult part for modern Protestants to comprehend is that this was done with greatest charity, and with the best interests of the people in mind. There were a lot of false teachers running about, spreading erroneous interpretations of Scriptures. The leaders hoped to avoid rebellious revolutions by the likes of Jan Hus.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12300
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: A Reformation paper for class

Post by tuttle » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:21 pm

wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:52 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:21 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:35 pm
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:39 am
Catholicism of the late middle ages was certainly not happy to encourage people to know Scripture or worship in their own language. To wit:
[…] The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). […]
Source: Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

This is a perfect example of what the reformers sought to reform. Before, oh about Gregory VII or so, it wasn't a big deal for the Bible or services to be of the vernacular. The reformers knew that and sought to return to the practice.

The revulsion and fear of Scripture in the common tongue was alive and well, long before 1517, and indeed was one of the many things that sowed the soil for the Reformation.
You're throwing in with Beghards, Beguines and what I can only assume are Spiritual Franciscans (Fraticelli)?

Just wonderin'.
I'm not throwing in with anyone. I'm merely pointing out how the Roman Church in the late middle ages was increasingly prohibiting Bibles and books in the vernacular.
Yes, but your original point seemed to be that the Church was discouraging people from knowing Scripture.

So, unless you're throwing-in with Beghards &c as having an authentic "knowing" of Scripture — a knowing which Catholicity was trying squelch, then I'm not tracking you.
"to know Scripture or worship in their own language" is what I wrote. The point of emphasis is "in their own language" although I can see how the way I wrote it would give rise to your concern.

I bet you could spot a flea on a dog from ten feet away. :lol:
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18457
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: A Reformation paper for class

Post by wosbald » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:33 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:21 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:52 pm
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:21 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:35 pm
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:39 am
Catholicism of the late middle ages was certainly not happy to encourage people to know Scripture or worship in their own language. To wit:
[…] The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). […]
Source: Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

This is a perfect example of what the reformers sought to reform. Before, oh about Gregory VII or so, it wasn't a big deal for the Bible or services to be of the vernacular. The reformers knew that and sought to return to the practice.

The revulsion and fear of Scripture in the common tongue was alive and well, long before 1517, and indeed was one of the many things that sowed the soil for the Reformation.
You're throwing in with Beghards, Beguines and what I can only assume are Spiritual Franciscans (Fraticelli)?

Just wonderin'.
I'm not throwing in with anyone. I'm merely pointing out how the Roman Church in the late middle ages was increasingly prohibiting Bibles and books in the vernacular.
Yes, but your original point seemed to be that the Church was discouraging people from knowing Scripture.

So, unless you're throwing-in with Beghards &c as having an authentic "knowing" of Scripture — a knowing which Catholicity was trying squelch, then I'm not tracking you.
"to know Scripture or worship in their own language" is what I wrote. The point of emphasis is "in their own language" although I can see how the way I wrote it would give rise to your concern.

I bet you could spot a flea on a dog from ten feet away. :lol:
:wink:

Okay. We cool. :thumbsup:




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12300
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: A Reformation paper for class

Post by tuttle » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:44 pm

Del wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:00 pm
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:23 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:46 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:35 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:39 am
Catholicism of the late middle ages was certainly not happy to encourage people to know Scripture or worship in their own language. To wit:
[…] The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). […]
Source: Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

This is a perfect example of what the reformers sought to reform. Before, oh about Gregory VII or so, it wasn't a big deal for the Bible or services to be of the vernacular. The reformers knew that and sought to return to the practice.

The revulsion and fear of Scripture in the common tongue was alive and well, long before 1517, and indeed was one of the many things that sowed the soil for the Reformation.
You're throwing in with Beghards, Beguines and what I can only assume are Spiritual Franciscans (Fraticelli)?

Just wonderin'.
Well, to be fair, it IS the Schaffer-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Never heard of it? Not surprised. It's based on the Realencyklopedie für protestantiche Theologies und Kirche. It's more biased than Rusty, but slightly less old, having come out in 1914.
I was looking for a summation of actual historical prohibitions. That seemed to fit the bill rather well. The source may be biased, but the information is accurate.
You can have the point. It seems that there were some regions where the Church/political leaders tried to suppress unauthorized translations of Scripture.

The difficult part for modern Protestants to comprehend is that this was done with greatest charity, and with the best interests of the people in mind. There were a lot of false teachers running about, spreading erroneous interpretations of Scriptures. The leaders hoped to avoid rebellious revolutions by the likes of Jan Hus.
I don't think it is difficult to understand that many of these things were done with charity and good intention. You might not believe me but I don't think that the Roman Catholics (who sided with the Pope) of the day were all scheming, conniving, wolves in sheep's clothing. I've seen first hand how certain traditions can blind people to the truth.

For instance, many American Baptists have a nearly 200 year tradition of abstaining from alcohol, not for health reasons, but because they were told ad nauseum by their spiritual leaders that the very beverage is evil. I don't think these people, who are blinded by their tradition, are evil when they tout their views (though there is something to say about binding the conscience of other men...but let's leave it be for now), but I do think they are wrong and are in need of a reforming of their views. What started out as something very good, battling drunkenness among a society extremely prone to drunkenness that leads to other sins, morphed over nearly 200 years into an almost demented way of viewing the world and at it's worst seeks to manipulate others.

It's somewhat eye opening to read up on all of the innovations that piled upon each other in the history of the Church, to see how things began, perhaps as a reaction to something in a specific time and place, or as a way to help people become closer to God, and then to see after, not just 180 years, as is the case with the Baptists, but in some instances 500, 1000 years how these initially harmless, charitable, edifying, innovations morphed into things that were strangling the truth.

Let's look at wos' example. The Beghards, etc had a knowing of the Scriptures which Catholicity was trying to squelch. I'm not against the Church squelching falsehood and error. The tactic that they took was to not allow Bibles and books about the Bible in the vernacular. Perhaps in that context and time, it was the right move, done with the utmost compassion and charity. But three-hundred years later, that tradition developed into something nasty, and likely it developed without many even thinking twice about the harm it was inflicting on keeping the truth out of the mouths the common tongue. (it's interesting to note that the Early Church didn't seek to stop the vernacular readings/translations/worship when the Gnostics heresies were all the rage.)

But as to your point about Catholics being afraid, even today, of the Scriptures, to the point of being almost wholly unfamiliar with it. Bro, that's not only a Catholic issue. That's rampant in Protestantism/Evangelicalism. I mean I don't think it's due mostly to the Reformation; I think avoiding the truth is a common human problem, Catholic, Protestant, or Anyone. I share your concern on this side as well.
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Jocose
a large Chinese man named Wu
a large Chinese man named Wu
Posts: 20032
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Moonbase Alpha
Contact:

Re: A Reformation paper for class

Post by Jocose » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:02 pm

Thanks to those for posting the links.

I'm hoping that he gets a decent grade on this project.
"And for Freds sake, DO NOT point anyone towards CPS or you'll put them off of both Christianity and pipe smoking forever." ~ FredS

Image

Post Reply