What Do Protestants Say About Catholic Bible Access?

I mentioned earlier about the reading of scripture being driven from the church. From the time of the apostles, the Bible was freely read by anyone who desired. During the Middle Ages, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234), under Pope Pius IV, denied lay persons the right to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless the lay person obtained permission from their parish priests. The Council of Trent (1564) stated that anyone caught reading a Bible without written permission, would not receive absolution from their sins until they had surrendered their Bible.

Here are three things to note:

• 1) the Council of Toulouse in 1229 was a local council (like Tours 813), and Toulouse was in the turmoil of Albigensian heresy, and they pointed to some of the words of Jesus for some of their errors. This doesn't mean laymen in Scotland or Germany were barred from reading the Bible;
• 2) the same thing is true for the Council of Tarragona in 1234;
• 3) for the Council of Trent, I would like to see how this rule was decided by the Council, but if it had been, it certainly included the possibility for laymen actually getting such a written permission.

Now, there could be a certain confusion between reading and interpreting in print the Bible. In order to get a book printed that does involve exegesis, the permission needs to be given in writing, and this is true not just for laymen but also for priests - the Catholic priest Jean Colson in 1968 needed an imprimatur (written permission) to publish l'Énigme du disciple que Jésus aimait, which pushes (I think credibly) the thesis that John the Gospeller was not identic to the Son of Zebedee, not one of the twelve, but a Cohen.

Here is the rule, from session IV:

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.

I note a little item of relevance to Pope Michael, who pretended to be so busy, he'd need to be paid by me to make examination and imprimatur for something by me ... "and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned."

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Paul the First Hermit
15.I.2022

The site I cited was this one, I may continue to comment more on it, since it contains more errors:

https://www.addeigloriam.org/reformed/luke-private-interpretation.htm

Council of Trent quoted from here:

http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm

One true word from the Protestant site:

We may wonder today how the leaders of the RCC could torture and even kill people for the horrific crime of daring to read their Bible (many more actually died in England under the reign of Bloody Mary than in central Europe),

Why? Bc Mary Tudor (whose victims were not more numerous than Catholic victims of the Reformers) was not united to Rome, she was, like her father Henry VIII, personally head of the Church of England, which she proceeded to Catholicise back again by appealing to national laws, like notably the 1401 act of parliament De heretico comburendo (arguably the act under which St. Joan of Arc was tried), which made it so much easier to get burned as a heretic in England than it was on the continent. If Tyndale had been burned in England, it might have been for translating the Bible. In Wilvoorde, he was actually burned after spurning the admonitions of James Latomus on how to properly understand Romans chapter 3./HGL

Habemus altare in Greek

Here is from Ellopos Greek NT, Hebrews 13:10 as you see here:

10 ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες·
10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

Please note, θυσιαστήριον, not βημα. Same word as in Genesis 8:20, as you see here:

20 καὶ ᾠκοδόμησε Νῶε θυσιαστήριον τῷ Κυρίῳ, καὶ ἔλαβεν ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν τῶν καθαρῶν καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν πετεινῶν τῶν καθαρῶν καὶ ἀνήνεγκεν εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον.
20 And Noe built an altar to the Lord, and took of all clean beasts, and of all clean birds, and offered a whole burnt-offering upon the altar.

The basic meaning of θυσιαστήριον is tool for sacrifice. Sacrifice tool or sacrifice place./HGL

The Beast Hates the Harlot

Let a Protestant elaborate on the Apocalypse, not necessarily a Lutheran or Anglican, but more like someone who could be going to a "Bible school" instead of to a "faculty of Theology" or "seminar". They will identify, over most of the past 2000 years, Catholicism as the Harlot and Papacy as the beast, or at least as the Fourth beast component of the beast.

Let's suppose some kind of Catholicism could be the harlot. Neither saying nor denying it is, but let's suppose it could be.

Would the Papacy figure as beast, if so?

Apocalypse interpreter or "third eagle of the Apocalypse, co-prophet of the endtimes" William Tapley was right now praying for apostate Catholics:

Pray for a Church that has Lost the Faith as Mary Prophesied
"Diffusé en direct il y a 78 minutes" | thirdeaglebooks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMVZznTryAk

And Pope Michael has made a point of preferring priests obedient to the Rome he considers apostate over some calling it out as apostate also, namely SSPX and sedevacantists proper. He thinks they at least try to follow a pope, even if it's the wrong pope.

Now, by contrast, a Protestant calling out the Catholic Church as harlot will be far more hateful of her .... and include more centuries in the harlot description.

Could Protestantism have more to do with the Beast than papacy has? I certainly think so./HGL

Ah, these opponents of Catholic Continuity ...

Sample 1:

This was a question on quora:

Is any Catholic priest able to explain quietly to James Hough that Jesus created Christianity, but the Catholic church only came into existence in the early 4th century, aided by Constantine?

This was - is still visible in notifications - James Hough's beginning to an answer:

+JMJ+

Oh my! I’ve had some people try to claim things which are anti-Christian and anti-historical, but this one takes the cake.

Upon which, he gives a very thorough and good answer with ample historical documentation.

It is not just anti-historical, as James Hough mentions, Constantine founded no Church, he only legalised an already existing one, it is not just anti-Christian, as the claim if true would cut historical Christianity off from the New Testament, but it is also dementedly anti-Catholic, a conspiracy theory pretending that all Catholic priests "really know" that the Catholic claim is bogus and could "quietly" explain that to James Hough so he "doesn't embarass" himself by "excessive gullibility". You know, confronted with the real world of religiously and historically literate people able to confront James Hough on quora with the facts ...

I stated that this was a question, I wanted to give an answer independently of James Hough, but the question had been deleted, and I wanted to share his answer with my followers on quora, but couldn't share.

Either James Hough is too illiterate about Protestant high strung Evangelical stuff to know that this is a real issue with some Protestants who aren't polite ecumenical Anglicans ... or someone on quora was dissatisfied with James Hough giving a good answer.

Sample 2:

The Baptist pastor and Ruckmanite Matt Singleton endorses an alternative continuity theory, namely Baptist or Anabaptist Continuity.

Here I gave a good debate back in 2018 against his claims, recently updated by Pastor Matt Singleton claiming I had ignored his other post, which I had up to then:

BIBLE SMACK : a case for the Waldenses ancient origin
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2010/03/case-for-waldenses-ancient-origin.html

Here I just recently, day before yesterday, attend to his other post:

BIBLE SMACK : Who is the New Testament Church?
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2010/03/who-is-new-testament-church.html

Personal conclusion, both samples:

Reminds me of Muslims who think Gospel of Philip is the original Injeel, even if the first example was found in the 16th C., or of Jews who claim Yeshu was executed by stoning in pre-Roman times and that that was the origin of Christianity, never bother about history./HGL

Lita Cosner Might Not Read This

I have been blocked from writing her on FB, perhaps bc once nearly a decade ago, I had a crunch on her, I think she is now past the age to be interesting for me, since I like my future marriage to be fertile.

This block means, I cannot with her pursue the politics of adressing notifications to her when I meantion her writings.

Today, she has unknowingly provided a very great argument for the Catholic view of the Eucharist.

Both in Genesis 2 and 3 in the LXX and in Romans 6, she finds a fruit leading to shame and to death, and in both places she also finds a fruit that in itself leads to life.

Let's see what it says about this:

In both Genesis 2–3 and Romans 6, fruit also leads to eternal life. In Genesis 2–3, this is the fruit of the tree of life, from which Adam and Eve were free to eat prior to the Fall. However, after the Fall, they were removed from the Tree of Life to prevent their eating and living forever. But as Paul says: “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life” (Romans 6:22). This is consistent with the image of believers having free access to the Tree of Life in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:2).

Now, Romans 6:22 says that "the fruit you get leads to ..." - in Greek, "you have the fruit into sanctification".

But a fruit leading one to sanctification must be received before one get's to the New Jerusalem. Where?

Well, there is a very obvious answer, but certain Protestants may not like it. In the Eucharist we eat the author of grace, Christ Himself./HGL

* Actually, her work was republished yesterday.

Refuting CARM and Matt Slick

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Is unbroken history necessary for true Church? · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Refuting CARM and Matt Slick

Does an unbroken history mean the Roman Catholic Church is true?
by Matt Slick | Jan 4, 2014 | Roman Catholicism, World Religions
https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/does-an-unbroken-history-mean-the-roman-catholic-church-is-true/

The Catholic Church claims to have an unbroken lineage of apostolic authority dating back to Peter who was, allegedly, given the keys to the church (Matthew 16:19).

No. We claim BOTH an unbroken lineage of Popes dating back to St. Peter (or with only short breaks, within lifetimes, like there were three years between two Popes during the persecutions, and 39 years between undoubted Popes in Avignon and undoubted Popes back in Rome, as well as now 32 years between death of Pius XII and election by emergency conclave of Pope Michael) AND also an unbroken, day by day unbroken collection of lineageS dating back to all twelve apostles, including Matthias who replaced Judas.

But again, even if it was true that Catholicism can trace its collective lineage back to Peter, this does not mean the Roman Catholic Church is the true church. Furthermore, Matthew 16:19 says that Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven – not the church – and that what he would bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever he loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Now, the Church is the Kingdom of Heaven as present on earth. In heaven itself, the authority resides with Jesus and His blessed Mother, but they take the authority of the vicars on earth into account.

What Catholics regularly overlook is that the same authority was given to the rest of the disciples in Matthew 18:18.

1) as said, the day by day unbroken lineages dating back to all twelve is even more important, that's the one fulfilling the promise in Matthew 28:20
2) the same authority given to Peter alone was here given to Peter with others.

So, if they want to trace their lineage back to Peter who supposedly has the authority to bind and loose, what does it say about the rest of the apostles who had that same authority?

That these also are in the Catholic Church. With their lineages.

Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture do we find Peter exercising his authority above the other apostles. If anything, we find the reverse. Consider when Paul rebuked Peter . . .

1) In Galatians, it is not clear that Cephas was St. Peter, first one of the twelve, or someone else having that name (shared probably with High Priest Kaiaphas)
2) If he was, he was not rebuked with the authority of a superior over an inferior, but with the authority of truth over error
3) It would seem Peter did continue speaking when the rest of the twelve had fallen silent on Pentecost day.

Many groups claim to have apostolic succession from the early days, but it does not mean they are true. If a church is true, then it must be consistent with Scripture. The Scripture is the measure of the authority on how a church is to behave and what is to teach – not a lineage kept by tradition.

A lineage kept by tradition or a tradition kept by a lineage is a scriptural criterium - Matthew 28:20, third generation apostolic succession St. Paul giving instruction to fourth generation apostolic successioners Sts Timothy and Titus instructions about fifth generation successors to apostles - which is clear all through these three epistles, which is one reason why liberal Protestants put these and Matthew as late books with garbled message. Markan priority is a residue of this ideology in some non-liberal Protestants.

We see in this verse that Paul the apostle wrote to Timothy so that “he would know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God.” This means Paul was writing Scripture and instructing Christians on how to behave within the church. He was giving Scriptural orders to which the church is subject. We do not see in Scripture such authority given to a church because it can trace its lineage back to Peter.

It is right here given to the Church which Jesus founded - also one with lineages traced to the 12 Apostles.

We do find the admonition of the word of God (as the above verse mentions) for the church to submit itself to Scripture.

And to oral tradition, St. Paul puts it along Pauline epistles:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2:14

Therefore, we would conclude that a church is true if it agrees with Scripture–not if it claims to have a lineage back to early times.

It is easier to determine a controversy on whether a Church even claims to trace its lineage to early times, than to determine one whether such and such a doctrine has support in the Scriptures.

Whether Mary was ever virgin or She personally gave birth to the brethren of Christ, whether She was sinless as the mother doing the will of the Father or whether Her motherhood was replaced by that of any faithful women or the faithful communities at present doing so, is as hard to see for some as it is for some that Christ being the promised Messiah and true God is consistent with OT teaching. The Bereans concluded for, some other synagogues (and yes, Bereans were at this point a synagogue, with people already learned in the OT, not people being handed an OT by Paul and then just passively being told by him to look up what he wanted them to look up) however were against.

But whether Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Cranmer, Calvin and Knox were born as Roman Catholics or whether they were baptised as infants in the Roman Catholic Church, or whether it was Roman Catholicism they left for the fruits of their own Bible studies, no sane man doubts.

The final list of "not found in Scripture" doctrines supposed to disprove Roman Catholicism has already been answered in a quoran answer.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Andrew Corsini
4.II.2021

Waldensians and National Socialists

A few weeks ago, a Ruckmanite argued, that, thanks to Beza, we know Waldensians were around since AD 120, and that they used the "Italic version" or what is known as "Itala".

I argued that it was funny that a King Jamesist would support the Itala, since prior to Vulgate Latin translation (I actually called it Itala) was based on LXX, not on proto-Masoretic (if I may call it so) or Aquila.

I was wrong about Itala. It is actually Vetus Latina that is based on LXX. Vetus Latina being the pre-Vulgate Latin Old Testament. Itala was the pre-Vulgate Latin New Testament.

In other words, claiming that Waldensians "used the Itala" means claiming that they limited the Bible to the New Testament.

I think you may see where the title is heading now.

The Nazis had made agreements with the Catholic Church to stop interfering

In fact, interfering by promoting a certain party, the Zentrum (which was dissolved by this agreement, and low ranking National Socialists were no longer excommunicated). They had not agree to stop making comments.

and set up the National Reich Church to ensure that protestantism had a Nazi message. However despite this there were pockets of opposition among them.

I thought the Reich Church was already there since the Bismarck Reich, while the National Socialist message was through Deutsche Christen, though even these predated National Socialism, but go on ...

The first was the Pastors’ Emergency League. ... They also fought to keep the Old Testament being used in Church services as the Nazis saw it as a link to Judaism.

Ah, yes, Deutsche Christen had tried to suppress reading from the Old Testament ... they would have approved Waldensians having the Itala, but not the Vetus Latina. For the moment, I cannot find a reference if they actually did so.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Vigil of the Lord's Epiphany
5.I.2021

Sorry for fatigue, I can give the reference for the quotes I did give about NS and Protestants:

Religious Opposition
Levels: GCSEExam boards: AQA, Edexcel, OCR
tutor2u : History
https://www.tutor2u.net/history/reference/religious-opposition