Some times I come across pictures on the internet that remind of me things that I learned in various Christian schools that I later found out were false.
The problem is that there is no actual historical basis for those arguments, and it has created generations of Protestants who go out into the world full of false information who will sometimes abandon their faith when they realize that they have been lied to.
Tyndale was not executed because he translated the Bible into English, but he was executed because he was seen as a heretic. Also, Tyndale was not executed by the Church, but he was executed by worldly monarchs. And, neither the Pope, nor the Roman Church, ever expressly forbid the reading of the Bible by laypeople.
William Tyndale wrote a book called in the common vernacular, The Obedience of a Christian Man, in which he espoused the doctrine of "caesaropapism" - that the monarch should be the head of the Church in their own country. It is from this book that we also get the doctrine of the divine right of kings - that the monarch gets their authority to rule from God and thus they cannot be held accountable by any earthly authority.
It is probable that the aforementioned book is what lead King Henry VIII to justify separating the Church of England from Rome,
It is believed that the book greatly influenced Henry VIII's decision in declaring the Act of Supremacy, by which he became Supreme Head of the Church of England, in 1534.[2] Tyndale's opposition to Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon earned him the king's enmity, but when Tyndale was arrested by the Roman Catholic authorities in Antwerp in 1535, Henry's chief minister Thomas Cromwell attempted unsuccessfully to intervene on his behalf. Tyndale was executed for heresy the following year. (Source)We can also see from the above quote that Tyndale opposed Henry's annulment from Queen Catherine, which was a very dangerous thing to do, but Thomas Cromwell still tried to help Tyndale after he was arrested.
Looking into actual historical sources, we see that Tyndale was arrested and tired for his Lutheran heresies, and he was executed by secular authorities, not by ecclesiastical authorities,
Following the insurrections of the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites, the German Peasants' War, the Münster Anabaptist rebellion, etc., heresy was connected by states with sedition and possible regicide; it carried, at worst, the terrible death penalty of burning at the stake. The Church could usually protect someone accused of heresy from being charged by the state, if that person satisfied the appointed theologian Inquisitor, in a formal process, that they did not (now) hold heretical views.
In Tyndale's case, he was held in prison for a year and a half: his Inquisitor, Latomus gave him the opportunity to write a book stating his views; Latomus wrote a book in response to convince him of his errors; Tyndale wrote two in reply; Latomus wrote two further books in response to Tyndale. Latomus' three books were subsequently published as one volume: in these it can be seen that the discussion on heresy revolves around the contents of three other books Tyndale had written on topics like justification by faith, free will, the denial of the soul, and so on. Latomus makes no mention of Bible translation; indeed, it seems that in prison, Tyndale was allowed to continue making translations from the Hebrew.[41] Thomas Cromwell was involved in some intercession or plans such as extradition.[42]: 220
When Tyndale could not be convinced to abjure, he was handed over to the Brabantine secular arm and tried on charges of Lutheran heresy in 1536. The charges did not mention Bible translation, which was not illegal in the Netherlands. (Source)
Note that the inquisitor Latomus made no mention of Tyndale translating the Bible, and that Tyndale was even allowed to continue translating the Bible while he was in prison. Note also that when he was tried on charges of Lutheran heresy that no translation of the Bible was mentioned.
In the above quote we can also see that heresy was connected by earthly, temporal states to "sedition and possible regicide," due in part by violent uprisings. One of the groups mentioned in the quote is the Lollards, a tradition from which Tyndale possibly came (Source). Because of these violent uprisings it was the secular authorities who would sentence people to death and execute them, while the Roman Church would try to help the people.
The Lollards are connected to John Wycliffe - who either translated the Bible into Middle-English or had a lot of help doing so. And, despite being posthumously declared a heretic, you can see that a lot of his writings and beliefs influenced Tyndale and eventually King Henry VIII. He also seems to have possibly influenced John Calvin with a doctrine of predestination.
Theologically, his preaching expressed a strong belief in predestination that enabled him to declare an "invisible church of the elect", made up of those predestined to be saved, rather than in the "visible" Catholic Church.[44] To Wycliffe, the Church was the totality of those who are predestined to blessedness. No one who is eternally lost has part in it. There is one universal Church, and outside of it there is no salvation.
His first tracts and greater works of ecclesiastical-political content defended the privileges of the State. By 1379 in his De ecclesia ("On the Church"), Wycliffe clearly claimed the supremacy of the king over the priesthood.[11] He also rejected the selling of indulgences.(Source)
Wycliffe definitely held to some erroneous views, such as his view of Confession as being anti-biblical (Source). He also was apparently a donatist - believing that priests in sin could not bestow sacraments (Source). This source that I just placed at the end of the last sentence goes through why Wycliffe was condemned, none of the condemnations mention his writing an English Bible, either. What can be seen is a condemnation of his books and articles written because they contain error.
The Lollards who came from Wycliffe (and possibly influenced Tyndale) would also later espouse the donatist heresy as well as getting a lot of other things wrong (but getting some right, in my not so learned opinion) in their Twelve Conclusions.
Again, Wycliffe, the Lollards, and Tyndale were seen as heretics - not because they wanted to translate the Bible into the English vernacular, but because they quite literally held to heretical beliefs and were declared heretics because of those beliefs by the Roman Church.
What also did not happen was that the Bible was forbidden to be translated into English. Even the oft cited banning of the works of the Lollards did not ban the translation of the Bible, but said that the Bishop of the place needed to approve,
6 The translation of the text of Holy Scripture out of one tongue into another is a dangerous thing as blessed Hierome testifies because it is not easy to make the sense in all re spects the same as the same blessed Hierome confesses that he made frequent mistakes in this business although he was inspired therefore we enact and ordain that no one hence forth do by his own authority translate any text of Holy Scripture into the English tongue or any other by way of book or treatise Nor let any such book or treatise now lately composed in the time of John Wicklif aforesaid or since or hereafter to be composed be read in whole or in part in public or in private under pain of the greater ex communication till that translation have been approved by the diocesan of the place or if occasion shall require by a provincial council Let him that transgresseth be punished as a fautor of heresy and error. (Arundel's Constitution)Despite the banning of the works of Wycliffe and the Lollards, apparently using a Wycliffe Bible without their notes and such was acceptable,
However, surviving manuscripts of Wycliffian Bibles without Lollard/Wycliffite additions were commonly accepted as works of an unknown Catholic translator; so these manuscripts continued to circulate among 16th-century English Catholics, and many of its renderings of the Vulgate into English were or became established idiom and were adopted by the translators of the Rheims New Testament, one of the bases of the King James Version. (Source)
Another source cited in the banning of translating the Bible into English is the De heretico comburendo, aka, The Suppression of Heresy Act 1400. This act was passed by English Parliament - not the Roman Church - and condemned Wycliffe and the Lollards,
Although partial English translations and metrical paraphrases of the Bible had existed for hundreds of years, the Middle English translations published under the direction of John Wycliffe in the 1380s, known as Wycliffe's Bibles, were the first complete translations and the first to gain widespread acceptance and use. De heretico comburendo does not mention language or translation.
According to some scholars, English Church authorities condemned editions of the Wycliffite translations not only because they deemed the commentary sometimes included with the work to be heretical, but because they feared a vernacular translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate, absent appropriate catechesis, would lead the ignorant laity to reject Church authority and fall into heresy.[1] (De heretico comburendo was an Act of the English parliament, not by the Church.) (Source
Prior to John Wycliffe, various parts of the Bible had been translated into Old English, and there were other languages such as Old High German, Old Church Slavonic and Old French (Source). Some translations were banned due to their connection to heresies,
The provincial synods of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) outlawed possession of some vernacular renderings, in reaction to the Cathar and Waldensian heresies, in South France and East Spain. There is evidence of some vernacular translations being permitted while others were being scrutinized. (Source)
But, if one were to look outside of Protestant sources, which often don't have any sources for their claims, one would be hard-pressed to find anywhere that the Roman Church forbid the reading of the Bible, or where the Roman Church forbid the translating of the Bible into the vernacular. What did happen, among secular and ecclesiastical authorities both, is that certain precautions were taken to ban or forbid certain texts to help stop the rise of heresy.
What one can find, as evidenced by the sources speaking of the banning of Wycliffe's works and the synods of Toulouse, is that there was no overall banning of the translating of the Bible by the Vatican, but there were local bannings to curb the rise of heresy in those areas.
The nature and extent of censorship of vernacular bibles in various regions over history is contested by historians.[15]: 24–28
The following list has information that may be useful in weighing up claims in popular histories, and information elsewhere in this article:
- Pope Innocent III's Cum ex iniuncto (1199) did not ban vernacular bibles or translation, but the secret meetings of the Waldensians.[15]: 29
- The "Councils" of Toulouse, Bréziers, Tarragona, Oxford and Tier were provincial councils (i.e., of local bishops) or synods, not ecumenical councils that set the policy for the whole Church.
- The Synod of the Lateran (1112) was a synod, and should not be confused with the First (1122), Second (11), Third (1139), Fourth (1215) or Fifth (1512–1517) Lateran Councils which were ecumenical councils. The first four did not mention books, translations or bibles. Lateran V Session X established authorization requirements for printed books (as distinct from manuscripts) in general.
- John Wycliffe's 1382 censure by the University of Oxford did not mention vernacular bibles or translation, but primarily concerned his eucharistic doctrine. The Pope's subsequent censure of his twenty-four propositions did not mention vernacular bibles or translation.[37]
- De heretico comburendo (1401) does not mention the vernacular bibles or translation. Its implementation act, Suppression of Heresy Act 1414 similarly does not ban vernacular bibles or translation, and indeed specifies that possession of such must not be taken as evidence of heresy.
- The heresy condemnations of Wycliffe and Huss at the ecumenical Council of Constance did not mention vernacular bibles or translation.[38]
- Tyndale's heresy charges did not mention vernacular bibles or translation, nor were they illegal in the jurisdiction of his arrest and trial.[39] (Source)
The problem with this revisionist history is that it tells a lie of epic proportions. It makes heroes out of men that were heretics. It also lends itself to a kind of historical blindness; I have had countless conversations with Protestants who have tried to spew this nonsense at me in regards to the Orthodox Church as well. It seems that they think that just because the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church are similar in some ways that the lies they've been told about the Roman Church must also hold true for the Orthodox Church. But neither the Eastern Orthodox Church, nor the Roman Church have a history of banning laypeople from reading the Bible. In fact, I'd say that there were probably stronger efforts by the Eastern Orthodox to translate the Bible and various liturgical texts into the vernacular than there were in the West - but that is my personal opinion.
The other problem with this revisionist history is one that I mentioned above, and it is quite a serious one. When confronted with the fact that they have been lied to by their preachers, and in some cases such as mine, by their schools, people will absolutely leave their faith. I mentioned this in my post On Saint Ignatius. If our pastors, church leaders, and even school curricula is lying to us about stuff that is so easily proven false then what else are they lying to us about? Your very faith can be shaken and lost as you come to terms that you've been lied to your whole life.
Protestants of every stripe need to stop spouting these lies to try to bolster their weak doctrine, because people are leaving the Protestant denominations in droves in favor of Eastern Orthodoxy, the Roman Church, or just leaving the faith altogether.
In conclusion, Tyndale was not burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English, the Pope never forbid the reading of the Bible, and the laity were not forced to hand over their Bibles to be burned.
Lord, have mercy on me, the sinner.
No comments:
Post a Comment