no private interpritationKinda' like when they equate the Body of Christ, His Ch

[Amo]

Over the years the Church, and in particular the Popes, have restrained the power of Kings by threats of excommunication and interdiction. The Church has always been concerned for the physical welfare of it's flock as well as the spiritual welfare. In the past, and perhaps even today, the Catholic Church has been the biggest provider of education and healthcare in the world.

An amazing whopper of distortion regarding the truth of the matter.  Popes have commanded kings to wipe out entire peoples who would not bow the knee to Rome, and threatened them and anyone else who would not obey with the same excommunication.  They have fought tooth and nail to prevent the education of people regarding anything they did not approve, including the word of God in their own native tongue, and the printing press, when it was used to print bibles in the same.  They burnt people and their writings, when they did not approve of the same.  Much important history was destroyed by them because of this.  How does slaughtering countless millions of people equate with health care in the world?  You have been reading far to much twisted Roman Catholic revisionist history. 

[Selene]

So saying that Jesus chose him to be the head of the church. The question then is would he have sat in the same seat as the of the fifth century popes .  Would he seek after power and make a show of his position? Would he if he were projected to the Fifth century Papacy would he surround himself with grandeur and sit on a throne or have anyone bow at his feet  or allow anyone to call him your Eminence or Holy Father.  Given the fact that he knew what Jesus taught about true humility and how proud arrogant the pharisees were, loving to be seen of men and making a show of themselves. Something  does not add up here. Also we must know how apostasy erodes away at the principles and standards that are originally taught. I wonder why they needed so badly to show his authority when they were nothing like Peter so that they could demand respect.

God bless

 


Dear Mclees,

It was Christ Himself who gave St. Peter the keys (which symbolizes authority) and even gave him the duty to take care of His flock.  While it is true that the Catholic Church is not perfect, this is no doubt the Church that Christ chose and built.  Just as the chosen people of Israel were not perfect, so is His chosen Church.  The Popes are the successors of St. Peter and Christ taught us to respect that position just as He told the Jewish people of His time to respect the position of the Pharisees (See Matthew 231-3)

Matthew 23:1-3  Then addressing the people and His disciples Jesus said, "The scribes and the Pharisees occupy the chair of Moses.  You must therefore do what they tell you and listen to what they say; but do not be guided by what they do: since they do not practise what they preach."

In the same way, we are to listen to our Popes because they occupy the chair of the Apostle Peter.  This, of course, does not mean that our Popes are no longer sinners. We understand that even our Popes are human and imperfect just as the Apostles were.  After all, St. Peter denied Christ three times.  St. Paul was a murderer of Christians, and St. Matthew was a cheating tax collector, but they were still chosen by God.  And the Apostle Peter was chosen by God to lead His flock.  You claim that our Popes do not understand humility?  And who are you to judge that?  Didn't Jesus taught us not to judge?  Only God can judge.  Just because you see the Pope surround himself with grandeur does not mean that he doesn't know humility.  Humility is not in what you have or in what people call you.  Haven't you noticed that even Mother Theresa always call herself a sinner.  She was being humble whenever she calls herself a sinner.  And look what happen......the people of India call her a saint.  It is the same with our Popes.  They call themselves sinners.  But it is always "other people" who call him "Holy Father." 

Peace be with you,
Selene

[zoonance]

This he spoke to all his disciples

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

I have no doubt that they could forgive sin also.  Picture now if you will Peter sitting on a throne in all his atire of religious authority and the rest of the eleven bowing in his presence. Now think if one needs forgivnes of anything he would have to go all the way to Rome and see the pope. terrible for the many who couldn't make it. think about it

This is you idea.

The Catholic Church can trace its history all the way back to the Apostle Peter because it is an "Apostolic church." While it is true that Jesus said those things to the Apostles, there is a lot of biblical evidence showing that Christ made St. Peter the leader of the Apostles.

1. Peter is ALWAYS named first when the Apostles are listed (See Mk. 3:16-19; Mat. 10:1-4; Lk. 6:12-16; and Acts 1:13).

2. Sometimes the Apostles are simply referred to as "Peter and his companions. (See Mk. 1:36; Lk. 9:32; Mk. 16:7)

3. In John's Gospel, John waits for Peter before entering Jesus' tomb and allows him to go in first, a sign of honor and respect (See John 20:3-8).

4. In John's Gospel, Jesus singled out Peter as a shepherd of God's people by telling him three times to take care of His flock (See Jn. 21:15-17).

5. In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter's leadership is acknowledged in many ways: He was the first to proclaim the Gospel publically on the day of Pentecost (See Acts 2:14-20). He was the one who decided to allow an election of an Apostle to replace Judas (See Acts 1:15-20). He was the one who gave many of the major speeches in Acts (See Acts 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:3-9, 29-32; 8:20-23; 10:34-43; 11:4-18; 15:7-11). He was the one who commande the baptism of the Gentiles (See Acts 10:46-48).

These are the evidences showing St. Peter's leadership. 

God has always chosen the poor, the weak, the lowly, the humble, and the greatest sinner as His chosen ones. He never choose the strong or the wealthest person. God always chooses the weak, the lowly, the humble, and the greatest sinner as His chosen ones and through them, His power is shown. Abraham was chosen because he was very old and his wife was barren. God's power made Abraham the father of many nations. David was also chosen, and he was only a shepherd boy, but it was this shepherd boy who had no military skills that defeated Goliath. This shepherd boy also became a king because only God had the power to turn a shepherd boy into a king. If David had been a warrior and a strong man, it would be easy for anyone to believe that David himself can become king on his own power. But a poor shepherd boy with no military skill to defeat a giant and later become king can only be a power coming from God. St. Paul was a great sinner as he murdered Christians, but he was God's chosen. The Hebrew people were chosen because they were slaves, and slaves are the poorest of the poor. However, this chosen race became a nation (Ex. 19:6). Moses told this group of people that they are God's chosen people, his priesthood, and a consecrated nation. St. Peter made a similar speech to the Christians. St. Peter told the Christians that they are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, and a consecrated nation (1 Peter 2:9). Of all the Christian denomination, only the Catholic Church became a nation with the Pope as "Head of State." God's chosen people became a nation in time. God's chosen church also became a nation. Vatican City is a country just like Israel and the Pope is a "Head of State" just like the Prime Minister of Israel.

Peace be with you,
Selene

It does seem that Paul had a better understanding of the church than Peter did on at least on one major issue as evidenced by Galations 2:11-14.

[Selene]

Over the years the Church, and in particular the Popes, have restrained the power of Kings by threats of excommunication and interdiction. The Church has always been concerned for the physical welfare of it's flock as well as the spiritual welfare. In the past, and perhaps even today, the Catholic Church has been the biggest provider of education and healthcare in the world.

An amazing whopper of distortion regarding the truth of the matter.  Popes have commanded kings to wipe out entire peoples who would not bow the knee to Rome, and threatened them and anyone else who would not obey with the same excommunication.  They have fought tooth and nail to prevent the education of people regarding anything they did not approve, including the word of God in their own native tongue, and the printing press, when it was used to print bibles in the same.  They burnt people and their writings, when they did not approve of the same.  Much important history was destroyed by them because of this.  How does slaughtering countless millions of people equate with health care in the world?  You have been reading far to much twisted Roman Catholic revisionist history. 

The Catholic Church has never prevented the people from reading the Bible.  As a matter of fact, it was Johann Gutenberg who invented the printing press,  Gutenberg was a Catholic and the Catholic Church approved of and encouraged his printing of Bibles. Before the printing press copying the Bible was the work of Catholic monks in monasteries who actually took a pen and paper and copied books of the Bible to create additional copies.  According to a weblink deoomnisgloria.com/archives

To further complicate matters there is one other issue: illiteracy. Americans still have trouble understanding that the vast majority of the world is illiterate even today. During the Dark Ages it was even worse, since virtually no one could read (Catholic monks in monasteries saved culture and writing in an amazing way). So even if the Catholic Church had personally given a Bible to every Christian, it would have been fruitless (and still would be today). The people learned about God through their parish priest and worshipped Him through Mass.

And yet, the Catholic Church could not have given a Bible to every Christian. Why? Because the printing press had not been invented! Until Johann Gutenberg�s wonderful invention in 1456 AD, Bibles were copied by hand. (Remember, Gutenberg was a good Catholic and the Church approved of and encouraged his printing of Bibles.) Before the printing press copying the Bible was the work of Catholic monks in monasteries who actually took a pen and paper and copied books of the Bible to create additional copies.

But the question still remains: Did the Catholic Church forbid Christians from reading the Bible?

What the Catholic Church did do
The actions the Church actually took are the most indicative of their frame of mind. Instead of hiding away the Bible � or making changes to it during the Dark Ages when no one would have known � the Church did something different. They chained Bibles down in individual Catholic parishes.

At first, this sounds barbaric: they were chaining down God�s Word to keep people from it. However it was quite the opposite. The Church wanted Christians to have access to the Bible, but they were not able to provide personal copies of the Bible to parishioners (the ultra-rich were able to get copies). So they put a copy of the Bible in each church and made it publicly available. But they did have to chain it down to keep it from being stolen (it took copious amounts of time to create a single Bible).


Kept in the parish church, that Bible [ed: the one chained down that cost as much as $10,000 in today�s currency] was made available to lay Catholics by chaining it to the table on which it was placed, just as telephone books today are kept available for the public by chaining them to telephone booths. Does the phone company chain the Yellow Pages so that no one can use them? Quite the opposite � so that the maximum number of people can have access to them. It was the same with the Bible.
- - Karl Keating What Catholics Really Believe

[Selene]

It does seem that Paul had a better understanding of the church than Peter did on at least on one major issue as evidenced by Galations 2:11-14.

 

All the Apostles were human, so it's not surprising to find disagreements among them.  However, St. Peter was still the leader.  So, even though St. Paul pointed out to St. Peter what he saw wrong in the treatment of the pagans, it was St. Peter who first ordered the baptism of the pagans (Acts 10:44-48).

[zoonance]

It does seem that Paul had a better understanding of the church than Peter did on at least on one major issue as evidenced by Galations 2:11-14.

 

All the Apostles were human, so it's not surprising to find disagreements among them.  However, St. Peter was still the leader.  So, even though St. Paul pointed out to St. Peter what he saw wrong in the treatment of the pagans, it was St. Peter who first ordered the baptism of the pagans (Acts 10:44-48).

all human beings are human beings.

[Amo]

The Catholic Church has never prevented the people from reading the Bible.  As a matter of fact, it was Johann Gutenberg who invented the printing press,  Gutenberg was a Catholic and the Catholic Church approved of and encouraged his printing of Bibles. Before the printing press copying the Bible was the work of Catholic monks in monasteries who actually took a pen and paper and copied books of the Bible to create additional copies.  According to a weblink deoomnisgloria.com/archives

I am afraid you are just another victim of diabolical Catholic revisionist history.  Let me share some other sources with you.

FACTS OF FAITH by Christian Edwardson Pg. 10-13

ROME’S FIGHT

Rome was awake to the inevitable result of allowing the common people to
read the Bible, and the Vicar of Croydon declared in a speech at St. Paul’s Cross, London: “We must destroy the printing press, or it will destroy us”-” The Printing-Press and the Gospel,” by E. R. Palmer, p. 24. The papal machinery was therefore set in motion for the destruction of the Bible.

“There now began a remarkable contest between the Romish
Church and the Bible-between the printers and the popes ....
“To the Bible the popes at once declared a deathless hostility. To
read the Scriptures was in their eyes the grossest of crimes .... The
Inquisition was invested with new terrors, and was forced upon
France and Holland by papal armies. The Jesuits were everywhere
distinguished by their hatred for the Bible. In the Netherlands they
led the persecutions of Alva and Philip II; they rejoiced with a
dreadful joy when Antwerp, Bruges, and Ghent, the fairest cities of
the workingmen, were reduced to pauperism and ruin by the
Spanish arms; for the Bible had perished with its defenders ....
“To burn Bibles was the favorite employment of zealous Catholics.
Wherever they were found the heretical volumes were destroyed by
active Inquisitors, and thousands of Bibles and Testaments perished
in every part of France”-” Historical Studies,” Eugene Lawrence,
pp. 254-257.

In Spain, not only were the common people forbidden to read the Bible,
but also university professors were forbidden by the “Supreme Council” of
the Inquisition to possess their valuable Bible manuscripts.
“The council, in consequence, decreed that those theologians in the
university who had studied the original languages, should be
obliged, as well as other persons, to give up their Hebrew and
Greek Bibles to the commissaries of the holy office, on pain of
excommunication”-”History of the Inquisition of Spain,” D. J. A.
Llorente, Secretary of the Inquisition, p. 105. London, I827.

“In 1490, Torquemada [the Inquisitor-General] caused many
Hebrew Bibles and more than six thousand volumes to be burnt in
an Auto da fe at Salamanca”-”Literary Policy of the Church of
Rome,” Joseph Mendham, M. A., p. 97. London, 1830.

How many thousands of invaluable manuscripts thus perished in the flames
of the Inquisition, eternity alone will reveal.
It is exceedingly difficult for a Protestant in our days to fathom the extent
of this fear of and enmity against the Bible, manifested by the Roman
church. With her it was actually a life or death struggle! A person must
read the history of the Inquisition, and examine the Roman Indexes of
Forbidden Books to understand her viewpoint. Inquisitor General Perez del
Pr gave expression to her feelings and her bitter lament when he declared
in horror “‘that some individuals had carried audacity to the execrable
extremity of demanding permission to the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar
tongue, without fearing to counter mortal poison therein”-”History of the
Inquisition of Spain,” D. Juan Antonio Llorente, p. 111.

The funeral piles were lit all over Europe. Samuel Smiles says of France:
“Bibles and New Testaments were seized wherever found and
burnt; but more Bibles and Testaments seemed to rise, by magic,
from their ashes. The printers who were convicted of printing
Bibles were next seized and burnt. The Bourgeois de Paris [a
Roman Catholic paper] gives a detailed account of human sacrifices
offered up to ignorance and intolerance in t city during the six
months ending June, 1534, from which it appears that twenty men
and one woman were burnt alive.. In the beginning of the following
year, the Sorbonne obtained from the king an ordinance, which was
promulgated on 26th of February, 1535, for the suppression of
printing! “Huguenots,” Samuel Smiles, pp. 20, 21, and first
footnote.

“Further attempts continued to be made by Rome to check the
progress of printing. In 1599 [1559] Pope Paul IV issued the first
Index Expurgatorius, containing a list of the books expressly
prohibited by the Church. It included all Bibles printed in modern
languages, of which forty-eight editions were enumerated; while
sixty-one printers were put under a general ban”-Id., p. 23.
“Paul IV, in 1559, put it [Sully’s name] in the first papal Index
Expurgatorium”-” History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages,”
Henry Charles Lea, Vol. III, p. 587.

“The first Roman ‘Index of Prohibited Books’ (Index librorum
prohibitorum), published in 1559 under Paul IV, was very severe and was
therefore mitigated under that pontiff by decree of the Holy Office of 14
June of the same year”-Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 722, art.
“Index.”

Persecution raged more or less all over Europe: “In 1545, the massacre
of the Vaudois of Province was perpetrated “; the 24th of August, 1572,
the St. Bartholomew Massacre commenced, and continued until between
70,000 and 100,000 innocent and unsuspecting persons were murdered in
cold blood for being Protestants. The massacre was secretly planned by the
leaders of the Roman church.

“Sully says 70,000 were slain, though other writers estimate the victims at
l00,000”-”Tbe Huguenots,” Samuel Smiles, pp. 71, 72.

“Catherine de Medicis wrote in triumph to Alva, to Philip II, and to the
Pope .... Rome was thrown into a delirium of joy at the news. The cannon
were fired at St. Angelo; Gregory XIII and his cardinals went in procession
from sanctuary to sanctuary to give God thanks for the massacre. The
subject was ordered to be painted, and a medal was struck, with the Pope’s
image on one side, and the destroying angel on the. other immolating the
Huguenots.”-Id., 71, 72.

NEW LINES OF ATTACK
Finally, however, the papal church discovered that her opposition to the
Bible only betrayed the sad fact that, instead of being the divinely instituted
church of the Bible, she and the Scriptures were deadly enemies, and that
her open fight was furnishing the world with the clearest evidences to
justify the Reformation. Her relentless persecution was making martyrs,
but not loyal Catholics. She must halt her course and forge new weapons
against Protestantism, if she ever hoped to win the battle. But what were
these weapons to be? These we shall consider in the next two chapters.

[Amo]

As for their morals and behavior, who ever will but reflect upon the
debauchery and general corruption which reigned in the eleventh century,
will easily judge, that those who renounced the communion of the Church
of Rome, and who called her the mystical Babylon, because of her false
worship, and the horrid corruption of her ministers, must needs be more
pure in their morals, and more orderly in their behavior; and indeed we find
it true in the Albigenses, as well pastors as people.

The pastors recommended to the people the having of the books of the
New Testament in their mother-tongue, and pressed the reading thereof
with so much care and application, that Raymond, Earl of Toulouse, never
stirred any whither without taking that holy book with him. This was the
certain badge and mark of all these heretics, and that whereby they
defended themselves. For which reason, the Council of Toulouse, fearing
lest their croisades should not be able to exterminate the Albigenses, as
long as they had the Bible in the vulgar tongue, took care to prohibit the
having of it in these terms;

“We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New
Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the
Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the
blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their
having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue.” ( Remarks Upon The Ecclesiastical History Of The Ancient Churches Of The Albigenses by Peter Allix D.D Page 525 )


The king was still a prisoner; the regent and Duprat, who were opposed to
the Reformation, wielded supreme power; the priests, seeing the
importance of the moment, united all their efforts to combat the
evangelical influences, and obtained a brilliant triumph. On Monday, the
5th of February, 1526, a month before the return of Francis I., the sound
of the trumpet was heard in all the public places of Paris, and a little later
in those of Sens, Orleans, Auxerre, Meaux, Tours, Bourges, Angers,
Poitiers, Troyes, Lyons, and Macon, and ‘in all the bailiwicks,
seneschallies, provestries, viscounties, and estates of the realm.’ When the
trumpet ceased, the herald cried by order of parliament: ‘All persons are
forbidden to put up to sale or translate from Latin into French the epistles
of St. Paul, the Apocalypse, and other books. Henceforward no printer
shall print any of the books of Luther. No one shall speak of the
ordinances of the Church or of images, otherwise than holy Church ordains
All books of the Holy Bible, translated into French, shall be given up by
those who possess them, and carried within a week to the clerks of the
court. All prelates, priests, and their curates shall forbid their parishioners
to have the least doubt of the Catholic faith.’ fc72 Translations, books,
explanations, and even doubts were prohibited.
( History Of The Reformation In The Time Of Calvin Vol. 1 by J.H. Merle d’Aubigne Pages 323&324)

[Amo]

ROME DESTROYED BIBLES

September 7, 1997 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, 1701 N. Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277) - The following is abridged from the book ROME AND THE BIBLE: TRACING THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ITS PERSECUTION OF THE BIBLE AND OF BIBLE BELIEVERS, by David W. Cloud, Way of Life Literature, copyright

For 600 years the Roman Catholic Church attempted to keep vernacular translations of the Bible out of the hands of the people. The Council of Toulouse, in 1229, decreed that "the laity" could not possess the books of the Old and New Testament "in the vulgar tongue." Waldensian and other Bible-believing people were mercilessly persecuted and their Scriptures destroyed. The Council of Trent, in 1546, claimed that the indiscriminate distribution of the Scriptures caused more evil than good and forbade the people to possess the Bible without a written license. Those who possessed Bibles without a license were commanded to deliver them up to the Catholic authorities under threat of inquisition terrors. Booksellers were forbidden to sell any Bibles except to people who possessed a license from the Catholic church. Huge quantities of Scriptures in English, Germany, Italian, French, Spanish, and in other languages, were confiscated and destroyed throughout the 13th to the 19th centuries. Bible translators and distributors were imprisoned and burned. Even after the Catholic inquisition was outlawed in many lands in the 18th and 19th centuries, the popes continued to condemn the free distribution of Scripture. Pius VII, in 1816, condemned the Bible society in Poland and claimed that the distribution of Scripture was undermining "the very foundations of religion" and was "eminently dangerous to souls." He said, "The Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Leo XII, in 1824, said that "if the sacred Scriptures be everywhere indiscriminately published, more evil than advantage will arise." In 1825 Leo mandated that the decrees of the Council of Trent be enforced against distribution of Scriptures. Pius VIII, in 1829, condemned the Bible societies and the free distribution of Scripture. Gregory XVI, in 1836, and again in 1844, affirmed the decrees of his predecessors. In another bull of 1845, this pope repeated his condemnation of Bible society Scriptures and denied that the Scriptures should be freely distributed to all people. Pius IX, in 1850, issued an encyclical letter which condemned the Bible societies. In 1864 this pope issued a Syllabus of Errors, in which he again condemned Bible societies, lumping them together with Communism, secret societies, and other evils, labeling them "pests of this kind." Leo XIII, in 1897, prohibited "all versions of the vernacular, even by Catholics, unless approved by the Holy See, or published under the vigilant care of bishops."

Some have downplayed the significance of this ugly history, claiming that Rome only forbade "unauthorized" vernacular versions, not all vernacular versions. This is one of those half truths which is used to hide the truth, for to state the case in such terms is to miss the truth of this history entirely. Note the following facts:

1. THE COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE (1229) AND THE COUNCIL OF TARRAGONA (1234) FORBADE THE
LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. NO EXCEPTIONS
WERE MENTIONED. The Council of Toulouse used these words: "We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue" (Pierre Allix, Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, 1821, p. 213). The declarations of these formal Roman Catholic councils held power for centuries thereafter and were repeatedly cited as authoritative by subsequent popes and councils. In fact, these declarations have never been rescinded.

2. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DID NOT GIVE THE PEOPLE BIBLES. To argue that the Roman
Catholic Church forbade only unauthorized vernacular versions is to argue a technicality which has no meaning in reality. Some odd exception which might have existed at some particular place in some point in history does not change this rule. The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church did not labor to give people the Bible, and wherever Rome held power, the people did not have ready access to the Scriptures. THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE. Consider the very important ENGLISH tongue. The Roman Catholic Church did not produce a Bible in English until 1582, fully two centuries after Wycliffe made the first English Bible, and more than a half century after Tyndale made his masterpiece for the English-speaking world. Rome had done everything in its power to destroy the Wycliffe and Tyndale English Scriptures. Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and burned by Catholic authorities, and Tyndale was burned at the stake. Even after Rome finally did produce an English Bible (the Rheims-Douai), it was not widely published and made available to the people. The New Testament was reprinted by Catholics ONLY THREE TIMES and the Douai Old Testament, ONLY ONCE, between 1582 and 1750--A PERIOD OF 168 YEARS.

In Roman-dominated lands, the Bible was almost an unknown book among the common people. Consider this testimony about conditions existing in THE CITY OF ROME ITSELF as late as the mid 19th century: "The Bible in Rome is a strange and rare book. The only edition of it authorized to be sold here, is in fifteen large volumes, which are filled with Popish commentaries. Of course none but the rich can purchase a copy of the sacred Scriptures. Indeed very few of the common people know what we mean by the Bible" (J.A. Clark, Protestant Episcopal Church of St. Andrew, Philadelphia, in a letter to his congregation, dated from Rome, March 24, 1838; reprinted by Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, 1851, p. 23).

Consider the situation in IRELAND, another bastion of Roman Catholicism. In 1907 and 1908 the Irish Church Mission made a diligent search of book shops in Catholic Ireland to determine the availability of Catholic Bibles. Note the result: "In the booksellers’ shops of Athlone, Balbriggan, Drogheda, Mullingar, Wexford, and Clonmel, not a Bible, or New Testament, or scrap of Scripture of the Church’s authorized version, could be found--a shop assistant at Mullingar, saying, ‘I never saw a Catholic Bible.’ … in Cork, with over 76,000 inhabitants, there are twenty-four Roman Catholic booksellers, of whom twenty did not keep the Scriptures, two of them asking the would-be purchaser if the Douay New Testament, of which they knew nothing, was ‘a new monthly publication.’ Lastly, in Dublin itself, out of four large Roman Catholic publishing and bookselling establishments, only one had the Scriptures, whilst the answer given to an inquiry for a New Testament at the depot of The Catholic Truth Society was, ‘We don’t keep it.’ The conclusion arrived at by the commissioners who ransacked the booksellers’ shops in Ireland for Bibles, was ‘that in nine-tenths of the cities, towns, and villages of Ireland a Roman Catholic could not procure a copy of the Roman Catholic Bible or New Testament’" (Alexander Robertson, The Papal Conquest, 1909, pp. 166,167).

It was 1831 before the first Bible was printed in SPANISH AMERICA, and when the Catholic Church finally did allow the publication of some Scriptures there, they were so outrageously expensive that the common man could not afford a copy. "A traveler across BRAZIL in 1902, who inquired carefully into the subject, found in a thousand miles bishops and priests in plenty, BUT NOT A SINGLE COPY OF THE SCRIPTURES IN ANY LAY HOME; nor had most of the residents ever heard of the Bible, though they were able, willing, and anxious to buy a copy when it was shown to them" (Jacobus, Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles Compared, 1905, p. 235). These examples could be multiplied exceedingly.

3. FOR ROME TO CLAIM THAT IT "ONLY" FORBADE "UNAUTHORIZED" VERNACULAR BIBLES IS
TO ADMIT ITS PRESUMPTION AND WICKEDNESS. The Council of Trent did allow reading of Scripture, but
only after a license in writing was obtained from the proper ecclesiastical authority, a license which was given only in extremely rare cases. Even the Catholic clergy had to obtain a license from their bishops before they were allowed to read the Bible. Booksellers were forbidden to have Bibles in stock for sale under pain of severe punishment. This was a great wickedness. Rome does not have authority from God to forbid that people read the Bible or to require that men obtain her license before reading God’s Word. The Bible was given for all people, and the Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples to preach the Gospel unto all nations, to every creature. Charles Elliott, in his Delineation of Roman Catholicism, 1851, made this wise observation: "The Bible is a proclamation of mercy, addressed to sinful men, in such terms as the following: ‘Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else’ (Isa. 45:22). The Church of Rome stands by, and presumes to decide who shall, and who shall not, hear these words of the Almighty Saviour; and if any person hear them at all, it is by her permission. This is assuming a power and authority equal to that of God, and a right to control, or at least to regulate, the manner of communicating his will to his creatures. It is arrogating an authority which belongs to no creature, nor to any assembly of creatures, to decide when and to whom the Almighty shall address his overtures of mercy and grace. This claim of an authority to permit, implies an authority to prevent or prohibit, the reading of the Scriptures, whenever it shall happen that prevention is more expedient than permission. This, in general, has been the case; and if her assumed authority of permitting proves her to be in error, much more will her preventing fix that character upon her" (Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, p. 24).

[Selene]

I am sorry Amos, but all your sources came from anti-Catholic sources, which is extremely unreliable in that they distort the truth in history.  As I said, it was Johannes Gutenberg who invented the printing press.  Gutenberg was a Catholic.  It was a Catholic who developed the printing press and it was the Catholic Church who encouraged Gutenberg to publish the Bible in mass quantities.  All you had to do was look up Johannes Gutenberg.  Below is the truth about this inventor. 

"When Johannes Gutenberg began building his press in 1436, he was unlikely to have realised that he was giving birth to an art form which would take center stage in the social and industrial revolutions which followed. He was German, his press was wooden, and the most important aspect of his invention was that it was the first form of printing to use movable type.

His initial efforts enabled him in 1440 to mass-produce indulgences -- printed slips of paper sold by the Catholic Church to remit temporal punishments in purgatory for sins committed in this life, for those wealthy enough to afford indulgences. Although Laurence Koster (Coster) of Haarlem, Netherlands also laid claim to the invention, scholars have generally accepted Gutenberg as the father of modern printing.

Gutenberg left Strasburg, presumably about 1444. He seems to have perfected at enormous expense his invention shortly afterwards, as is shown by the oldest specimens of printing that have come down to us, the "Poem of the Last Judgment", and the "Calendar for 1448"). The fact that Arnolt Gelthuss, a relative of Gutenberg, lent him money in the year 1448 at Mainz points to the same conclusion.

Before books could be mass produced, several developments were necessary.A ready supply of suitable material that could be printed on was required. Manuscript books were written on vellum and this material was used for some early printed books, but vellum was expensive and not available in sufficient quantity for the mass production of books. The introduction of the technique of making paper and the subsequent development of a European papermaking industry was a necessary condition for the widespread adoption of print technology.

Although a number of people had previously attempted to make metal type or had experimented with individual woodcut letters, it was not until a technique was devised for producing metal type in large quantities that printing with moveable type became economically feasible. Gutenberg, who had initially trained as a goldsmith, was to devise a means of producing metal type in sufficient quantities at a reasonable cost. This involved the design of a type-face and the production of molds used for making the individual pieces of type, as well as the development of an alloy that was soft enough to cast yet hard enough to use for printing.

It was also necessary to develop suitable inks for printing with the new type. The water-based inks used for hand lettering and for block printing will not stick to metal type, therefore a viscous oil based ink was required.

Finally, a press was needed for transferring the image from type to paper. Precedents existed in the presses used for making wine, cheese and paper and one of Johannes Gutenberg's innovations was to adapt these presses for the printing process. An operator worked a lever to increase and decrease the pressure of the block against the paper. The invention of the printing press, in turn, set off a social revolution that is still in progress.

Legal documents indicate that Gutenberg probably began printing the Bible around 1450. It was in this year that Gutenberg entered into a partnership with Johann Fust who lent him money to finance the production of a Bible. Gutenberg certainly introduced efficient methods into book production, leading to a boom in the production of texts in Europe -- in large part, owing to the popularity of the Gutenberg Bibles, the first mass-produced work, starting in 1452. Even so, Gutenberg was a poor businessman, and made little money from his printing system.
The history of the printed Bible with movable type is the subject of considerable scholarly debate. Fragments of earlier bibles have also been found - they are differentiated by the number of lines of text on a page. Scholars have identified several variants and attempted to work out the sequence of development on the basis of the quality of the individual pieces of type.

The oldest surviving Bible printed with movable type is often called the Gutenberg Bible (named after its printer Johannes Gutenberg), or the 42-line Bible (so called because with few exceptions, each page has 42 lines of print), or the Mazarin Bible (because the first copy to recapture attention in 1760 was found in the library of Cardinal Mazarin, in Paris).

The Bible, printed at Mainz, probably required several years of work; it began in 1452 and was completed not later than 1455 and printed in an edition of about 200 copies. The text of the Bible is Latin. Colored initials and other illuminations were hand drawn after the pages were printed. The pages of the book are folio, each page is in two columns, and, with few exceptions, each column has 42 lines. The Gutenberg Bible lacks many print features that modern readers are accustomed to, such as pagination, word spacing, indentations, and paragraph breaks.

The Bible was large comprising over 1280 pages, and the text was laid out in two columns. The German Gothic type-style was modeled on manuscripts of the period. The columns of text are tightly justified right and left. This is possible because Latin words can be abbreviated by replacing letters with symbols. The printed text was black, with red and blue headers and initials being added later by an illuminator. The edition includes both vellum and paper copies. In design and workmanship, the Gutenberg Bible holds its place as one of the finest of all printed books.
 
As of 2003, the Gutenberg Bible census includes 11 complete copies on vellum, 1 copy of the New Testament only on vellum, 48 substantially complete integral copies on paper, with another divided copy on paper, and an illuminated page (the Bagford fragment).

The very first pages Gutenberg printed had only 40 lines per column. Later in the course of printing, Gutenberg realized the paper could accommodate 42 lines and so the pages were reset and printed again in the new format. The original pages of 40 lines were included in the very first issue of the Gutenberg Bible.

History records that Gutnberg's declining years were spent in the court of Archbishop Adolf of Nassau, to whose suite he was appointed on January 18, 1465. The distinction thus conferred on him carried with it allowances of clothing and other necessities which saved him from actual want. In all likelihood he died at Mainz in 1468.."

[Selene]

Now below is the Truth about the history of the Catholic Church.  This excerpt was taken from a website that was mentioned in my previous post:

 

"Did the Catholic Church forbid Christians from Reading the Bible?

Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. - - St. Jerome quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 133.
 
It has become an extremely common belief that the Catholic Church prevented Christians from reading the Bible and protestant reformers gave it back to the people. At this point it has become a common perception pointing to the problems of the Catholic Church. The argument goes that the Catholic Church forbid parishioners from reading the Bible, because they knew the Church was not following Scripture. And then, when Gutenberg�s printing press was invented, suddenly the people could read the Bible � and Martin Luther led them back to worship as it was supposed to be or as the Bible intended.

Historical Reality and Personal Bibles

Starting with a clear understanding of history is important to clarify the context of this claim. Very few Christians realize that for almost 400 years after the Crucifixion we did not actually have a Bible. The books that the Catholic Church eventually pulled together into the Bible were floating around at the various Churches, but there was much disagreement over which of the books were Scriptural and which were not. Some parishes (or individual churches within the Catholic Church) accepted one book or another, but many did not accept all of Scripture. Hebrews and Revelation, for example, were hotly debated during the time. And some books, like the Gospel of Thomas, which are not Scriptural, were accepted as such.

So finally the Catholic Church compiled the Bible as we know it (Martin Luther later removed some books from protestant Bibles) at the Council of Hippo. So up until that time the Bible did not exist as a single book the way we think of it today.

To further complicate matters there is one other issue: illiteracy. Americans still have trouble understanding that the vast majority of the world is illiterate even today. During the Dark Ages it was even worse, since virtually no one could read (Catholic monks in monasteries saved culture and writing in an amazing way). So even if the Catholic Church had personally given a Bible to every Christian, it would have been fruitless (and still would be today). The people learned about God through their parish priest and worshipped Him through Mass.

And yet, the Catholic Church could not have given a Bible to every Christian. Why? Because the printing press had not been invented! Until Johann Gutenberg�s wonderful invention in 1456 AD, Bibles were copied by hand. (Remember, Gutenberg was a good Catholic and the Church approved of and encouraged his printing of Bibles.) Before the printing press copying the Bible was the work of Catholic monks in monasteries who actually took a pen and paper and copied books of the Bible to create additional copies.

But the question still remains: Did the Catholic Church forbid Christians from reading the Bible?

What the Catholic Church did do.

The actions the Church actually took are the most indicative of their frame of mind. Instead of hiding away the Bible � or making changes to it during the Dark Ages when no one would have known � the Church did something different. They chained Bibles down in individual Catholic parishes.

At first, this sounds barbaric: they were chaining down God�s Word to keep people from it. However it was quite the opposite. The Church wanted Christians to have access to the Bible, but they were not able to provide personal copies of the Bible to parishioners (the ultra-rich were able to get copies). So they put a copy of the Bible in each church and made it publicly available. But they did have to chain it down to keep it from being stolen (it took copious amounts of time to create a single Bible).

Kept in the parish church, that Bible [ed: the one chained down that cost as much as $10,000 in today�s currency] was made available to lay Catholics by chaining it to the table on which it was placed, just as telephone books today are kept available for the public by chaining them to telephone booths. Does the phone company chain the Yellow Pages so that no one can use them? Quite the opposite � so that the maximum number of people can have access to them. It was the same with the Bible.
- - Karl Keating What Catholics Really Believe

The Church also did something perhaps more important: it translated the Bible into art. This sounds a little silly, but it is not. When the people cannot read, the answer is to create art that explains the Bible. Not just paintings from famous artists (which the Church cannot take credit for), but stained glass art in churches that depict scenes from the Bible. This was a way to preach the Gospel even to the illiterate. They could understand what was happening in the scenes since they were hearing the Bible from the pulpit (the Catholic mass goes through every word of Scripture in a three-year time frame).

The Church also translated Bibles into the vernacular. Often you will hear things such as �Wycliff was the first to translate the Bible into English,� but this is simply untrue. We can cite a contemporary, Saint Thomas More the Lord Chancellor of England who was martyred:

The whole Bible long before Wycliff�s day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read.� - - Dialogues III


Some even claimed that in the 1900s, the Church tried to stop people from reading Scripture, but this can be disproved:

3. Why weren�t Catholics allowed to read the Bible even the years just prior to Vatican Council II? They were, and I can speak from personal experience, since I was a schoolboy in those days. Much earlier, as soon as Bibles became more accessible and as literacy rates rose, the Church not only permitted but encouraged her sons and daughters to read the Scriptures.

When I was a parochial-school student in the 1950�s, at least one hour each week was spent on biblical studies. This was in addition to our regular catechism classes, which incorporated scriptural citations to ground Catholic teachings in the Bible. Still more time was spent on studying the Gospel passages used at Sunday Mass. - - Fr. Peter Stravinskas The Catholic Church and the Bible


So Free the People, Right?
I would like to stop for a moment and point out one thing: it is somewhat dangerous for those without any understanding to start reading and attempting to translate the Bible. It is not self-explanatory as we learn in Acts 8:30 when the Ethiopian points out that without a teacher he cannot understand the Bible.

In our day when we look around at the Jehovah�s Witnesses, for example, whose church is entirely based on a bad translation of Scripture. Or those who believe the Bible teaches reincarnation (I�ve met people who insist this), we understand that there is a propensity to mistranslate and misunderstand the Bible. Even those who try very hard to perfectly understand Scripture disagree on the need for baptism, for example.

What I�m trying to say is that the Bible requires some help in translation and comprehension. The Church has always taught that the Bible must be properly understood and certain verses are teaching specific things. So for example we must believe from Genesis that there was an original man and woman with a soul. The Church has always strongly encouraged the faithful to read their Bibles with the understanding that the Catholic Church � as the �pillar and bulwark of Truth� (1 Tim 3:15) � can infallibly interpret certain parts of the Bible to keep people from error. This isn�t a way to prevent us from reading and understanding Scripture, but a way to keep us true to Scripture. You are allowed to believe that the world was created in 7 days or over millennia, but you must also believe that God did create man and woman specifically and uniquely.

Revelation: the Conclusion
In conclusion history teaches us that much of our perceptions can be wrong. What is commonly believed must be analyzed for Truth. The Catholic Church did the opposite of keep the Bible from the people: she encouraged them to read it and even made it available to them as she was able. Priests have always been required to have an understanding and appreciation for Scripture in order to teach it to Christian laymen and women. And the Mass is designed to read every word of Scripture � even those tossed out by Martin Luther � in a three-year period so that you are completely exposed.

The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church. Her members wrote it and compiled it in good time. And she encourages all of us to read it, since �ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."

God bless,
Jay

[winsome]

Over the years the Church, and in particular the Popes, have restrained the power of Kings by threats of excommunication and interdiction. The Church has always been concerned for the physical welfare of it's flock as well as the spiritual welfare. In the past, and perhaps even today, the Catholic Church has been the biggest provider of education and healthcare in the world.

An amazing whopper of distortion regarding the truth of the matter.  Popes have commanded kings to wipe out entire peoples who would not bow the knee to Rome, and threatened them and anyone else who would not obey with the same excommunication.  They have fought tooth and nail to prevent the education of people regarding anything they did not approve, including the word of God in their own native tongue, and the printing press, when it was used to print bibles in the same.  They burnt people and their writings, when they did not approve of the same.  Much important history was destroyed by them because of this.  How does slaughtering countless millions of people equate with health care in the world?  You have been reading far to much twisted Roman Catholic revisionist history. 

From  "Where We Got the Bible" by Father Henry G. Graham.

CHAPTER XI. Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff

I HAVE said that people who could read at all in the Middle Ages could read Latin: hence there was little need for the Church to issue the Scriptures in any other language. But as a matter of fact she did in many countries put the Scriptures in the hands of her children in their own tongue. (I) We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing, but we shall confine ourselves to England, so as to refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382.

To anyone that has investigated the real facts of the case, this fondly-cherished notion must seem truly ridiculous; it is not only absolutely false, but stupidly so, inasmuch as it admits of such easy disproof; one wonders that nowadays any lecturer or writer should have the temerity to advance it. Now, observe I am speaking of the days before the printing­press was invented; I am speaking of England; and concerning a Church which did not, and does not, admit the necessity of Bible-reading for salvation; and concerning an age when the production of the Scriptures was a most costly business, and far beyond the means of nearly everybody. Yet we may safely assert, and we can prove, that there were actually in existence among the people many copies of the Scriptures in the English tongue of that day. To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died whilst busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great who was working at the Psalms when he died, and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury; as well as popular renderings of Holy Scripture like the Book of Durham, and the Rushworth Gloss and others that have survived the wreck of ages. After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly 'specimens' for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished. We have proof of this in the words of Blessed Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says: 'The whole Bible long before Wycliff's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read' (Dialogues III). Again, 'The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as be already reproved for naught (i.e., bad, naughty) as Wycliff's was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff's days, they remain lawful and be in some folks' hand. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen's hands and women's too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion.' (2) But you will say, that is the witness of a Roman Catholic. Well, I shall advance Protestant testimony also.

The translators of the Authorised Version, in their 'Preface', referring to previous translations of the Scriptures into the language of the people, make the following important statements. After speaking of the Greek and Latin Versions, they proceed:

'The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin ... but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the Vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under Heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their Mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by the written word translated.'

Now, as all these nations were certainly converted by the Roman Catholic Church, for there was then no other to send missionaries to convert anybody, this is really a valuable admission. The Translators of 1611, then, after enumerating many converted nations that had the Vernacular Scriptures, come to the case of England, and include it among the others. 'Much about that time,' they say (1360), even in our King Richard the Second's days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . ... So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England [or others] ... but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.'

This testimony, from the Preface, (too little known) of their own Authorised Bible, ought surely to carry some weight with well disposed Protestants.

Moreover, the 'Reformed' Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface to the Bible of 1540: 'The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.' Again, Foxe, a man that Protestants trust, says: 'If histories be well examined, we shall find, both before the Conquest and after, as well before John Wycliff was born as since, the whole body of Scripture by sundry men translated into our country tongue.' 'But as of the earlier period, so of this, there are none but fragmentary remains, the "many copies" which remained when Cranmer wrote in 1540 having doubtless disappeared in the vast and ruthless destruction of libraries which took place within a few years after that date.' These last words are from the pen of Rev. J. H. Blunt, a Protestant author, in his History of the English Bible; and another Anglican dignitary, Dean Hook, tells us that 'long before Wycliff's time there had been translators of Holy Writ.' One more authority on the Protestant side, and I have done: it is Mr. Karl Pearson (Academy, August, 1885), who says: 'The Catholic Church has quite enough to answer for, but in the 15th century it certainly did not hold back the Bible from the folk: and it gave them in the vernacular (i.e. their own tongue) a long series of devotional works which for language and religious sentiment have never been surpassed. Indeed, we are inclined to think it made a mistake in allowing the masses such ready access to the Bible. It ought to have recognised the Bible once for all as a work absolutely unintelligible without a long course of historical study, and, so far as it was supposed to be inspired, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant.' We do not know what Mr. Pearson's religious standpoint may have been, but he goes too far in blaming the Church for throwing the Bible open to the people in the 15th century, or indeed in any previous age. No evil results whatsoever followed the reading of that precious volume in any century preceding the 16th, because the people had the Catholic Church to lead them and guide them and teach them the meaning of it. It was only when the principle of 'Private judgment' was proclaimed that the Book became 'dangerous' and 'unintelligible', as it is still to the multitudes who will not receive the true interpretation of it at the hands of the Catholic Church, and who are about as competent to understand and explain it by themselves as they are to explain or prophesy the movements of the heavenly bodies.

(3) There is no need, it seems to me, to waste further time and space in accumulating proofs that the Bible was known, read and distributed by the Catholic Church in the common language of the people in all countries from the 7th down to the 14th century. I have paid more attention to the case of England because of the popularity of the myth about Wycliff having been the first to translate it, and to enable the poor blinded Papists, for the first time in their experience, to behold the Figure of the Christ of the Gospels in 1382. Such a grotesque notion can only be due either to ignorance or concealment of the now well-known facts of history. One would fain hope that, in this age of enlightenment and study, no one valuing his scholarship will so far imperil it as to attempt to revive the silly fable. But supposing it were as true as it is false, that John Wycliff was the first to publish the Bible in English, how in the name of reason can it be true at the same time that Luther, more than 100 years afterwards, discovered it? Really, people must decide which story they are going to tell, for the one is the direct contradictory of the other. Wycliff or Luther, let it be; but Wycliff and Luther together—that is impossible.

(4) Now, it may seem somewhat irrelevant to our present subject, which is simply 'where we got the Bible', to wander off to foreign lands and see how matters stood there at the date at which we have now arrived; but I should not like to pass from this part of the enquiry without setting down a few facts which are generally unknown to our separated brethren, as to the existence of plenty of Bibles in those very countries which they think were, and of course still are, plunged in the depths of superstition, illiteracy and degradation. They flatter themselves with the idea that it was the knowledge of the Scriptures which produced the blessed Reformation the world over; and will tell you that it was all because the Holy Book was scaled and locked and hidden away from the benighted Papists in Continental countries that the glorious light of the Reformation never broke, and has not yet broken, upon them. There are, however, unfortunately for them, facts at hand, facts unquestioned, which explode this pious notion. The facts are these:—(i) As was shown long ago in the Dublin Review (October, 1837), 'it was almost solely in those countries which have remained constant to the Catholic Faith that popular versions of the Bible had been published; while it was precisely in those kingdoms, England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where Protestantism acquired an early and has maintained a permanent ascendancy, that no printed Bible existed when they embraced Protestantism. Holland alone and a few cities in Germany were in possession of the Bible when they adopted the Reformed Creed.' Is it really the case then, you ask with open eyes, that these Latin countries allowed the Bible to be read and translated and printed before Luther? Listen and judge for yourself what rubbish is crammed into people's heads. (ii) Luther's first Bible (or what pretended to be the Bible, for he had amputated some of its members) came out in 1520. Now, will you believe it, there were exactly 104 editions of the Bible in Latin before that date; there were 9 before the birth of Luther in the German language, and there were 27 in German before ever his own saw the light of day. Many of these were to be seen at the Caxton Exhibition in London, 1877: and seeing is believing. In Italy there were more than 40 editions of the Bible before the first Protestant version appeared, beginning at Venice in 1471; and 25 of these were in the Italian language before 1500, with the express permission of Rome. In France there were 18 editions before 1547, the first appearing in 1478. Spain began to publish editions in the same year, and issued Bibles with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition (of course one can hardly expect Pro­testants to believe this). In Hungary by the year 1456, in Bohemia by the year 1478, in Flanders before 1500, and in other lands groaning under the yoke of Rome, we know that editions of the Sacred Scriptures had been given to the people. 'In all (to quote from "M.C.L's" useful pamphlet on the subject) 626 editions of the Bible, in which 198 were in the language of the laity, had issued from the press, with the sanction and at the instance of the Church, in the countries where she reigned supreme, before the first Protestant version of the Scriptures was sent forth into the world.' England was perhaps worse off than any country at the time of the Reformation in the matter of vernacular versions of the Bible: many Catholic kingdoms abroad had far surpassed her in making known the Sacred Word. Yet these lands remained Catholic; England turned Protestant; what, then, becomes of the pathetic delusion of 'Evangelical' Christians that an acquaintance with the open Bible in our own tongue must necessarily prove fatal to Catholicism? The simple truth of course is just this, that if knowledge of the Scriptures should of itself make people Protestants, then the Italian and French and Spanish and Hungarian and Belgian and Portuguese nations should all have embraced Protestantism, which up to the moment of writing they have declined to do. I am afraid there is something wrong with the theory, for it is in woeful contradiction to plain facts, which may be learned by all who care to take the trouble to read and study for themselves.

(5) Now, before passing on to another part of the subject, I should like you to pause for a moment with the brief historical review fresh in your memory; and I would simply ask this: How can anyone living in the light of modern education and history cling any longer to the fantastic idea that Rome hates the Bible—that she has done her worst to destroy it—that she conceals it from her people lest it should enlighten their blindness, and that the Holy Book, after lying for many long dark ages in the dungeons and lumber rooms of Popery, was at last exhumed and dragged into the light of day by the great and glorious discoverer, Martin Luther? O foolish Scotchmen, who hath bewitched you? Do you not see that Rome could have easily destroyed it if she had been so disposed during all those centuries that elapsed between its formation into one volume in 397 A.D., and the sixteenth century? It was absolutely, exclusively in her power to do with it as she pleased, for Rome reigned supreme. What more simple than to order her priests and monks and Inquisitors to search out every copy and reduce it to ashes? But did she do this? We have seen that she preserved it and multiplied it. She saved it from utter destruction at the hands of infidels and barbarians and pagan tribes that burned everything Christian they could come across; she saved it and guarded it from total extinction by her care and loving watchfulness; she, and she alone. There was no one else to do it; she only was sent by God to defend His Blessed Word. It might have perished, and would have perished, were it not that she employed her clergy to reproduce it and adorn it and multiply it, and to furnish churches and monasteries with copies of it, which all might read and learn and commit to memory, and meditate upon. Nay, she not only multiplied it in its original languages (Greek and Hebrew), which would have been intelligible and useful only to the learned few, but she put it into the hands of all her people who could read, by translating it into Latin, the universal tongue; and even for those less scholarly she rendered it into the common languages spoken in different countries. Truly she took a curious way of showing her hatred of God's Holy Word and of destroying it. Many senseless charges are laid at the door of the Catholic Church; but surely the accusation that, during the centuries preceding the sixteenth, she was the enemy of the Bible and of Bible reading must, to any one who does not wilfully shut his eyes to facts, appear of all accusations the most ludicrous; and to tell the truth, it is ridiculed and laughed out of court by all serious and impartial students of the question. With far more justice, it humbly seems to me, may the charge of degrading and profaning the Sacred Scriptures be brought against those highly-financed Bible Societies which, with a recklessness that passes comprehension, scatter among savages and pagans utterly uninstructed, tons of Testaments, only to be used for making ball cartridges or wadding, for wrapping up snuff, bacon, tobacco, fruit and other goods; for papering the walls of houses; for converting into tapestry or pretty kites for children; and for other and fouler uses which it makes one ashamed to think of. True, the versions thus degraded are false and heretical, which may mitigate the horror in the eyes of Catholics; but those who thus expose them to dishonour believe them to be the real Words of Life. On their heads, then, falls the guilt of 'giving that which is holy to the dogs'.

[h2r77]

Question

If Peter was the first Pope and if the Pope is infallible, then why was it necessary for Paul to rebuke him in Galatians 2:11-14?

If Peter was the first Pope then why do we find James presiding at the Jerusalem council rather than Peter? (see Acts 15)

Contrary to popular belief, it actually seems to me from Scripture that James the Lord's brother rather than Peter was more likely the first head of the Church.

[Selene]

Question

If Peter was the first Pope and if the Pope is infallible, then why was it necessary for Paul to rebuke him in Galatians 2:11-14?

If Peter was the first Pope then why do we find James presiding at the Jerusalem council rather than Peter? (see Acts 15)

Contrary to popular belief, it actually seems to me from Scripture that James the Lord's brother rather than Peter was more likely the first head of the Church.

 


The word "infallible" does not mean "impeccible."  The two are not the same.  When Catholics say that the Pope is infallible, they are referring to his speech when he explicitly defines a doctrine as an "article of faith."  The charism of infallibility is a gift to the Church, whether it is expressed through the united teaching of the bishops, through the pope defining a doctrine under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, or through the sensu fidelium - the whole Christian people being led to a belief through the "sense of faith."  Vatican I taught that in order for a statement of a pope to be considered "infallible," it must meet the following conditions: 

1.  The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is, "from the chair" of Peter, which means in his position as chief teacher and shepherd of Catholic Christians. 

2.  The pope must clearly define the doctrine as being a truth of faith. 

3.  It must be a definition concerning "faith or morals."

These requirements have many implications.  One is that the pope cannot speak infallibly about science, politics, economics, etc., unless the issue involved is directly related to Christian faith or morals.  Another implication is that the pope speaks infallibly only when he explicitly defines a doctrine as an "Article of faith." 

As for the Council at Jerusalem, St. James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church, but at that council, James followed St. Peter's offered advice (See Acts 15:7-11). 

[h2r77]

Question

If Peter was the first Pope and if the Pope is infallible, then why was it necessary for Paul to rebuke him in Galatians 2:11-14?

If Peter was the first Pope then why do we find James presiding at the Jerusalem council rather than Peter? (see Acts 15)

Contrary to popular belief, it actually seems to me from Scripture that James the Lord's brother rather than Peter was more likely the first head of the Church.

 

The word "infallible" does not mean "impeccible."  The two are not the same.  When Catholics say that the Pope is infallible, they are referring to his speech when he explicitly defines a doctrine as an "article of faith."  The charism of infallibility is a gift to the Church, whether it is expressed through the united teaching of the bishops, through the pope defining a doctrine under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, or through the sensu fidelium - the whole Christian people being led to a belief through the "sense of faith."  Vatican I taught that in order for a statement of a pope to be considered "infallible," it must meet the following conditions:  

1.  The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is, "from the chair" of Peter, which means in his position as chief teacher and shepherd of Catholic Christians.  

2.  The pope must clearly define the doctrine as being a truth of faith.  

3.  It must be a definition concerning "faith or morals."

These requirements have many implications.  One is that the pope cannot speak infallibly about science, politics, economics, etc., unless the issue involved is directly related to Christian faith or morals.  Another implication is that the pope speaks infallibly only when he explicitly defines a doctrine as an "Article of faith."  

As for the Council at Jerusalem, St. James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church, but at that council, James followed St. Peter's offered advice (See Acts 15:7-11).  

The decision or judgment that was handed down at the Jerusalem Council clearly was James judgment not Peter's, proving it was James, not Peter who was head of the council.

Acts 15:19  Wherefore my judgment (said James) is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God;

James the Lord's brother is the more likely candidate for first head of the Church. Scripture as well as other historical readings agree.

"When I was struck by what we see in regard to church leadership in Acts 15. When we are discussing how Jesus established leadership in the early church, and how that leadership functions, this passage is crucial. The implications for the claims of some churches in regard to authority are obvious.

We ought to go all the way through Acts 15. Take note:

1. The leadership of the church in Antioch responds to a crisis involving Judaizers by sending Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem “about this question.” Acts 15:2

2. The leadership at Jerusalem is referred to as “the apostles and elders.” “Apostles” is a term that goes back to Jesus, but “elders” goes into synagogue leadership, which the early Christians adopted as the leadership model for themselves. So, at least at this point, the leadership of the church in Jerusalem is plural and possibly of two different types. The church in Antioch recognizes the authority of the Jerusalem leadership in the case of settling controversies such as this one. Acts 15:3

3. In Acts 15:3, those welcoming of Paul and Barnabas are described as “the church and the apostles and the elders.”

4. In Acts 15:6, the apostles and elders gather together “to consider” this matter. The word choice has to do with listening, deliberation and coming to a conclusion. Obviously, it implies that the apostles and the elders are functioning as an authoritative council of some kind.

5. In Acts 15:7, Peter stands up and reminds those gathered of the previous work of God in commanding him to preach the gospel to Gentiles without requiring circumcision. Readers ought to note how Peter functions in what we’ve already been told is a gathering of apostles and elders. Peter is, of course, both.

6. The assembled leaders hear Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:12.

7. James, the brother of Jesus and the apostle most associated with the leadership of the Jerusalem church, speaks in Acts 15:13 AFTER everyone has finished speaking. This appears to be close to an authoritative, final summation of what’s been heard.

8. In Acts 15:19, James- not Peter- speaks of “my judgement” and puts the conclusion of the controversy into its first form. (Acts 15:19-21)

9. In Acts 15:22, “it seemed good to the apostles and the elders with the whole church” to send representatives with Paul and Barnabas to personally deliver a letter giving the judgement of the gathered leadership of the Jerusalem church.

10. The letter refers to the authoritative group as “we” and “us.” Acts 15:23-25. Further, it says that the false teachers are speaking without the authority of the apostles and elders. Acts 15:25 says that the council did what seemed good to “us” after coming into “one accord.” These are decisions presented in the authority of the entire group.

11. In Acts 15:28, the council says “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” to make “requirements.”

It is difficult to avoid the overwhelming evidence in this passage that the first church council is operating as a gathering of all the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church. Peter speaks as one of the apostles, and James seems to have the last word. Where there could be opportunities to show deference given to Peter, there are none."
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/thoughts-on-acts-15-and-early-church-leadership

But the strongest proof against the primacy of Peter in the early church is found in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. A council had been called at Jerusalem to consider the teaching of some that Christians were under obligation to observe the whole Mosaic law, even to circumcision. James, and not Peter, acts as chairman of the council, and has a deciding voice, while Peter is merely a delegate, a debater, on a level with Paul and Barnabas. James terminates the discussion with an authoritative ruling, saying, “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from
fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Acts 15:19, 20.
http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/WAS_PETER_THE_FIRST_POPE.pdf

Other articles include

Was Peter the First "Pope"?
http://letsaskgod.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=2

Was Saint Peter the first Pope?
http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html