When I was in high school I took three years of Spanish. We often were given homework assignments where we had to translate literature from the original Spanish to English. I have often thought that if more American "Sola Scriptura" Christians had to do this as part of their childhood education they would see how difficult it can be to render complex ideas from one language to another, especially when the original language has a more complex structure and broader vocabulary than the translation language. It's amazing to me how many Christians underestimate the problem of translation when they champion "Sola Scriptura" as a rule for doctrinal authority. Who has the authority to approve the translations?? I know that many Protestants claim that "scripture interprets scripture" (which is problematic at best), but even if this were true, they can't also claim that scripture TRANSLATES scripture from one language to another. Only people can do that.
In Italy we have a high school course of studies called Liceo, and one of the basic subjects is Latin. You spend five years translating stuff from Latin, studying the literature and authors (and for Greek as well if you choose Classic Liceo). It’s difficult but incredibly rewarding, and the knowledge you get when you graduate is priceless. I wish everyone could do that.
Very interesting. As an observant Jew, I was indeed under the impression from other protestants that historically they got burned at the stake for translating the Bible. Generally, thanks for the videos. I think this is the best Catholic and possibly Christian channel, judging on the content and style of the videos as well as Trent's character!!
Division demands justification. When sufficient amounts of justification do not exist; and bearing in mind that nature abhors a vacuum, reasons are fabricated of necessity. During political times of angry polemics, malice multiplies the degree and extent of fabrication.
Just before I began seriously considering Catholicism, it was my encounter with translations like The Message and Word on the Street that convinced me that the Catholic Church was right to be hesitant regarding vernacular translations, despite the myths discussed in this video being drilled into my head as a child. It was obvious to me as a teenager that there must be some mechanism (a magisterium, perhaps) that prevents these so obviously erroneous translations from being developed and circulated.
The message is not a translation, it is commentary. And protestants generally reject it as a valid translation on that basis. Nobody needed a supposedly infallible papal system to come to that conclusion. Any honest truthseeker will.
@@Freethinkingtheist77 The problem is when other Protestants don't and then there has to be a authoritative lens through which to have the correct meaning and understanding of The Bible.
@buzztrucker Forgive me, I'm not sure that I fully understand your point. The Bible is the Christian's authority. People can reject that authority if they choose, but the problem lies, not in Protestantism per se, but in the choice of that person. Just as a Catholic could still reject the teaching of the Church - that would not be a problem for Catholicism but for the individual. I'm also wary of the suggestion that pataphrases are a specifically Protestant problem. There is, for example, a Catholic edition of The Message and I have no doubt there will be Catholics who read it.
Facts: Secular, Protestant, and Catholic scholars agree that the Catholic Church permitted and promoted numerous vernacular translations of scripture for a millennium prior to the Reformation. By the late Middle Ages, vernacular translations were available and accessible to the general public in most places and could be read without need for special permissions, except where particular heresies were associated with errant translations.
@@mr.awsome1288 Please explain your use of the term "only." The authoritative. English language Rheims-Douai preceded the secular KJV by 2-28 years! It was translated on the continent since Catholics were murdered if they remained in England.
@@po18guy-s4she’s referring to the Tyndale Bible which predates Rheims by decades and saw mass persecution across England. One might also look at the Wycliffe Bible as well which saw similar persecution for over a century before the Catholic Church finally decided to translate the Bible into English.
yeah bro, they did have the Bible in vernacular, but only if you could read english from five hundred years ago and had access to one of like ten manuscript copies of these texts. such a misleading cope
I will never forget the moment I heard there were already 9 German translations of the Bible before Martin Luther was even born. There are so many lies passed on in evangelical churches. The history of the Catholic Church is like the game of telephone where everyone hears a different story.
The real question is: Why only Martin Luther that we all known existed, *NOT* the RCC version? Is it because the RCC hid them all out of the reach? Brother, you gotta listen to Jesus Christ that wants the *GOSPEL to be Spread Out to all nations.* Dark Ages exist when the RCC hid the Bible (light). GOD called Luther to bring the light.
Well, in my country the Catholics held their services in Latin and the locals memorized them because they didn't understand a word of it. The pagans considered them spells and the Christians considered them mantras, neither of whom understood what they meant or why they were chanted... I suspect the priests didn't always know what they were saying either. That changed with the Protestant migration... I don't always agree with the Catholics' bitterness towards Protestants. Isn't it clear by reading the Bible what customs and traditions we should follow??
@@exactormortis7433If it was so clear, I don't think we'd see so much disagreement. Is baptism necessary for salvation? Some Protestants say yes, some say no. Isn't the bible clear? Both sides say it is. That's just one example. There are plenty of disagreements in biblical interpretation across denominations, which suggests it isn't all that clear.
@@exactormortis7433 No. The Protestant position makes Jesus 1) absolutely incompetent inasmuch as He failed to write and distribute a bible and 2) a liar since it insists that His Church did indeed fail.
Trent, I regret to inform you that Bible Flock Box has uploaded a video arguing that Peter is not the rock. If you see this, can you please do a rebuttal of him? Thank you and God bless you. Edit: I have noticed this comment received a lot of replies and first, I would like to thank you for defending the papacy. However, I would like to remind you to please be charitable to non-Catholics. Acting uncharitably will more likely push people away from the Church than attract them. Thank you. God bless you. 2nd Edit: I regret posting this. The majority of the notifications I get are now people arguing with each other. I’m still leaving this comment up anyways. 3rd Edit: This comment aged well.
Saint Peter is not the rock. His confession of faith is the rock. A bishop can’t be the foundation of the Church. The faith is the foundation of the Church.
News flash, protsestant just like to expain away Bible verses and deny scripture. Oh and the other News flash, we are still in charge. Just not in your echo chamber. The true Christian Church Jesus set up, the Catholic Church was, is and will be victorious. Come and join us when you want to be Christian.
@@Maranatha99right? Like at 11:25 Trent says tyndale wasn’t “merely” executed for translating the Bible. So he admits he was but then muddies the waters by bringing in other reasons he was unjustly murdered… very difficult to listen to Trent and take him seriously when he does this
Love your channel, Keith. I’m a long time Calvinist, anti Catholic Protestant in RCIA right now and your videos on Mary and other doctrines, as well as Trent’s, have been a great source of info and help.
Got it so William Tyndale was burned at the stake bc the New Testament Bible he translated wasn't approved by the Catholic church. So that makes it perfectly ok....
Right??? Trent comes off horrible in this video. Sounds like he was okay with killing of “heretics” and wants a theocracy for the US. What could go wrong
@@MrWillandtk Yeah, he translated metanoia as repentance, not penance. That's one of the four capital heresies. Oh, BTW, the NABRE and other Catholic translations translate metanoia the same way as Tyndale now.
@@mikeoxmaul1788 in a time when religion was society's only unifying factor and creating a heretical movement was the same as threatening civil order? Its not "less evil" its comprehensible.
I was a Seventh Day Adventist and went to Adventist schools my whole life. In one of our yearly camping events one of the games we played was "Smuggle the Bible". So us, the juniors, need to smuggle Bibles to our teammates on the other side. While our Seniors who played the role of "Catholic Inquisitors" would try to stop us. We played this at night in pitch black so we had to get creative on how we would smuggle the Bibles. This was to remind us that one day the Catholic Church will ban Bibles again to hinder the true believers from worshipping God. The level indoctrination and ignorance was insane. Thank God I am now Orthodox.
@@USDebtCrisisBecause they're of bad will and still Protestant at heart. If people are of good will and willing to believe and accept all that God commands and requires them to believe regardless of the personal cost, the Holy Spirit, the spiritof trith, will lead them to the Catholic Church, not to false sects that teach error.
Glad you "appreciate" this video, but remember, if you went back in time as a Baptist, youd be hunted down and killed by catholics and Protestants alike. Who is to say what "church history" is? Who is the "church"? Better think on that friend
As a fellow Baptist Christian, please realize that this is a VERY Roman Catholic friendly version of the history. Maybe you’ve seen it already, but Gavin Ortlund’s treatment of Tyndale provides what I believe to be a much more balanced and accurate picture: ua-cam.com/video/2DetuTE_XCo/v-deo.html
I would recommend Gavin Ortlund of Truth Unites for sound historical evidence and rebuttal of much of Trents views which, as to be expected, are highly biased by having to be in line with Catholic doctrine
I agree with the other comments. It’s like when a Catholic who was trained in a Catholic school assures me that the rock solid evidence shows that whatever the Catholic Church says is true is true. It’s like of course they’d say that. I agree, give Truth Unites a shot, weigh the pros and cons of both.
I normally like Trent, but this is too much of a political spin-job. Here's the beauty about being a protestant - I can freely look at certain points in history and say "the church messed up". Instead Trent has to work in all these lawyer-like technicalities, bring several what-about arguments, and label anyone that comments otherwise as being "anti-catholic" (btw, if that's a valid response then I should be able to dismiss everything that Trent says because he's "anti-Protestant"). His last point about the Catholic church not being tyrannical, but "pastoral, who guides believers" is a spit-take to anyone who knows medieval history.
You are not adressing the point being made by Trent, and circling back to the propaganda. He's not giving what about arguments, he's NOT defending the cruelty done. He's exposing the propagand and LIES conjooled by states to get control of the churches in their teritiories to get at the wealth of the poor. Lies like "the Catholic church did not allow Bibles in the common english", or "the Catholic church kept Bibles chained so people could not have them" or "the Catholics did not print Bibles in english as they knew people would see their additions were not bibical". You know, those "little" lies used to snare ordinary folk and turn them anti-papist. Medieval history was more about wholesale cruelty on all side for those without the means. It was living from hand to mouth with death by the cabin door every winter or sooner. No one is justifying the cruelty done accross the board in those times.
@@OnYaBoya I appreciate you admitting to the cruelty and not justifying it. You are right that Trent doesn’t say it was justified, but he also doesn’t go out of his way to say it wasn’t, which I believe one should do when discussing these matters. He clearly portrayed the protestant executions as wrong (which they were) so why can’t he do the same on his side? Thanks for reading!
So what ! There was no Protestants chosen to be named Apostle . There was no Protestant present at the Last Supper nor Pentecost. GOD did not send any Angles to see any Protestants. You have no connection to the Twelve. Now cite any miracle from any Protestant! The fires in Maui burn which churches to the ground!
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Popes today apologize for everything you can accuse the church of, dont expect a Mordern Pope engage in apologetics, its sad really
@@bluecollarcatholic8173What a genius comment! The church didn’t kill Hus now you stupid Protestants, they only convicted him of the worst crime possible at the time and turned him over to the authorities. Because we all know that the separation of the Church and State was a well established concept that totally came out of the medieval era. Be a good little Papist now and apologize like our good friend JPII, will you?
I don’t think the Protestants who make this argument fully grasp the danger of wildly accepting any vernacular translation. Only takes few mistakes to completely change meanings and misrepresent doctrines.
I am running into this issue right now with the somewhat recent publication of an extremely spurious and sectarian "translation" of the Bible called The Passion Translation. This publication is laughably bad and promotes aberrant quasi-Christian doctrine that is leading many sincere believers from the true God and the true gospel through distortion, misrepresentation, and outright fabrication. I am protestant and don't think I could ever reconcile some doctrines that the RC Church teaches, however, the proliferation of terrible and biased versions of the Bible is a massive problem.
Only if you never compare translations. This is the problem with denominations that demand on eover others, which often includes Roman Catholics. It's worst as a congregational thing, because some preachers like to reference controversial versions of translations, such as The Message, but that becomes dangerous when the person is specifically quoting the only translation that has a specific rendering. Going back to the Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic is ideal, but there's more than one for some of those, although not really for anything critical on the theology. For example, there's no credible source for Ephesians 2:8-10 that renders if in some way as to suggest something other than "by grace through faith."
Nobody deserves to die for it! Is it really such as big deal to say the Church in the 15th and 16th century went way too far and sinned? What are you going to do next? Defend the Albigensian genocide or the Ustasa?
As a Protestant I respect Trent and enjoy his channel. It gives me more insight into the beliefs of the Catholic Church and my Catholic brothers and sisters. That being said, in this video Trent is being overly technical at best or deliberately misleading at worst. Very disappointing.
Edited: removed comment considering preamble which I initially missed. This is disingenuous. Even leaving aside William Tyndale (which it’s bizarre to say he wasn’t executed for translating the Bible into English; he was hiding in Denmark to escape execution in England), Thomas Bilney, John Oldcastle, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbury, James Bainham, and John Frith were all executed for smuggling and translating an English version of the Bible which (rightfully) came to different conclusions about certain translations (such as translating Μετανοεῖτε as repent rather than do penance, the Catholic practice). Furthermore, the idea that spurious translations that did pop up in the period leading up to the Reformation does not negate the fact that the Catholic Church at this time actively opposed these translations. “Truly our venerable brother the bishop of Metz has signified to us in his letter that both in the diocese and in the city of Metz the multitude of laymen and women, drawn in no small way by desire, have had the Scriptures, Gospels, the Pauline epistles, the Psalter, the commentaries on Job and many other books translated for their own use into the French language, exerting themselves towards this kind of translation so willingly, but not so prudently, that in secret meetings the laymen and women dare to discuss such matters between themselves, and to preach to each other: they also reject their community, do not intermingle with similar people, and consider themselves separate from them, and do not align their ears and minds with them; when any of the parish priests wished to censure them concerning these matters, they stood firm before them, trying to argue from the Scriptures that they should not be prohibited in any way from doing these things. Some of them also scorned the simplicity of their priests; and when the Word of Salvation is shown to them by those priests, they grumble in secret that they understand the Word better in their little books and that they can explain it more prudently” (Innocent III writing to the diocese of Mentz, 1199). The problem isn’t bad translations, it is their having non-latin translations, full stop. And they “dare to discuss such matters between themselves.” He also states later that “From this it was rightly once established in divine law that the beast which touches the mountain should be stoned; that is, so that no simple and unlearned man presumes to concern himself with the sublimity of sacred Scripture, or to preach it to others.” This is advocating the death penalty for the heresy of having vernacular translations. Further, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, “14. Lay people are not permitted to possess the books of the Old and New Testament, only the Psalter, Breviary, or the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, and these books not in the vernacular language.” Nothing here either about these merely being bad translations. Non-latin translation at all were not allowed and were punishable, “4. Whoever, allowing a heretic to stay on his property either for money or any other cause, if he confesses or is convicted, loses his property forever and his body is handed over to the civil authority for punishment.” And again, the Council of Toulouse in 1229, “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and New Testaments; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.” Nothing about differing theological beliefs, these books were banned for being non-latin translations, full-stop.
You lie. It is literally in Cum ex Injuncto, in the prevailing address, not in the main body. You should also seek the truth carefully: who was the author of this translation, what was their intention, what is the faith of those using it, what is the cause of teaching it, if they venerate the apostolic see and the Catholic Church; so that, after being instructed by your letter, we would be able to better understand what should be done about these and other things which are necessary for more fully investigating the truth. - Pope Innocent III Cum Ex Injuncto Sicut Ecclesiarum praelatis And you also lie about the contexts of Cum Ex Injuncto, It is about heretics preaching in secret and confounding simple men into following them into heresy. " But although the desire to understand the divine Scriptures, and, according to the Scriptures themselves, the zeal to spread them, is not forbidden, but is rather commendable, nevertheless the arguments against it appear well-deserved, because those who do not adhere to such arguments celebrate their assemblies in secret, usurp for themselves the duty of preaching, mock the simplicity of the priests and reject their community. For God, the true light, which illuminates all men coming into this world, hates such works of darkness so much that when he was about to send his apostles out into the world to preach the Gospel to all creation, he ordered them clearly, saying: "That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops"[4]; announcing openly in this way that the preaching of the Gospel must not be carried out in hidden communities, as heretics do, but in churches in the Catholic manner. For according to the testimony of Truth, "every one that doth evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest: because they are done in God" - Pope Innocent III Cum Ex Injuncto
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 The edition I was looking at for some reason did not include the preamble, only the main body, so you are correct, and I'll amend my statement above. However, my point still stands about opposition to translations being opposed outright. Included in the concept of heresy was those who made these translations.
@@ThisGuy1098 No, even that point is false. We have alot of examples of venacular scriptures before the reformation, the famed LINDISFARNE GOSPELS is one good example of a venacular scripture written for the english people. (too bad that the english language evolved and it became unusable for the majority of the inhabitants )
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 That text was produced around 700 AD. The Catholic Church didn't begin banning non-latin versions of the Bible until about 500 years later, so that's not particularly a counter point.
@@ThisGuy1098 It is a good counterpoint because it shows that in principle, the Catholic Church is not against venacular translations, She is just against heretics translating the bible. Translations should be done only with the imprimatur of the Church. It is like saying Muslims should be okay translating the bible without oversight by the church and that we should be treating their translations legitimate
They weren't killed for making bible translations but for heresy. But it wasn't the Catholic church that sanctioned their deaths it was the secular authorities that executed them for the secular crime of... heresy... against the Catholic church
Okay so who executed Christ? Were those of the Jewish authorities not any part responsible since they did not directly kill Him? The Sanhedrin judged Him unlawfully and then handed Him over to the Romans. Also, the new Christians which were later killed by Nero and his regime, was it right since they were preaching a thing that was in contrary to the state religion of imperial worship??
@@shayalynn... nobody said they were right of did not take part of the blame. You are deliberately misrepresentation the argument in the video. Watch it again and see if you can grasp it. HINT - protestants propogate lies that the church had them burned to hide the scripture and the church was deliberately not producing Bibles in local vernacular languages to again keep the bible out of the common mans hand ( let us forget that only a small SMALL percentage of the population could even read, or afford to even contemplate reading. )
@silvereight6054 the state and the church were not one. King and religious entities were always seperate, but granted not AS separate as they are today.
Are you saying he had no influence on Hus? That's like absolving Marx because he died before 1917 and thought only industrial economies were ripe for revolution.
@@DavidRealMusic Gnostics deviated heavily from Christ, how did Hus deviated from Tyndale? They both hated the authority of the Seat of Peter, they both hated the clergy/laity distinction, they both hated Justification by works done in love.
As a presbyterian, it makes me sad to see that we have allowed ourselves to become perpetuators of these myths. Hopefully this video is seen by my fellow protestants, and they look into these myths and those who teach them before accepting them as truth.
Trent breezily covers centuries in a few minutes. It is way more complicated than this hand waivy defence of English religious tolerance in the 15th and early 16th centuries. The English state was not kind to dissenters as you presby should well know. When the country was Catholic it brutally suppressed all non-state sanctioned expressions of religious belief. It was why people flocked to the New World. Hearing Americans defend centuries of English religious oppression is weird.
@@clivejungle6999 The English Reformation (1529) happened nearly a century before English colonies began appearing in the Americas (Jamestown 1619, Plymouth 1620). The English settlers weren't fleeing Catholicism, they were fleeing the Anglicans.
@@vercingetorix5708 really interesting that the Catholic nations (Portugal, Spain, France) all spread Catholic evangelism in their colonies. Maybe the English weren't Catholic enough. Also don't forget Maryland (literally Mary's land), which was an English colony settled by Catholics also trying to flee the Anglicans.
Yeah and also the cathars weren't killed by other cathars after the consolamentum if they lived. Some would voluntarily starve themselves, which again bad. But this is emtirely different than the picture Trent tries to paint. But again his most trusted source will always be what the modern catholic church teaches, so I expect this
Wycliffe's ashes were thrown into the river Swift, which flows into the Avon. The Avon to the Severn flows, the Severn to the Sea. And Wycliffe's dust shall spread abroad, wide as the oceans be! God bless him and all the English Reformers!
Wycliffe peacefully died at home. No persecutions against him. His ideas and books were condemned. Which is the role of the Church: to keep the Truth and fight against errors.
Hey Trent, one correction. While it's commonly believed that Jerome's translation was designated as "the vulgate" was because it was written in the "vulgar" (common) Latin of his time, that's not actually the case. The word "vulgata" in "Versio Vulgata" (the common version) does not mean "common" in the sense of "language of the common people" but rather the version which was "common" to all the Churches (in this case all the Latin Churches). What we now call the "Vetus Latina" (old Latin) version of the Scriptures from before Jerome's translation were referred to as the "Vulgate" during their time and even long after Jerome translated the Gospels and the Old Testament. It wasn't until the Middle Ages that the term "Vulgate" was used to describe Jerome's translation, because it wasn't until then that it became the commonly accepted Latin form of the Bible throughout the Western Church. I wanted to share this simply because this is, unfortunately, a commonly restated myth which doesn't appear to be accurate. Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that the Vulgate was written in some esoteric form of Latin that only the highly educated could read. What I am saying is that literacy wasn't that high at the time (by Jerome's time it was probably around 10% at the very most if not significantly lower), and so writing in Latin for the "common man to read" wasn't a top priority for anyone.
@@deutschermichel5807 I think the idea is more around the common man being able to understand the Bible being read to them, but same principle more or less applies.
@@deutschermichel5807man like a fraction of the population of all countries could read. People were read to. Literacy was not the norm until slightly after the invention of the printing press
@@deutschermichel5807 Yes, because the common man can only learn how to read if they read the Bible. If they read anything else other than the Bible, they wouldn't be able to learn to read. Laughable.
Why are Catholic apologists so slow to say, “Hey, we were wrong for our role in those executions.” I have never heard a protestant try to justify and explain away the executions that their history was a part of. I have heard them many times admit that those acts were blatantly wrong before God. This was a 23 minute video and only half of a sentence (“some of which should be condemned”) took any responsibility whatsoever for the violence that took place. No matter what type of Christian you call yourself, please be willing to admit quickly and openly when your tradition was wrong! (even if others misrepresent you in the process)
So here you show how you've fallen for the propaganda Trent has pointed out in THIS VERY VIDEO. QQ - you watched the video right? Just do some basic "research", aka a Google search. Wycliffe died naturally. Tyndale and Hus were killed by the state for sedition as his ideas were rightly seen as unsettling to society and hate speach could provoke violence. It's obvious that it wouldn't matter if apologies were given, as the deaths are being used politically to generate hate against Catholics, just look at people like Gender and the blatent lies he continues to peddle, to the glee of fan boys vested in that culture.
So just to be clear, you are making the claim that the Roman Catholic Church was never in error for any of the executions that took place? Yes, I watched all 23 minutes waiting for him to say something to the effect of, “Now listen, we as the Church do need to admit to the sins of our past, even if they are exaggerated by others.” That statement never came. I have been to Narni, Italy and seen with my own eyes a torture chamber where “heretics” were sent to suffer horrifically. Are you sure you are not the one falling for a romanticized version of the history? I agree that many protestants have over exaggerated the sins of the Roman Catholic Church. But does that mean that you should simply ignore them? I am openly admitting that the protestants were wrong for what they did in those executions. I hope you can do the same on your side. Thanks for your response!
This video isn't about justifying or addressing the executions as a whole. It's about one specific thing and trying to dispel that myth. Should a follow up video be made about executions as whole? Absolutely.
@@Cklert Thank you for a valid and gracious response. I understand it wasn’t the purpose of the video to denounce the executions, but by not doing so, it definitely gives the impression that they don’t need to be denounced. We as believers should be pretty quick to recognize the sins we did commit when defending ourselves against exaggerated accusations being made against us.
13:33 yes we believe that the church should regulate bible translation but we don't burn Jehova's witnesses to death. I really think you are reaching on this one.
Well, you are likely in a secular state that has secularist founding documents that inspired a secularist culture that promotes secularist values though democratic means. So, naturally, that would be your opinion. The concept of a state has fundementally been changed by such elightenment innovations, that the old concept of the state is utterly foreign.
@@iagoofdraiggwyn98yes, but when the disciples called Jesus to rain down fire on the cities that rejected them, they were rebuked for their wish to burn people.
@@ReyChurchill Two things. First, technically speaking, they asked if Jesus wanted them to call down fire from heaven. To which Our Lord rebuked them. Second, the sentiment expounded is not relevant to the topic at hand. This isnt about heathens, those who reject or simply dont know, but about heretics, those who pervert. Think about when someone tried to pretend to be a prophet of God, or what Paul says about who preaches a different gospel.
@@ReyChurchill Pretty sure thats not what i said. What i said is that heresy is and has been a bit deal to God and the Church. The killing of false prophets is an example of this and the use of anthamas (which is what Paul said) is also there. In a secularist state, where it is not a Christian nation, there is no prescription to a relgion as the state is arelgious, as such the law of the state is a wholly secular and justified by secular humanism and liberalism. This is not how the orginal nation of Isreal and the kingdom of God are or was or will be, as the law of those places are or were theocratic. What i get confused about is why we put God lower than other things. Treason warrents the death penalty, because it a crime against the state and can cause harm of the citizens. Why would we put those crimes against the kingdom which would hurt the citizens of the kingdom lower? Is God less important than government?
He didn’t brush it off. The point of the video wasn’t to explain or defend that practice. The point was about Bible translations and how Protestant arguments against Catholicism in this regard can equally be applied to them. Discussing burning people at the stake for heresy, it’s application and frequency is it’s own topic.
Yes and the Bible allowed polygamy, Incest and slavery Perhaps we can be adults and remember that things that were permissable hundreds if not thousands of years ago aren't permitted nowadays since as God reveals himself more to humanity we evolve and become better How are you any different than a liberal who claims we can't celebrate the founders because of slavery
Brushes off calling for the burning down and genocide of God's original chosen people and names themselves after that man whose last writing efforts on earth were spent arguing for that despicable behavior.
Catholic Church is like the Israel in the Old Testament, both contains a sinner people including the authority, in Old Testament like Saul, David, and Solomon, but God still chose them even knowing that they will sin and fall, and their belief is still the truth, people's mistake doesn't negate their belief's truth.
Thanks for the video. As a Protestant, I think you’re missing one of the more important Protestant objections. Should the vernacular be translated from the Latin (as Trent confirmed) or the Greek/Hebrew? While St. Jerome gave the Latin from the Greek/Hebrew, Tyndale and John Rogers were aiming to the source. Even the Knox Bible you mention later still works from the Latin while only consulting the Hebrew/Greek for accuracy. Trent’s fathers argued that for the standard acceptance of the Vulgate. You're right to argue it is all about the authority to translate the Bible, but the Protestants were looking for the historic Bible as its chief authority over present concerns.
The best "original" source for the Bible was the Latin Vulgate for two reasons: it was translated from the earliest and most common sources, and the Latin language doesn't change. Classical Greek has changes since 2000 years ago. Translators still debate words today even with the accumulated knowledge since the 1500s. Ecclesiastical Latin was created for the Church. Classical Latin did not have all the words needed for Mass or Scripture. These definitions have remained static for 2000 years. That is why knowing the Latin can be more simple and revealing than retranslating the Greek. The KJV uses the Latin as a source for translation along with 3 fringe Greek sources that most scholars do not use in modern translations. I would discredit any Bible that translates "Hail, Mary, full of grace" to "favored one". This is a purposely mistranslation to demote the theological implications of Mary's sinlessness to a sinner that was chosen by God to bear the New Ark of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. Only one other person in the Bible was "full of grace" and that is Jesus: "full of grace and truth". The Catholic Church has the fullness of grace and truth. Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. Everything in the Catholic Church points to Jesus Christ.
@classicalteacher - I would agree with your statements about the strengths of Latin (I've taught Latin for a number of years in our Classical School.) Although these are not the reasons that the Fathers at Trent gave. The Reformation fathers were interacting with the scholarship of men like Erasmus and the recent scholarship advances in Greek and Hebrew (only recently coming to the University during the time of Tyndale). In his 95 Theses, Luther cites these differences, specially the difference between “repent” and “do penance” (Poenitentiam agite) in the Vulgate version as how the mistranslation of St. Jerome imported a doctrine into the text. As for “Full” of Grace, that idea of "full" isn’t a literal translation of the Greek text, but I wouldn’t say it is wrong either. Even the RSV and RSV-CE differ on it. The Council of Trent defended the Vulgate as the authoritative Bible - above other texts: “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” The strength of the Vulgate according to Trent was that the Church tradition had approved it. Protestant use of the other manuscripts undermined the authority of the Roman church, not of the Scripture. “Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.” Council of Trent, Session 4, 2nd Decree
@@classicalteacher: I fully agree. Since we know that words can change their meaning over time, I always go back to the Vulgate as I trust St. Jerome's interpretation. "...full of grace..." is good enough for me!
@@FrSteveMaciasAs a non-Catholic, it is my understanding that the Council of Trent's "closing of the canon" and making the Vulgate the authoritative text, is overstated. It is less so that, and more establishing them as boundary marks which cannot be transgressed. The reason for this is the Greeks. It was known at Trent that the Greeks had texts in their canon which were not in the Vulgate. However, there were no texts in the Vulgate which the Greeks would not accept. Rather than settle that question, Trent phrased it in a way that would prevent books from the Vulgate, or the Vulgate being considered less authoritative than the Greek or Hebrew, but does not place the Vulgate over the Greek or Hebrew. Technically, the Greeks could agree with the statements of Trent on the Vulgate even though they did not use the Vulgate themselves.
@@classicalteacherWhat do you think of the recent discovery (Named "The Elton Anomoly") that the total "wordcount", including verses, chapters, and titles, of the KJV bible comes out to exactly Seven to the Seventh Power (823,543)?
This is not propagated by Protestant scholars, that’s like saying Catholics scholars and authorities claim Martin Luther removed books from the Bible when he didn’t.
You don't burn people because they translating the bible. You burn them because they believe sleep souls, justification by faith, which is the whole narrative of Trent, which even more ridiculous reasons to burn people. Roman Catholicism is false authority, it was never intended to be the infallible institution apoointed by Christ. The grave mistake on interpreting the word of Jesus: "Upon this Rock I will build my church." Christ is called a rock, 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: "I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."
@@matthewashman1406 Obviously you didn’t watch the video because Trent lays out the history in a clear and concise way indicating that’s a Protestant myth. It seems like you’re still in the state of needing to unlearn a lot of falsehoods that you’ve been taught by the church.
As a protestant from Hungary I can just confirm one of the main points. For example between the first protestant and first catholic hungarian translation of the Bible is only around 30 years difference (which means almost contemporal work in the 16-17. century) There were partial Bible translations by catholics even before the reformation. I think it is correlated not just with the reformation but book printing technology as well. Anyway: I like this channel because it is an excellent example that good faith is inspiring regardless to denominational differences.
The invention of the printing press in the 1400’s really was a game changer. When you think about it, Luther’s reformation wouldn’t have gotten far if he didn’t have access to printing presses, since his ideas could spread faster than the church could respond to or control.
I don't think it's morally acceptable, but it is understandable why it happened. The reformers weren't just presenting theological ideas in a vacuum, they were in open opposition to what was at the time the state enforced religion and the real danger was the political threat that they presented. Which was a completely legitimate concern for the various rulers of the 16th century to have - every single monarchy in Europe collapsed within the next couple hundred years pretty much as a direct result of the Reformation.
@@zacharynelson5731so ... You implying that Holocaust denial shouldn't be illegal but heresy should be punishable by death? What's your point? personally I think both are free thought/ free speech
Also this video still insufficiently articulates the gravity of the favt that in the Middle Ages, before the Reformers, most people didnt read or understand Latin and therefore, largely, the clergy understood the Bible for them. Circa the time of the reformers, the Catholic Church fairly and unfairly discouraged vernacular translations for sale of heresy or disagreement - and then also suppressed these, burned these, and burned heretics. I would posit the last, offends Jesus. But what do you think?
This video answers some more extreme Protestant strawmen. It doesn't explain why: 1) The Church produced nothing in English after Hastings for 600 years. 2) The Church didn't produce an English Bible or even an NT for 200 years after Wycliffe. 3) Nor for even decades after Tyndale. 4) And during those decades, the Protestants released no less than 5 or 6 translations into English, before finally settling on the KJV. 5) The original DRB comes with notes complaining that the public shouldn't have access to a vernacular Bible but that it was necessary to release it due to the Reformation. Fun fact: The revision of the DRB from 1749 onwards actually used the KJV as the base text type, not the original DRB. It's basically a Catholicised KJV. Which, ironically, means that the single largest translator of the modern DRB is....Tyndale. Oh yeah, the NABRE has 'repent' in Mark 1:15, same as Tyndale.
The DRB is older than the KJB. It was completed in 1609, making it older than the KJV, which was not published until 1611. The fact that the Rheims New Testament was published in 1582 meant that it appeared almost thirty years before the KJV New Testament.
Your presentation of John Wycliffe is not correct. 1) The Lollards formed with extreme versions of some of Wycliffe’s views. They went well beyond Wycliffe. He may have inspired a popular movement, but he was not connected to it and certainly was not a leader of it. 2) Wycliffe wasn’t burned alive for heresy because King Richard resisted heresy burnings until 1401. Once the first burning was ordered, it more broadly swept across England. It also caused Wycliffe’s remains to be dug up and defiled, as well as his books to be burned. So technically it’s true he did not die a martyr… but that’s not from a lack of trying from the papacy. 3) He rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation. Not the divine presence in the Eucharist. Keep in mind, a majority of Catholics polled today do not accept transubstantiation. So this shouldn’t be that shocking. I don’t think your presentation on Jan Hus was very strong either. It’s well established that Jan Hus was burned for numerous things that is easiest summarized as… fighting with papist clergy. He accused them of simony and debauchery specifically, among other things. His execution as a heretic is so egregious it is acknowledged by the Catholic Church as a tragic mistake and two popes have apologized for the role of the Catholic Church regarding the burning of Jan Hus. So to suggest this is simply some misunderstanding and he was absolutely a heretic that needed to burn is absolutely wrong and even conflicts with your Pope’s views on the issue. If a pope views it as a tragedy and offers a formal apology, then it is prudent to submit to his decision and accept that the Catholic Church committed an egregious mistake at a minimum.
@@deutschermichel5807because the monarch is the one who hands down the sentence of the church, and they’re in bed together. No separation of church and state, this video is LOADED with sins of omission and not a faithful dialogue.
@@deutschermichel5807 who killed Naboth? Was Pilot or the Pharisees responsible for the death Christ? Adam or Eve responsible for taking the fruit? In those days church and state worked in tandem and the state generally executed anyone the church handed over to them in the way the church prescribed. Leaning on a technicality like this is goofy
Trent has a history of fairly bad-faith engagement. In debates in the past, he has stated that his goal is to move as many people as possible to his side first, and to educate second. He’s specifically said that he’ll give superficially convincing arguments that aren’t sound alongside sounder arguments that are less convincing, because this may win more people to his view. In the most faithful of interpretations, these things (the ends and the means) are constantly competing for him.
I think you are downolaying Jan Hus's errors, he refused to recant his heresies which involved a denial of Saint Paul's involvement with the murders of christians, a denial of Saint Peter's leadership amongst the Apostles, a denial of the passing down of the apostolic charism of Saint Peter's leadership. A denial that man can be part of the church and fall away from it
I feel like separation of church and state never meant to be separation of Christian ethics and state. I doubt the founding fathers would have seen the secular world we’ve come into as a good thing.
That so funny I was having a chat with a Protestant that said William Tyndale was executed for translating the Bible. I had to correct him, and told him that he was allowed to carry on his translation while in prison so that can't be the reason why he was executed. I also told him that he was executed for his books on heresy the church investigator Catholic inquisitor, Jacobus Latomus, gave him the opportunity to write a book stating his views and there was a back and forth with Latomus trying to convince him of his error.
That is interesting, but you agree he was indeed killed by the Catholic Church because of his “error”. I hope you can also agree that killing someone simply for holding a view that is believed to be in error should never be considered morally acceptable. I’d imagine you would think this to be a great evil if it were your views which were the ones being persecuted.
@@micahstory Funny enough it wasn't the Catholic Church that executed him, it was the state of Brabantine for sedition. The Catholic inquisitor did find him guilty of heresy. But then handed him over to the state for sentencing. In the state of Brabantine heresy was look at in the same way as sedition and carry the sentence of death The Catholic inquisitor Jacobus Latomus was actually trying to save his life, and had a back and forth with him for a year and half. If he had recounted his heresies and went back to orthodoxy they wouldn't have been able to execute him. One must remember that the secular government wanted him out of the way because of civil unrest. It was a regime that got it legitimacy from the Catholic Church and would have executed Tyndale straight because of his writings. But the Catholic inquisitor was there to make sure things were done fairly and to give Tyndale a chance to reconsider his ideas about the faith with some one that knew the faith. So in all no I don't agree that the Catholic Church killed Tyndale.
Except that’s a lie. Tyndale certainly wrote the letter in the Belgian archives _asking_ for his hebrew books, but there is no evidence he received them. To claim he was translating while in prison is to make something up whole cloth.
@@TryingToFollowChrist37 just so you know, I’m not a Catholic hater. I like Trent and I listen to other Catholic yt channels as well. You clearly know quite a bit more about this topic than I do, so I have no way of disputing what you’re saying, however, if the Catholic inquisitor interrogated him, clearly it was the Catholic Church that was in charge of whether he lived or died. That would be like someone saying that it wasn’t the Jewish religious leaders who had Jesus killed, it was Pilate. While it could be debated over who bears the most guilt, clearly, without the Catholic Church being involved, Tyndale would not have been killed. The fact that there was a death sentence for “heretics” is very much against the teachings of Christ. You won’t find him or the disciples killing any heretics in the New Testament, even people like Simon the Sorcerer were spared that.
Wow, that's about as low as you can possibly go. Tyndale, Wycliffe and several others were horribly executed simply because they translated the Bible into the vernacular, and the documents from the day SPECIFICALLY STATE THIS.
Oh what a relief, Tynedale wasn’t burned for his Bible, but his “Lutheranism”, that makes it so much better. “English had a harder time getting vernacular versions”. Yes, because you killed them all. This is by far Horn’s most laughable take yet. He conveniently left out the part of how they dug up Wycliffe’s bones and burned his bones. This is what happens when you decide to defend Rome at all costs
You from the same camp, blinded by your hatred Mr. Trent is not representing the people who did that. That's the lie the hate speech spin doctors tell. You cling to the lie more that the Christian values you purport to defend, yet you are from the same ilk as those who did what you say.
The fact that Catholics could even judge the translations of William Tyndale is absolutely unbelievable. William was well learned in Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. He could read and write in the languages of Scripture, and his translations were well received and lauded for how correct they were. In fact, his translations were so linguistically coherent and loyal to the native languages of Scripture that it was the Catholic translation into Latin that was considered to be off by language scholars. The simple fact is that William sought only one thing: That Scripture be available to all: From the least to the most of humanity. And, because his translations were practically beyond complaint (minus fickle complaints regarding undotted "i's"), the Catholic church had to prohibit his translations in fear that man might actually realize it doesn't need the church. Were other translations available? Yes. There were other translations; Coptic, Gothic etc, but none that were in such a common vernacular as English. The simple and damning fact is that the Catholic church did not release an English translation of Scripture until much, much later, and after they had burned alive many men of God for their devotion to Christ and His Holy Word. William Tyndale is the man that sought to have Scripture accessible to all people. And, even now the Catholic church rejects this and calls him a heretic. Only Satan would endorse the prohibition of Scripture, because through Scripture, we are saved. It is Scripture that convicts the heart, cuts through every lie of Satan and equips man for every spiritual battle and adversity. William Tyndale is a true Saint and man of Christ. And, Catholics will smear and insult him forever because their church is their God, not Christ. William Tyndale died for Christ. The church kills for itself. Pseudochristos.
Not familiar with the guy, but we should go with the authority that can actually trace its roots to the Apostles, which is the Catholic Church. No one prior to the protestants taught that the church was unnecessary, besides maybe non-christians (arians, gnostics, etc). To learn history is to fail to be prostestant.
Never forget the Gunpowder plot in 1605 by the Catholic Jesuits to blow up the Parliament building in England to prevent the KJV from being created. It's what the movie V for Vendetta Symbolises , the mask stands for Accepting Catholicism as the new Religion hiding your face behind a Mystery mask from Rome. V represent the Jesuit who got caught and his back story is a false victim role where England banned all Jesuits from the country. Babylon Mystery Religion The Catholics never wanted to give acces to the common man. Without pay.
"Man might realize he doesn't need the Church" And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter,* and on this rock* I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades* shall not prevail against it.* I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,* and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” - Matthew 16:17-19 I'll stick with Jesus who established the Church.
You're right on every point except our need for the Church. When we come to saving faith, Christ redeems us and brings us into the fellowship of the saints, the Church He established by His Blood. Denying the Church is not same as denying Christ, but it is very close, because Christ is the one and only Head of the Church, His Body and Bride, and so you reject a deep part of Christ's power and authority in your life with this statement, when you, dear brother, have no doubt proclaimed your total alleigance to Christ and His Word. The Church is where we hear (primarily) hear the Word of God preached to us, where we receive Baptism (which has replaced circumcision in the Kingdom of God) as public ceremony and means of grace which confirms our faith before the Church and the world, and where we (spiritually) feed on the body and blood of Christ in Communion/Eucharist, (which has replaced the sacrificial system). I get that it's not easy to trust institutions, liturgies, or other religious functions. Indeed, I certainly don't trust them in themselves. Instead, I trust that the Holy Spirit will work through them and through us as individuals as Jesus promised us He would be.
As someone who reads the Bible in Church Slavonic and saw some of the earliest Old Church Slavonic translations, I can say that a significant number of Greek vocabulary had to be borrowed in order to produce a usable translation. Languages have to evolve before the Bible can be faithfully translated.
@@StoaoftheSouth if you look at which words the English had to import into Polynesian languages before they could make treaties everyone understands, you will change your opinion
Over 500 years after the tragic event, Pope John Paul II came to the homeland of Jan Hus and apologized for the cruel death inflicted on him (see pg. 4). Here is the story behind that sad yet triumphant episode in church history. Forbidden to Speak The date was July 6, 1415. The priest who stood alone in the Cathedral of Constance, hands chained in front of him, had a favorite saying, "Truth Conquers." Watching to see if he would stand for truth or flinch were hundreds of churchmen and Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor. Noblemen of Bohemia, knights and other witnesses also looked on. Jan Hus (pronounced Yon Hoos) was about to be ritually stripped of his priestly office. Outside the cathedral, a stake was in preparation at which to "cook the goose." (Hus means "goose" in Czech.) A list of charges was read, but as Hus tried to answer them, Cardinal Peter D'Ailly ordered him to be quiet. Hus was told that he could reply to all the charges at one time. "And how should I reply to all of them together when I cannot reflect upon them all together?" protested Hus. He continued to try to answer each charge but was told, "Be silent now. We have already heard enough from you!" "I plead with you, for God's sake, hear me, so that those standing here will not believe that I held such errors. Afterward you can do to me what you like!" cried Jan. But he was forbidden to say anything at all. At this, he fell to his knees and committed his cause to God. A few minutes later he was even rebuked because he had appealed to God! Hus was on trial because he was the most vocal champion of reform in the Czech church. For years he had preached to his fellow Czechs in their own language at Bethlehem Chapel, one of only two chapels in the whole nation allowed to offer vernacular sermons. The reforms he called for were not extreme. To some extent, his views were formed by his reading of the works of the English reformer John Wycliffe, but Hus never accepted Wycliffe's most radical demands. At first, Hus was supported by his archbishop, Zbynek (pronounced Sbiniek) and by mad King Vaclav IV. But Zbynek, who had bought his office, had little scriptural knowledge and soon believed those who said Hus was a heretic. For his part, Vaclav supported Hus only until Hus denounced the methods being used to sell indulgences. Pardons for sins were being hawked shamelessly, and Vaclav wanted his cut of the profits. Repeatedly accused of heresy, Hus was excommunicated four times, once in violation of church procedure. He appealed and sent spokesmen to represent his true positions, but these messengers were mistreated and even cast into prison. Two radical reformers, who had gone far beyond Hus, were pressured to recant. They turned on Hus and claimed he taught things he hadn't. To answer these claims and to clear himself, Hus accepted an invitation to present his case at the Council of Constance. Emperor Sigismund guaranteed his safety. Sigismund's promise proved worthless and he himself would eventually call for Hus' death. As for the churchmen, many were stung by Hus' denunciation of their greed, gluttony, sexual sins and ignorance. Indeed, on the walls of Bethlehem chapel, paintings contrasted the lives of rich proud popes with the humility and poverty of Christ and the apostles. The very council that condemned Hus proved his point. Thousands of churchmen gathered to end a split in the papacy, which saw as many as three popes ruling at once. One of their acts was to imprison Pope John XXIII for a long list of serious crimes, including rape, piracy and murder--while 1,500 prostitutes thronged the town, eager to serve the delegates. On June 8, Cardinal D'Ailly put a choice to the prisoner. He could cast himself on the mercy of the council, renouncing a list of errors he was alleged to have taught, or he could insist on one more hearing. D'Ailly recommended against Hus requesting another hearing. Having long taught that one must stand by truth, regardless of the consequences, Hus could not accept the first choice. And his experience with the council showed him that the second option was a sham. Now, almost a month later, he had his final chance. The council urged him to reject certain heresies that they claimed he had taught. Hus declared that he would gladly root out all heresy if he could be shown from the Bible anything false that he had taught. He flatly refused to pretend he had ever promoted the lies attributed to him. He prayed aloud for God's forgiveness of the clergymen who had rigged his trial. But those for whom he prayed jeered at him. The lonely priest was stripped of the symbols of his office. When they took the cup from him, he declared his hope that Christ would not take the cup of mercy from him. When they committed his soul to the devil, he committed it to Christ. Outside, they led him to the stake. After kneeling in prayer, he was chained by the neck. Wood was piled around him. Urged one last time to renounce his errors, he replied that he had never taught the things charged to him. "The principle intention of my preaching and of all my other acts or writings was solely that I might turn men from sin. And in that truth of the Gospel that I wrote, taught, and preached in accordance with the sayings and expositions of the holy scriptures, I am willing gladly to die today." When the fire was lit, the brave reformer began to sing. The Daring Reformer of Prague Jerome of Prague was a daring Czech reformer who delighted in taunting the opposition. It was Jerome who had brought Wycliffe's works from England to Prague. Although he knew the risk he was taking--Hus had already been burned-- he slipped into Constance, supposing he could slip out again. He almost succeeded but was caught before he reached the safety of an international border. When tried by the council, Jerome wavered at first, but eventually stood firm to his beliefs and was condemned. A paper hat with devils painted on it was placed on his head. Like Hus, he was burned. What Hus Wanted Reform of the clergy and papacy Preaching in local languages rather than in Latin. Testing church teachings by the word of God. Administration of the Eucharist as both bread and wine to lay people (who were only allowed the bread). Embrace of poverty by the priesthood. Obedience of the priesthood to Christ. Judgment of Wycliffe's writings and his own by fair standards. Reform of the methods by which indulgences were promoted.
Your video is titled the 'Myth' of the protestant bible martyrs. You seem to feel you got off the hook because Wycliffe died by stroke. But you left out that the church dug up his body after his death and burned his bones (thus declaring what they wish they had done). Not to mention they burned several of his followers who were alive. You also say Tyndale was killed for heresy not for translation. Firstly, he was in hiding for 12 years because he was known to be translating, secondly he was nearly arrested by raids on his printing presses. Thirdly, if the catholic church blatantly said translation was the problem it would have been a direct admission that they were hiding something. So of course they didn't charge him with that. But their every action was set to stopping him from translating. Even if Luther and Calvin committed atrocities (claims I wouldn't deny), I have no problem condemning it. This is because I am under no illusion that churches, and church leaders can stray from right biblical practice. I don't have to defend them, the bible is my foundation. It would be nice if there was more academic integrity on the part of this video to fairly represent the history.
There won't be. Videos like these are made with the express interest of denying the truth for optical convenience. To persuade people with a lie. Such is not the way of christ who is the truth.
You are right. It was remiss that many people in authority in the Church abused their power. You are wrong and deliberately misrepresenting what he has produced in the rest of your statement. Probably to further the traditions that fed your history, the history THAT you like and purport as true. Tyndale was sought after and killed by the English KING for SEDITION. Tyndale was producing a MIS-translation that directly had his theology in it, like the Jehovah Witness New World translation. A blatent mistranslation and changing text to support their "truth" that is being deliberately "hidden" by Christendom The Church had produced many English (vernacular) bibles were produced, Alfred the Great's translation in English was done in 900AD, and Guthenburg was a Catholic, and the first book first western printing press was Jerome's vernacular Bible. They were not hiding anything as the Catholic Church's hierarchy, power, mass and sacraments are thoroughly bibical, despite your unbelief . They were right to protect translation of it as they HAD witnessed heretics using translation and scripture against the faith.
They have to argue in bad faith because even a remotely objective and honest depiction of the church proves how blatantly ridiculous and misunderstood the reformation was
The same people who argue it's wrong for a licenced professional (aka bishops and priests) to arrest someone they deem to be a fraud, as these people have no proven experience in the craft. Are you the same who argue it's fine to do so for doctors? Lawyers? psychiatry? Police? If you argue it's bad for masters of a teaching to some-what gate keep the practices, especially if these practices are super coherent, and proven to work (even if you don't believe in it, not all believe in psychiatry btw) then why would it be bad if i randomly try to do a heart transplantation? Please stay consistent here.
Wufia’s Gothic Bible wasn’t used by the Catholic Church because he was Arian, and it was associated with Arianism because the Goths were by and large Arian. St. John Chrysostom did oversee a translation of the liturgy into Gothic, however.
@@StoaoftheSouth I’m sorry to say, I don’t remember where I read that. I read it in a couple of places before I actually believed it because I was skeptical about it at first too.
Modern society doesn't think heresy is a sin. We need to spell it out to them that heresy is bad and not good. Schism is bad and not good. Most people in America need to hear this or they won't get it.
It is. But most of the schisms arose from the heresies of the Catholic Church that they refused to correct, until decades after the schisms, when they realized the “heretics” were actually the correct ones. Waiting for the next schism from Catholics to happen so they can fix a few more things
@@newglof9558 If it's a matter of opinion, then it doesn't really exist. And since there is no ecclesiastical authority for Protestants, there is no such thing as heresy. Precisely why progressive Christianity is a grave issue among Protestants.
The whole punishing heretics topic was *the* hardest obstacle for me in becoming Catholic. I really identified with the heretics, freedom of speech, etc. I held onto more Americanist views for quite a while even after becoming Catholic. But with time, and observation of the world around me, I’ve been coming around to your perspective here. I would have appreciated this video back then, but I suppose I appreciate it more now. Lord, have mercy.
I was in British Library yesterday to see original Tyndale bible exhibited. Researching as protestants always use this to attack the faith. This video made my search so easy. Thank you! 🤩
Deliberate misrepresentation of what he said. Tyndale was burned for sedition. 🙄 people are always just thinking about themselves, what about Tyndale himself! Oh, that's it, he's dead now, so it doesn't matter.
Well said, man! In psychology, we call this "minimizing". When we find ourselves guilty we do several things - shifting the blame and also minimizing the sin. It's classic defense mechanism. "Oh, the Inquisition wasn't that bad!" Really... Tell that to the Jews whose fingernails you pulled out or whose bodies you pulled apart on your racks. Denial and minimization. It's a shield against confronting the truth of your own sin. It prevents repentance because, "it wasn't so bad".
He discusses this starting at 16:31. Executing heretics wasn’t just a Catholic problem. You have to remember also, they didn’t have separation of church and state, so heresy was criminal. They were truly concerned for the salvation of souls, and if you have heretics running around turning people away from the gospel, you’re putting souls at risk of eternal damnation. They would rather see one person die than thousands go to hell by following heresy. Basically they considered it a necessary evil.
And again it was for translating the bible, just not in the way the catholic church would like. For instance Tryndale correctly translates repentance, but the catholic church wanted him to translate it as pennance. Seems the catholics were the ones practicing heresy...
He discusses this starting at 16:31. Executing heretics wasn’t just a Catholic problem. You have to remember also, they didn’t have separation of church and state, so heresy was criminal. They were truly concerned for the salvation of souls, and if you have heretics running around turning people away from the gospel, you’re putting souls at risk of eternal damnation. They would rather see one person die than thousands go to hell by following heresy. Basically they considered it a necessary evil.
1:15 This is a very disputable claim. These languages weren’t “primitive” because they weren’t pulled out of thin air. Where do you suppose they come from? They’re called the Romance languages for a reason! If Latin had vocabulary to express it then so did they, making full use of Latin words.
Happy All Saints Day Trent and to your family and to The Counsel of Trent! May the Lord bless you and keep you continually in His holy love now and for all eternity!!! 💕🙏💕🙏
Trent Horn and Joe Heschmeyer are the Catholic Mythbusters 💥🔥😎 Btw... a Mythbusters-style collab between CoT and Shameless Popery might actually break the internet and restore Christendom to its former glory 👀
I think for me Protestantism is just being able to read the Bible freely and leave room for their own discernment. May be dangerous for wrong interpretation but that’s where a diligent Christian should seek for consistency, research and etymology of translations, and ultimately let the scripture teach without necessarily an institutioned man having to read and explain for you.
But Jesus founded a Church to preserve and preach the Gospel, not a book. And practically speaking, it doesn't work. Even faithful, Protestant scholars disagree on fundamental aspects of the Gospel.
Trust and believe the Gospel 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV to be saved ETERNALLY Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
There are remarkably strong arguments that the Cathars as a single heretical movement did not exist, and instead there was a combination of localized Christianity combined with the use of torture to extract "confessions" in beliefs that no one had, but that were the torturers derived from knowledge of old heresies.
The way you end the video highlights a key difference between how Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church handle historical wrongdoing. When Protestants execute heretics, even members of the same denomination can readily condemn it, since they don’t assume their church is infallible. Catholicism complicates this because while Catholics admit the church can make mistakes, they also maintain that its teachings are infallible-even when those teachings have been reversed or deemed misguided. This creates room for apologists to shrug off past evils while insisting the church remains trustworthy and authoritative and directly guided by the Lord. Protestants can easily condemn Luther’s errors, but for Catholics, calling a past teaching or practice evil requires complex (if not convoluted) justifications.
You are simply misrepresenting what is being said. The Catholic position is unequivically one that mourns these executions. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of historical fact to claim that these errors came from the infallible teaching of the Church and not from the fallible beliefs of its fallible members. That is what Catholic apologists object to. If you think better understanding the actual facts of history is just fabricating complex/convoluted justifications, then the truth will always escape you.
Even among Protestants, there is an unfortunate reflex to justify these executions with the worthless idea "well, they were men of their time" or "that's just how things were back then." I think the bigger complication for Rome is the plain contradiction which exists between her current view on the death penalty, and her historical practice when she held real power over secular states.
@@carl-yawatha It's not. The Council of Constance infallibly teaches that Hus needed killing, and the Church maintains to this day that Tyndale had 4 heretical translations. The only one I've looked into (metanoia = repentance) is now translated that way in modern Catholic Bibles, but they still can't admit they were wrong to burn him. Just like in this video.
In Canada and other bizarre cultish places, one can be imprisoned for simply stating what a woman is. Thank God for his beautiful church and her infallible guidance in the Holy Spirit.
@@rileypare7946 A father whose child was being butchered by gender ideology fanatics was imprisoned for six months. And worse , they can steal your child from you if you try to defend him or her.
I don't know how Trent thinks he can just add works to salvation by his errant and private interpretation of Romans 2 , in which Paul is explaining the futility of works in appeasing God. How crazy can it get?
Works do not appease God, but you can not say you are faithful to God if you do not so what He tells you. If a doctor told you “you will not live another year because of this disease in you” and you went out and made a series of long term investments, that shows you do not have faith in the doctor. The same way, Christ tells us throughout The Gospels to do works, and if we have faith we will perform those works. The works do not save us, no one teaches works save you except Pelagianists. Only God can save you, and nothing you do can ever merit salvation. This is a statement that all Christians, including Catholic and Orthodox agree with
@@DANtheMANofSIPA Here is the problem: Roman Catholic heresy in the Catechism. CCC 2027 says, "Moved by the Holy Spirit, _we can merit for ourselves...all the graces needed_ to attain eternal life..." Truth is, we can't merit *anything* for ourselves in the attainment of eternal life!
Thank you Trent for the fair treatment of the subject. I also have taught similarly especially concerning Tyndale and Wycliffe. I never heard anyone argue Hus was killed for translating the Bible. I have no idea why anyone would think that, except that they just threw Hus onto their list of Protestant "saints" and slapped on martyrdom for the Bible. He did advocate translating sermons to the local vernacular and he did that with his own after writing them in Latin.
“The Catholic Church didn’t execute people for making translations” “The Catholic Church ‘regulated’ the use of the Bible by executing people… and that’s a good thing!”
The Roman Catholic Church is as innocent as the Pharisees when they accused Jesus of Rebellion. Just as it was not the Pharisees who directly strike Jesus, but they condemned Jesus and brought to the Romans to be execited, it is the same with the Roman Catholics who judge the people of heresy and have the Governing Authorities to have them executed.
Christ didnt just give us a book but a Church, not only invisible but visible one. And the Church kills people for disagreeing its interpretation and doctrines. And its apostolic all the way to the first church. Okay im convinced!
Saul (Paul) kept muderous threats against disciples, he also approved of Stephen's murder, yet was still selected by Jesus. Paul even called himself the world's worst sinner. Peter cut the ear off of a soldier, he also denied Christ three times. Jesus still selected Judas to be an apostle despite knowing he would completely betray him. Only one apostle would decide to attend the crucifixtion. Thomas doubted the resurrection and demanded proof of it. Isaiah and Daniel both admitted to being sinful men in the old testament. Even Moses killed an Egyptian under the old covenant. Fallible men can still be part of an infallible institution.
@@frankovstovski yet they were directly chosen by God and changed their course after touched by God. What about these roman daddies after receiving the “key” continue to kill people and wage war in the name of Christ? Why not now?
Christ sent the Holy Spirit to indwell us and guide us. Do you hear, listen to, and follow the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit? Or are you fixated and dependent on the external guidance of your clergy? Wolves can dress in clerical garb, you know. But the Holy Spirit never deceives.
7:51 - I’m sure this is what you meant to say, but the primary dialect was Norman French from 1066 among the nobility only - the vast majority of people in England continued to speak old English.
@@deutschermichel5807the most common words in English come from Anglo Saxon. The huge number of French words are elite and specialized. Although there are lots of them, they do not make up the majority of words that people speak. For example, my first paragraph contains, I believe, 83% Anglo Saxon words and 17% French words. My active vocabulary is mostly French if you are looking at gross numbers of words, but in terms of actual usage, it is overwhelmingly Anglo Saxon.
Gods Catholic Church comprised & gave The Holy Bible to the world. Written in 325AD, canonized in 382AD & reaffirmed in 393AD & 397AD. Over 1500 years later, Protestants, WITHOUT GODS AUTHORITY, rewrote it, added/deleted words, verses, chapters, books m, giving their version of Gods words. Rev22:18-19. Jer26:2, 2 Pet1:20-21, 3:16
The Didache quotes the part of the Lord's prayer that they (Catholic church) remove Catholic Encyclopedia IV Page 779: "'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the holy Vine of David Thy Child, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be the glory for ever'. And of the broken Bread: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the Life and knowledge which thou has made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be the glory for ever For as this broken bread was dispersed over the mountains, and being collected became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from he ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.'" All but a few MSS of Matthew (there are hundreds in total) have the part of the Lord's prayer that they remove. Catholic Encyclopedia IV Page 779: "The text of the prayer is not quite that of St. Matthew, and it is given with the doxology "for Thine is the power and the glory for ever", whereas all but a few MSS. of St. Matthew have this interpolation with "the kingdom and the power" etc." Cracker: (Only 1.6% of Greek manuscripts remove it according to the official text and textwert from Kurt Aland)
The Catholic church changed Genesis 3:15 to make it be about Mary instead of Jesus Christ. aka more blasphemy against God Genesis 3:15 Catholic DRA (from the Vulgate): I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Genesis 3:15 KJV/Hebrew/earliest writings: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Their change to "she" instead of "he" cannot be defended critically, and originated after the 4th century Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 7 Page 675: "The translation ‘“‘she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth cent (‘‘ Katholik”, 1893, 425), and cannot be defended critically." Their change of "thou shalt bruise his heel" to "thou shalt lie in wait for her heel" is also not what the Hebrew says, or what the early witnesses say. They plainly changed it for their own agenda Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 15 Page 464B: "This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text: first, the Hebrew text employs the same verb for the two renderings “she shall crush" and “thou shalt lie in wait”; the Septuagint renders the verb both times" as ""to lie in wait; Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac and the Samaritan translators, interpret the Hebrew verb by expressions which mean to crush, to bruise; the Itala renders the verb.." "employed in the Septuagint by the Latin ‘‘servare’”’, to guard; St. Jerome (Quaest. hebr. in Gen., P. 1. XXIII, col. 943) maintains that the Hebrew verb has the meaning of “crushing” or “bruising” rather than of "lying in wait”, “guarding’’." This altered reading was the only one the Catholic church approved historically The Glories of Mary Page 156: "But in our Vulgate, which is the only version approved by the Council of Trent, it is She, and not He."
This doxology-or prayer of praise to God-is not in Luke’s version (Luke 11), nor in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew. Beginning in the revised translation of the Mass promulgated after Vatican II, the doxology was provided as an additional prayer, not as an exegetical concession to Protestants, who had prayed it for many years in their liturgies. So, at Mass, after the priest’s words following the Lord’s Prayer, the faithful conclude, “For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours, now and forever.” The doxology was an addition to Matthew’s text, though it was seen early in Church history, such as in the Didache, which purports to be the teaching of the Twelve. So while it does have ancient roots in Christian liturgy, because this doxology is not part of Scripture, it’s not part of the official Lord’s Prayer (see CCC 2759ff.). For the unbiased truth of Gods Only One True Apostolic Catholic Church, read or listen to audio of The Catechism of The Catholic Church, visit CatholicAnswers online or consult with a Catholic Priest.
Quoting KJV as a source negates your claim as Protestants rewrote The Holy Bible over 1500 years after Gods Catholic Church comprised it and gave it to the world. God gave His authority, power, Doctrine, Sacraments and Teachings to His apostles and their direct successors, Catholic Priests. The Pope has Gods authority and power over all matters of His Catholic Church as He is led by The Holy Spirit. Instead of trolling Catholic videos to twist Gods Teachings, which is a grievous sin, try to learn Gods truth by the only Church He established.
@@southernlady1109 Miss, uh, you seem to not understand the most basic thing of Luke.. That is a different event. It is not the same. And scripture is not wrong. Luke was not wrong to not have it, it was simply not part of that time. It was part of what Matthew described. Also, you appeal to the CCC for authority that it is not legitimate.. Surely you see the circular argument you make. And, the Lord's prayer (as is correct in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, not the Catholic Latin though), is as stated, which you somehow ignored, despite your own church using it to support her claims... in the Didache.. Are you Catholic through and through, or do you pick and choose things to accept to support your side? From the evidence in your posts, it is sadly just what you choose to accept at varying times.
I feel Trent simply is trying to smash anything Protestant (or Proto-Protestant) as “wrong” at any price. For example, he mentions from credible sources that ”the medieval church didn't forbid translations in the vernacular”… but is that the whole truth? Did the church not have “liturgical” languages? Only allowing the liturgy to be served in certain languages that were “sacred”? Trent here is making use of the fact that Protestants value Scripture the most; but for the medieval Church it's the liturgy that was most valued, and the fact that it was not served in the vernacular, but Scripture was translated, is actually proof of the ignorance the Church felt into, not a proof of liberalism and freedom. Scripture simply was not important enough.
Just a note: The separation of Church and State was first theorized by Dante Alighieri under the name: "Theory of the Two Suns" (In Italian: "Teoria dei Due Soli"). As everybody obviously know, Alighieri was a Catholic...
This video did not do any favors for the Catholic Church in my opinion. While it's true that not all Bible versions were suppressed, the argument that the murdering of heretics over doctrinal disagreements is still horrible. This isn't just the fault of the Catholics, protestants did it too. This presentation comes across as means to cover up and gloss over the sins of the past. Why not just accept that the reaction was extreme and wrong? I would have way more respect for Catholics and for Trent if that was brought out. There was intense persecution of various groups for mostly political reasons, and I hope Trent would consider doing a follow up video or having a long form conversation with another protestant youtuber. I think we'll find both traditions have made errors in the past, and the sinful severe persecution of "heretics" in most cases I would hope would be a point of agreement among Christians.
This is my exact issue as well. So many of the explanations that I see are a combination of: 1) It didn’t happen 2) It did happen but the Protestants were doing it to 3) It did happen and the burning of heretics was justifiable The problem that I have is that instead of just saying that the execution of heretics was wrong, they will try to find reasons to justify it. If it was justifiable, why aren’t they burning heretics now? How would you differentiate between someone who you should convert with the Gospel vs burn at the stake? And if it was justifiable, by what standard can you criticize the Protestants for doing it? And that’s not even mentioning the fact that Pope Francis has ruled that capital punishment is “Always inadmissible” on the basis that it violates human dignity.
@@OfficerTyreekI think the both of you are ignorant of these times where violence was not the monopoly of the state. People were dueling eachother, highwaymen preyed on unarmed and sparse travellers, and people could not stay in prison for long because the prisoners had to pay for their stay in prison. The judicial and penitentiary system is the product of thousands of years of legislation. In those times it was cheaper and effective for society that the lawbreaker repent or face immediate corporal punishment or execution. In this area the Church was consistently more merciful. Jan Hus was allowed to do explicitly illegal things (like translating Wycliffe's work into Czech) for 12 years until his execution, and during this time inspired a movement that took 25 years of warfare (that the Hussites started) to extinguish, and where the moderate Hussites were indistinguishable from orthodox Catholics and the extreme ones nudist Adamites. Conclusively heresy is a danger to society. Through a secular utilitarian worldview, heresy is justifiably punishable by death to prevent social upheaval and warfare and promote national/civilizational identity and harmony. In those times, it is out of Christian ethic that heretics were to be burned just as is out of the Christian ethic that they should no longer be burned given the monopoly of violence by the state (the Hobbesian Leviathan).
Trent, you are being disingenuous about the Lollards and Tyndale. The Lollards were referred to as "Bible-men" in their day and were burned at the stake on orders of the anti-translation Bishop of Canterbury. The anti-Lollard laws were later used to persecute Tyndale in England. That is why he moved to the Holy Roman Empire to complete his Bible translation-canon law was different there- and the first editions of his translation only had the unadorned translation and were still burned by Roman Catholic priests in England.
For any that want to see a more in depth breakdown of the anti-translation movement of the medieval English church, check out the video on William Tyndale over at Truth Unites.
If you feel truly confident you're correct and in possession of the truth, I think that you don't need to impose your views on others, slander them or threaten them, particularly people trying to live a normal life who are not seeking conflict, damaging property, challenging for converts, or otherwise breaking the law. Hopefully this is a lesson that everyone can take to heart.
If a society tries to forcibly compel the assent of a private citizen who is employed, who does not seek conflict, damage property, challenge for converts, or otherwise break the law, and who lives an exemplary moral life, I find it hard to distinguish that society from the totalitarian dystopia presented in the pages of 1984, as cliche as such a reference may seem at first glance. Unfortunately, we all live at the whim of a state in which, quite frankly, the so called 'inalienable rights' turn out to be inalienable only until push comes to shove. I suppose the best you can do in that case is fulfill your part of the bargain, i.e. retain employment, avoid seeking conflict, abstain from damaging property, keep silent about your convictions in the public square, and refrain from serious lawbreaking, all at the whim of the arbitrary power of the state and its executive, hoping all the while that your good faith will be reciprocated. If not? You certainly won't be the first person in history to suffer such a grave injustice, nor, unfortunately, will you be the last.
There is a fiction that America is tolerant of dissidents, indeed a haven for such. This may have been true at one time. In my life experience, America is a society that does not extend mercy or understanding to the designated outsider, a society in which the majority are characteristically cruel, intolerant and tyrannical. Hopefully America can live up to its professed ideals.
I've been struggling with anger lately so I will say a prayer against that and just say that while I find the content of this video, mostly unobjectionable it's starting point stoked a great deal of outrage. Tyndale's heresies being for translating the bible with Lutheran sympathies makes him a martyr to me brother. Not just another dead heretic. That's not a myth. This hurts me. I agree that most often generically "protestant" understanding of the greater issue of vernacular translations is a straw man, but there have to be better ways to say it, and better thesis statements then, "The Myth of Protestant Bible Martyrs." Godspeed Trent.
@@HyraxusPrimus You see the Catholic church has never made any martyr's from any other traditions because the Catholic church decides who's a martyr and whose a heretic. That way they never have to stand to account don't you know. If it's not a Catholic martyr, and they did the martyring then it's a myth.
@@centurion7398 Ironically, following the strict (albeit) definition of martyrdom, if the Protestants in question were "only" executed for their faith and most definitely not for "simply" translating the Bible...that exactly makes them martyrs. I did however only know beforehand that Catholics "canonized" saints, not that they had a special class for martyrs. Interesting. The most disturbing part about this topic to me is that based on how hard they (certain Catholics) want to justify the executions of the past, I get the unfortunate feeling a lot of them would be totally onboard if the church brought it back in the present.
@@HyraxusPrimus The belief that the Charism of Saint Peter didn't pass down, the belief that there should be a clergy/laity distinction. This is what Tyndale was teaching against.
Yeah, to fully lay out my argument: If you believe that heretical executions are wrong, and the church has done the right thing by revising its position on them, then you must advocate for the separation of church and state. Because the church’s change of heart is in response to its changing status in society, not the other way around. An institution as large as the church will always seek to maximize its power (for holy reasons) and once you have that power there is nothing stopping them from deploying violence to counter heresy (again, for holy reasons). There is another argument to be made for religious freedom and who gets to call the shots. The church would also not be happy if the government goes into the hands of a non-catholic religious institution, or even a non-christian one. It should advocate for the separation for its own sake too.
20:34 thats all we get for the gravity and nature of the situation? It would be more prudent to explain which Catholic kingdoms, accepted Catholic teachings and norms should be condemned. And to do the same for protestants. For its not just - some religious state did this - no, they thought it was rational and connected it to a teaching or a teaching they accepted, didnt mind, or exploited.
When I was in high school I took three years of Spanish. We often were given homework assignments where we had to translate literature from the original Spanish to English. I have often thought that if more American "Sola Scriptura" Christians had to do this as part of their childhood education they would see how difficult it can be to render complex ideas from one language to another, especially when the original language has a more complex structure and broader vocabulary than the translation language. It's amazing to me how many Christians underestimate the problem of translation when they champion "Sola Scriptura" as a rule for doctrinal authority. Who has the authority to approve the translations?? I know that many Protestants claim that "scripture interprets scripture" (which is problematic at best), but even if this were true, they can't also claim that scripture TRANSLATES scripture from one language to another. Only people can do that.
Because of public education, most Americans are under educated yet at the same time over prideful about their knowledge.
every translation is an interpretation
How do you go from scripture "interprets" scripture to scripture "translates" scripture?
Literally no one has ever defended that last point.
In Italy we have a high school course of studies called Liceo, and one of the basic subjects is Latin. You spend five years translating stuff from Latin, studying the literature and authors (and for Greek as well if you choose Classic Liceo). It’s difficult but incredibly rewarding, and the knowledge you get when you graduate is priceless.
I wish everyone could do that.
Very interesting. As an observant Jew, I was indeed under the impression from other protestants that historically they got burned at the stake for translating the Bible.
Generally, thanks for the videos. I think this is the best Catholic and possibly Christian channel, judging on the content and style of the videos as well as Trent's character!!
Hello
Division demands justification. When sufficient amounts of justification do not exist; and bearing in mind that nature abhors a vacuum, reasons are fabricated of necessity. During political times of angry polemics, malice multiplies the degree and extent of fabrication.
I agree Eli. You seem like a fair minded person .
No, they were burned for having an opinion different than Rome.
Did you read the so called heresies that Trent accused of the protestants? Its basically anything against catholic pagan dogmas.
Just before I began seriously considering Catholicism, it was my encounter with translations like The Message and Word on the Street that convinced me that the Catholic Church was right to be hesitant regarding vernacular translations, despite the myths discussed in this video being drilled into my head as a child. It was obvious to me as a teenager that there must be some mechanism (a magisterium, perhaps) that prevents these so obviously erroneous translations from being developed and circulated.
I just can't get over the phrase in "The Message" "He came into the neighborhood..." in John 1.
Just to give a Protestant perspective - many Protestants repudiate those paraphrases too.
The message is not a translation, it is commentary. And protestants generally reject it as a valid translation on that basis. Nobody needed a supposedly infallible papal system to come to that conclusion. Any honest truthseeker will.
@@Freethinkingtheist77 The problem is when other Protestants don't and then there has to be a authoritative lens through which to have the correct meaning and understanding of The Bible.
@buzztrucker Forgive me, I'm not sure that I fully understand your point. The Bible is the Christian's authority. People can reject that authority if they choose, but the problem lies, not in Protestantism per se, but in the choice of that person. Just as a Catholic could still reject the teaching of the Church - that would not be a problem for Catholicism but for the individual.
I'm also wary of the suggestion that pataphrases are a specifically Protestant problem. There is, for example, a Catholic edition of The Message and I have no doubt there will be Catholics who read it.
Facts: Secular, Protestant, and Catholic scholars agree that the Catholic Church permitted and promoted numerous vernacular translations of scripture for a millennium prior to the Reformation. By the late Middle Ages, vernacular translations were available and accessible to the general public in most places and could be read without need for special permissions, except where particular heresies were associated with errant translations.
except in English, the only translation was prohibited on the grounds of 4 words
@@mr.awsome1288 Please explain your use of the term "only." The authoritative. English language Rheims-Douai preceded the secular KJV by 2-28 years! It was translated on the continent since Catholics were murdered if they remained in England.
@@po18guy-s4she’s referring to the Tyndale Bible which predates Rheims by decades and saw mass persecution across England. One might also look at the Wycliffe Bible as well which saw similar persecution for over a century before the Catholic Church finally decided to translate the Bible into English.
yeah bro, they did have the Bible in vernacular, but only if you could read english from five hundred years ago and had access to one of like ten manuscript copies of these texts. such a misleading cope
@@po18guy-s4s the Tyndale translation, which did not deny anything except Rome's illegitimate authority. but it was banned
I will never forget the moment I heard there were already 9 German translations of the Bible before Martin Luther was even born. There are so many lies passed on in evangelical churches. The history of the Catholic Church is like the game of telephone where everyone hears a different story.
The real question is: Why only Martin Luther that we all known existed, *NOT* the RCC version? Is it because the RCC hid them all out of the reach?
Brother, you gotta listen to Jesus Christ that wants the *GOSPEL to be Spread Out to all nations.*
Dark Ages exist when the RCC hid the Bible (light).
GOD called Luther to bring the light.
Well, in my country the Catholics held their services in Latin and the locals memorized them because they didn't understand a word of it. The pagans considered them spells and the Christians considered them mantras, neither of whom understood what they meant or why they were chanted... I suspect the priests didn't always know what they were saying either. That changed with the Protestant migration... I don't always agree with the Catholics' bitterness towards Protestants. Isn't it clear by reading the Bible what customs and traditions we should follow??
@@exactormortis7433If it was so clear, I don't think we'd see so much disagreement. Is baptism necessary for salvation? Some Protestants say yes, some say no. Isn't the bible clear? Both sides say it is. That's just one example. There are plenty of disagreements in biblical interpretation across denominations, which suggests it isn't all that clear.
@@exactormortis7433 No. The Protestant position makes Jesus 1) absolutely incompetent inasmuch as He failed to write and distribute a bible and 2) a liar since it insists that His Church did indeed fail.
Just because there were 9 different translations doesn't mean they were distributed or available for the average person.
Trent, I regret to inform you that Bible Flock Box has uploaded a video arguing that Peter is not the rock. If you see this, can you please do a rebuttal of him? Thank you and God bless you.
Edit: I have noticed this comment received a lot of replies and first, I would like to thank you for defending the papacy. However, I would like to remind you to please be charitable to non-Catholics. Acting uncharitably will more likely push people away from the Church than attract them. Thank you. God bless you.
2nd Edit: I regret posting this. The majority of the notifications I get are now people arguing with each other. I’m still leaving this comment up anyways.
3rd Edit: This comment aged well.
That guy is a seventh day Adventist. He literally has a dead lady-pope. 😂
Saint Peter is not the rock. His confession of faith is the rock. A bishop can’t be the foundation of the Church. The faith is the foundation of the Church.
@@TitusFlavius11 The Papacy is the Rock.
@@TitusFlavius11 wrong
English language did not even exist until who knows when
So glad you guys aren't in charge anymore. You'll justify or explain away anything if Rome tells you to.
News flash, protsestant just like to expain away Bible verses and deny scripture.
Oh and the other News flash, we are still in charge. Just not in your echo chamber.
The true Christian Church Jesus set up, the Catholic Church was, is and will be victorious.
Come and join us when you want to be Christian.
@@OnYaBoyaso then why does your church recognize us as saved. Gain consistent doctrine.
We need to see Trent Horn and Gavin Ortland discuss this.
Yes, there are 2 versions of everything
Trent is responding to Gavin's video about Tyndale a few weeks ago. He was very charitable in not mentioning Gavins name.
@@DPK5201he doesn't want people to get the other viewpoint. Gavin also had good points.
@DPK5201 Did Gavin say anything that wasn't true? I listened to the video.
@@Maranatha99right? Like at 11:25 Trent says tyndale wasn’t “merely” executed for translating the Bible. So he admits he was but then muddies the waters by bringing in other reasons he was unjustly murdered… very difficult to listen to Trent and take him seriously when he does this
Great video, Trent. Thanks for sharing!
Love your channel, Keith. I’m a long time Calvinist, anti Catholic Protestant in RCIA right now and your videos on Mary and other doctrines, as well as Trent’s, have been a great source of info and help.
Got it so William Tyndale was burned at the stake bc the New Testament Bible he translated wasn't approved by the Catholic church. So that makes it perfectly ok....
Sounds like because he was a heretic
Right??? Trent comes off horrible in this video. Sounds like he was okay with killing of “heretics” and wants a theocracy for the US. What could go wrong
@@MrWillandtk Yeah, he translated metanoia as repentance, not penance. That's one of the four capital heresies. Oh, BTW, the NABRE and other Catholic translations translate metanoia the same way as Tyndale now.
@@MrWillandtk I hope you don't mean to say that that makes his murder by the church less evil
@@mikeoxmaul1788 in a time when religion was society's only unifying factor and creating a heretical movement was the same as threatening civil order? Its not "less evil" its comprehensible.
I was a Seventh Day Adventist and went to Adventist schools my whole life. In one of our yearly camping events one of the games we played was "Smuggle the Bible". So us, the juniors, need to smuggle Bibles to our teammates on the other side. While our Seniors who played the role of "Catholic Inquisitors" would try to stop us. We played this at night in pitch black so we had to get creative on how we would smuggle the Bibles. This was to remind us that one day the Catholic Church will ban Bibles again to hinder the true believers from worshipping God. The level indoctrination and ignorance was insane. Thank God I am now Orthodox.
Wow, fair play for telling your story.
@@vanthadden5170 that was brainwashing
Why orthodox and not Catholic?
@@USDebtCrisisBecause they're of bad will and still Protestant at heart. If people are of good will and willing to believe and accept all that God commands and requires them to believe regardless of the personal cost, the Holy Spirit, the spiritof trith, will lead them to the Catholic Church, not to false sects that teach error.
@@vanthadden5170 you were better of SDA
As a Baptist Christian, I appreciate your video for the contribution it makes to my church history knowledge
Thanks for learning about history! Iʼve seen baptists calling the cathars “proto-baptists”.
Glad you "appreciate" this video, but remember, if you went back in time as a Baptist, youd be hunted down and killed by catholics and Protestants alike. Who is to say what "church history" is? Who is the "church"? Better think on that friend
As a fellow Baptist Christian, please realize that this is a VERY Roman Catholic friendly version of the history. Maybe you’ve seen it already, but Gavin Ortlund’s treatment of Tyndale provides what I believe to be a much more balanced and accurate picture: ua-cam.com/video/2DetuTE_XCo/v-deo.html
I would recommend Gavin Ortlund of Truth Unites for sound historical evidence and rebuttal of much of Trents views which, as to be expected, are highly biased by having to be in line with Catholic doctrine
I agree with the other comments. It’s like when a Catholic who was trained in a Catholic school assures me that the rock solid evidence shows that whatever the Catholic Church says is true is true. It’s like of course they’d say that. I agree, give Truth Unites a shot, weigh the pros and cons of both.
I normally like Trent, but this is too much of a political spin-job. Here's the beauty about being a protestant - I can freely look at certain points in history and say "the church messed up".
Instead Trent has to work in all these lawyer-like technicalities, bring several what-about arguments, and label anyone that comments otherwise as being "anti-catholic" (btw, if that's a valid response then I should be able to dismiss everything that Trent says because he's "anti-Protestant").
His last point about the Catholic church not being tyrannical, but "pastoral, who guides believers" is a spit-take to anyone who knows medieval history.
You are not adressing the point being made by Trent, and circling back to the propaganda.
He's not giving what about arguments, he's NOT defending the cruelty done. He's exposing the propagand and LIES conjooled by states to get control of the churches in their teritiories to get at the wealth of the poor.
Lies like "the Catholic church did not allow Bibles in the common english", or "the Catholic church kept Bibles chained so people could not have them" or "the Catholics did not print Bibles in english as they knew people would see their additions were not bibical".
You know, those "little" lies used to snare ordinary folk and turn them anti-papist.
Medieval history was more about wholesale cruelty on all side for those without the means.
It was living from hand to mouth with death by the cabin door every winter or sooner.
No one is justifying the cruelty done accross the board in those times.
@@OnYaBoya I appreciate you admitting to the cruelty and not justifying it. You are right that Trent doesn’t say it was justified, but he also doesn’t go out of his way to say it wasn’t, which I believe one should do when discussing these matters. He clearly portrayed the protestant executions as wrong (which they were) so why can’t he do the same on his side?
Thanks for reading!
So what ! There was no Protestants chosen to be named Apostle . There was no Protestant present at the Last Supper nor Pentecost. GOD did not send any Angles to see any Protestants. You have no connection to the Twelve. Now cite any miracle from any Protestant! The fires in Maui burn which churches to the ground!
I’m sorry, did we just hear a justification for the execution of Hus? Bro…
Even the pope apologized lol
Hus was executed by the Roman emperor not the pope
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Popes today apologize for everything you can accuse the church of, dont expect a Mordern Pope engage in apologetics, its sad really
Hus was executed by secular authorities. John Calvin burned to death those who rejected Calvinism. Including his friend Michael Servetus.
@@bluecollarcatholic8173What a genius comment! The church didn’t kill Hus now you stupid Protestants, they only convicted him of the worst crime possible at the time and turned him over to the authorities. Because we all know that the separation of the Church and State was a well established concept that totally came out of the medieval era. Be a good little Papist now and apologize like our good friend JPII, will you?
I don’t think the Protestants who make this argument fully grasp the danger of wildly accepting any vernacular translation. Only takes few mistakes to completely change meanings and misrepresent doctrines.
I am running into this issue right now with the somewhat recent publication of an extremely spurious and sectarian "translation" of the Bible called The Passion Translation. This publication is laughably bad and promotes aberrant quasi-Christian doctrine that is leading many sincere believers from the true God and the true gospel through distortion, misrepresentation, and outright fabrication. I am protestant and don't think I could ever reconcile some doctrines that the RC Church teaches, however, the proliferation of terrible and biased versions of the Bible is a massive problem.
Case in point: Jerome's translation.
Like changing a pronoun from "he" to "she" in Genesis 3:15?
Only if you never compare translations. This is the problem with denominations that demand on eover others, which often includes Roman Catholics. It's worst as a congregational thing, because some preachers like to reference controversial versions of translations, such as The Message, but that becomes dangerous when the person is specifically quoting the only translation that has a specific rendering.
Going back to the Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic is ideal, but there's more than one for some of those, although not really for anything critical on the theology. For example, there's no credible source for Ephesians 2:8-10 that renders if in some way as to suggest something other than "by grace through faith."
Nobody deserves to die for it! Is it really such as big deal to say the Church in the 15th and 16th century went way too far and sinned? What are you going to do next? Defend the Albigensian genocide or the Ustasa?
As a Protestant I respect Trent and enjoy his channel. It gives me more insight into the beliefs of the Catholic Church and my Catholic brothers and sisters. That being said, in this video Trent is being overly technical at best or deliberately misleading at worst. Very disappointing.
Edited: removed comment considering preamble which I initially missed.
This is disingenuous.
Even leaving aside William Tyndale (which it’s bizarre to say he wasn’t executed for translating the Bible into English; he was hiding in Denmark to escape execution in England), Thomas Bilney, John Oldcastle, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbury, James Bainham, and John Frith were all executed for smuggling and translating an English version of the Bible which (rightfully) came to different conclusions about certain translations (such as translating Μετανοεῖτε as repent rather than do penance, the Catholic practice).
Furthermore, the idea that spurious translations that did pop up in the period leading up to the Reformation does not negate the fact that the Catholic Church at this time actively opposed these translations.
“Truly our venerable brother the bishop of Metz has signified to us in his letter that both in the diocese and in the city of Metz the multitude of laymen and women, drawn in no small way by desire, have had the Scriptures, Gospels, the Pauline epistles, the Psalter, the commentaries on Job and many other books translated for their own use into the French language, exerting themselves towards this kind of translation so willingly, but not so prudently, that in secret meetings the laymen and women dare to discuss such matters between themselves, and to preach to each other: they also reject their community, do not intermingle with similar people, and consider themselves separate from them, and do not align their ears and minds with them; when any of the parish priests wished to censure them concerning these matters, they stood firm before them, trying to argue from the Scriptures that they should not be prohibited in any way from doing these things. Some of them also scorned the simplicity of their priests; and when the Word of Salvation is shown to them by those priests, they grumble in secret that they understand the Word better in their little books and that they can explain it more prudently” (Innocent III writing to the diocese of Mentz, 1199).
The problem isn’t bad translations, it is their having non-latin translations, full stop. And they “dare to discuss such matters between themselves.”
He also states later that “From this it was rightly once established in divine law that the beast which touches the mountain should be stoned; that is, so that no simple and unlearned man presumes to concern himself with the sublimity of sacred Scripture, or to preach it to others.” This is advocating the death penalty for the heresy of having vernacular translations.
Further, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, “14. Lay people are not permitted to possess the books of the Old and New Testament, only the Psalter, Breviary, or the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, and these books not in the vernacular language.”
Nothing here either about these merely being bad translations. Non-latin translation at all were not allowed and were punishable, “4. Whoever, allowing a heretic to stay on his property either for money or any other cause, if he confesses or is convicted, loses his property forever and his body is handed over to the civil authority for punishment.”
And again, the Council of Toulouse in 1229, “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and New Testaments; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
Nothing about differing theological beliefs, these books were banned for being non-latin translations, full-stop.
You lie.
It is literally in Cum ex Injuncto, in the prevailing address, not in the main body.
You should also seek the truth carefully: who was the author of this translation, what was their intention, what is the faith of those using it, what is the cause of teaching it, if they venerate the apostolic see and the Catholic Church; so that, after being instructed by your letter, we would be able to better understand what should be done about these and other things which are necessary for more fully investigating the truth. - Pope Innocent III Cum Ex Injuncto Sicut Ecclesiarum praelatis
And you also lie about the contexts of Cum Ex Injuncto, It is about heretics preaching in secret and confounding simple men into following them into heresy.
" But although the desire to understand the divine Scriptures, and, according to the Scriptures themselves, the zeal to spread them, is not forbidden, but is rather commendable, nevertheless the arguments against it appear well-deserved, because those who do not adhere to such arguments celebrate their assemblies in secret, usurp for themselves the duty of preaching, mock the simplicity of the priests and reject their community. For God, the true light, which illuminates all men coming into this world, hates such works of darkness so much that when he was about to send his apostles out into the world to preach the Gospel to all creation, he ordered them clearly, saying: "That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops"[4]; announcing openly in this way that the preaching of the Gospel must not be carried out in hidden communities, as heretics do, but in churches in the Catholic manner. For according to the testimony of Truth, "every one that doth evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest: because they are done in God" - Pope Innocent III Cum Ex Injuncto
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 The edition I was looking at for some reason did not include the preamble, only the main body, so you are correct, and I'll amend my statement above. However, my point still stands about opposition to translations being opposed outright. Included in the concept of heresy was those who made these translations.
@@ThisGuy1098 No, even that point is false. We have alot of examples of venacular scriptures before the reformation, the famed LINDISFARNE GOSPELS is one good example of a venacular scripture written for the english people. (too bad that the english language evolved and it became unusable for the majority of the inhabitants )
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 That text was produced around 700 AD. The Catholic Church didn't begin banning non-latin versions of the Bible until about 500 years later, so that's not particularly a counter point.
@@ThisGuy1098 It is a good counterpoint because it shows that in principle, the Catholic Church is not against venacular translations, She is just against heretics translating the bible. Translations should be done only with the imprimatur of the Church. It is like saying Muslims should be okay translating the bible without oversight by the church and that we should be treating their translations legitimate
They weren't killed for making bible translations but for heresy. But it wasn't the Catholic church that sanctioned their deaths it was the secular authorities that executed them for the secular crime of... heresy... against the Catholic church
Okay so who executed Christ? Were those of the Jewish authorities not any part responsible since they did not directly kill Him? The Sanhedrin judged Him unlawfully and then handed Him over to the Romans.
Also, the new Christians which were later killed by Nero and his regime, was it right since they were preaching a thing that was in contrary to the state religion of imperial worship??
@@shayalynn... nobody said they were right of did not take part of the blame.
You are deliberately misrepresentation the argument in the video.
Watch it again and see if you can grasp it.
HINT - protestants propogate lies that the church had them burned to hide the scripture and the church was deliberately not producing Bibles in local vernacular languages to again keep the bible out of the common mans hand ( let us forget that only a small SMALL percentage of the population could even read, or afford to even contemplate reading. )
No such thing as secular authorities then. The state and the church were one.
@silvereight6054 the state and the church were not one. King and religious entities were always seperate, but granted not AS separate as they are today.
Which makes it all perfectly fine. In fact “hey, why shouldn’t we do likewise today” 🤣
Wycliff wasn't even alive in 1414, and opposed the peasant revolts. Associating him with those actions are purposely mischaracterizing him.
Are you saying he had no influence on Hus? That's like absolving Marx because he died before 1917 and thought only industrial economies were ripe for revolution.
@secessionblog3189 apples and oranges
@secessionblog3189 it's like blaming Jesus for the gnostics
@@DavidRealMusic Gnostics deviated heavily from Christ, how did Hus deviated from Tyndale? They both hated the authority of the Seat of Peter, they both hated the clergy/laity distinction, they both hated Justification by works done in love.
@johnisaacfelipe6357 did you misspeak and mean to say Wycliffe, and do you think Hus's beliefs were worthy of execution.
As a presbyterian, it makes me sad to see that we have allowed ourselves to become perpetuators of these myths. Hopefully this video is seen by my fellow protestants, and they look into these myths and those who teach them before accepting them as truth.
Trent breezily covers centuries in a few minutes. It is way more complicated than this hand waivy defence of English religious tolerance in the 15th and early 16th centuries. The English state was not kind to dissenters as you presby should well know. When the country was Catholic it brutally suppressed all non-state sanctioned expressions of religious belief. It was why people flocked to the New World.
Hearing Americans defend centuries of English religious oppression is weird.
@@clivejungle6999 The English Reformation (1529) happened nearly a century before English colonies began appearing in the Americas (Jamestown 1619, Plymouth 1620). The English settlers weren't fleeing Catholicism, they were fleeing the Anglicans.
@@sentjojotrue, but they believed the Anglicans were acting too Catholic
It is truth just because Trent says it isn’t doesn’t make it not truth. Go watch wretched just put out the video but Protestant perspective weird
@@vercingetorix5708 really interesting that the Catholic nations (Portugal, Spain, France) all spread Catholic evangelism in their colonies. Maybe the English weren't Catholic enough.
Also don't forget Maryland (literally Mary's land), which was an English colony settled by Catholics also trying to flee the Anglicans.
Ooh trent forgot to mention the part where the catholic church dug up the remains of wycliffe and burned his remains...
And fed the ashes to Wycliffe’s kin?
Yeah and also the cathars weren't killed by other cathars after the consolamentum if they lived. Some would voluntarily starve themselves, which again bad. But this is emtirely different than the picture Trent tries to paint. But again his most trusted source will always be what the modern catholic church teaches, so I expect this
Wycliffe's ashes were thrown into the river Swift, which flows into the Avon.
The Avon to the Severn flows, the Severn to the Sea.
And Wycliffe's dust shall spread abroad, wide as the oceans be!
God bless him and all the English Reformers!
@@thecapitalisticdictator2256. Cathares were NOT christians. They were manicheistes.
Wycliffe peacefully died at home. No persecutions against him. His ideas and books were condemned. Which is the role of the Church: to keep the Truth and fight against errors.
I would recommend that everyone watch's Gavin Ourtlands video on Tyndale and the English Bible, to better understand this debate.
Hey Trent, one correction. While it's commonly believed that Jerome's translation was designated as "the vulgate" was because it was written in the "vulgar" (common) Latin of his time, that's not actually the case.
The word "vulgata" in "Versio Vulgata" (the common version) does not mean "common" in the sense of "language of the common people" but rather the version which was "common" to all the Churches (in this case all the Latin Churches). What we now call the "Vetus Latina" (old Latin) version of the Scriptures from before Jerome's translation were referred to as the "Vulgate" during their time and even long after Jerome translated the Gospels and the Old Testament. It wasn't until the Middle Ages that the term "Vulgate" was used to describe Jerome's translation, because it wasn't until then that it became the commonly accepted Latin form of the Bible throughout the Western Church.
I wanted to share this simply because this is, unfortunately, a commonly restated myth which doesn't appear to be accurate.
Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that the Vulgate was written in some esoteric form of Latin that only the highly educated could read. What I am saying is that literacy wasn't that high at the time (by Jerome's time it was probably around 10% at the very most if not significantly lower), and so writing in Latin for the "common man to read" wasn't a top priority for anyone.
I mean how could the common man read if there werenʼt enough bibles around
@@deutschermichel5807 I think the idea is more around the common man being able to understand the Bible being read to them, but same principle more or less applies.
@@deutschermichel5807man like a fraction of the population of all countries could read. People were read to. Literacy was not the norm until slightly after the invention of the printing press
@@joedwyer3297and the universities also a Catholic creation.
@@deutschermichel5807 Yes, because the common man can only learn how to read if they read the Bible. If they read anything else other than the Bible, they wouldn't be able to learn to read. Laughable.
Why are Catholic apologists so slow to say, “Hey, we were wrong for our role in those executions.” I have never heard a protestant try to justify and explain away the executions that their history was a part of. I have heard them many times admit that those acts were blatantly wrong before God. This was a 23 minute video and only half of a sentence (“some of which should be condemned”) took any responsibility whatsoever for the violence that took place. No matter what type of Christian you call yourself, please be willing to admit quickly and openly when your tradition was wrong! (even if others misrepresent you in the process)
So here you show how you've fallen for the propaganda Trent has pointed out in THIS VERY VIDEO.
QQ - you watched the video right?
Just do some basic "research", aka a Google search.
Wycliffe died naturally.
Tyndale and Hus were killed by the state for sedition as his ideas were rightly seen as unsettling to society and hate speach could provoke violence.
It's obvious that it wouldn't matter if apologies were given, as the deaths are being used politically to generate hate against Catholics, just look at people like Gender and the blatent lies he continues to peddle, to the glee of fan boys vested in that culture.
So just to be clear, you are making the claim that the Roman Catholic Church was never in error for any of the executions that took place?
Yes, I watched all 23 minutes waiting for him to say something to the effect of, “Now listen, we as the Church do need to admit to the sins of our past, even if they are exaggerated by others.” That statement never came.
I have been to Narni, Italy and seen with my own eyes a torture chamber where “heretics” were sent to suffer horrifically. Are you sure you are not the one falling for a romanticized version of the history?
I agree that many protestants have over exaggerated the sins of the Roman Catholic Church. But does that mean that you should simply ignore them? I am openly admitting that the protestants were wrong for what they did in those executions. I hope you can do the same on your side.
Thanks for your response!
@@DanOcchiogrosso-uj4be Protestants admit to their flaws because they dont believe in church authority in the first place.
This video isn't about justifying or addressing the executions as a whole. It's about one specific thing and trying to dispel that myth.
Should a follow up video be made about executions as whole? Absolutely.
@@Cklert Thank you for a valid and gracious response. I understand it wasn’t the purpose of the video to denounce the executions, but by not doing so, it definitely gives the impression that they don’t need to be denounced. We as believers should be pretty quick to recognize the sins we did commit when defending ourselves against exaggerated accusations being made against us.
13:33 yes we believe that the church should regulate bible translation but we don't burn Jehova's witnesses to death. I really think you are reaching on this one.
Well, you are likely in a secular state that has secularist founding documents that inspired a secularist culture that promotes secularist values though democratic means. So, naturally, that would be your opinion. The concept of a state has fundementally been changed by such elightenment innovations, that the old concept of the state is utterly foreign.
@@iagoofdraiggwyn98yes, but when the disciples called Jesus to rain down fire on the cities that rejected them, they were rebuked for their wish to burn people.
@@ReyChurchill Two things. First, technically speaking, they asked if Jesus wanted them to call down fire from heaven. To which Our Lord rebuked them.
Second, the sentiment expounded is not relevant to the topic at hand. This isnt about heathens, those who reject or simply dont know, but about heretics, those who pervert.
Think about when someone tried to pretend to be a prophet of God, or what Paul says about who preaches a different gospel.
@ ohhh I see. I’m sure I must have missed the part in the Bible where Paul says it’s fine to execute heretics :D
@@ReyChurchill Pretty sure thats not what i said. What i said is that heresy is and has been a bit deal to God and the Church. The killing of false prophets is an example of this and the use of anthamas (which is what Paul said) is also there.
In a secularist state, where it is not a Christian nation, there is no prescription to a relgion as the state is arelgious, as such the law of the state is a wholly secular and justified by secular humanism and liberalism. This is not how the orginal nation of Isreal and the kingdom of God are or was or will be, as the law of those places are or were theocratic.
What i get confused about is why we put God lower than other things. Treason warrents the death penalty, because it a crime against the state and can cause harm of the citizens. Why would we put those crimes against the kingdom which would hurt the citizens of the kingdom lower? Is God less important than government?
Brushes off burning people for heresy
My thoughts exactly.
He didn’t brush it off. The point of the video wasn’t to explain or defend that practice. The point was about Bible translations and how Protestant arguments against Catholicism in this regard can equally be applied to them. Discussing burning people at the stake for heresy, it’s application and frequency is it’s own topic.
Doesn't seem like your brain can digest the content of the video
Yes and the Bible allowed polygamy, Incest and slavery
Perhaps we can be adults and remember that things that were permissable hundreds if not thousands of years ago aren't permitted nowadays since as God reveals himself more to humanity we evolve and become better
How are you any different than a liberal who claims we can't celebrate the founders because of slavery
Brushes off calling for the burning down and genocide of God's original chosen people and names themselves after that man whose last writing efforts on earth were spent arguing for that despicable behavior.
Catholic Church is like the Israel in the Old Testament, both contains a sinner people including the authority, in Old Testament like Saul, David, and Solomon, but God still chose them even knowing that they will sin and fall, and their belief is still the truth, people's mistake doesn't negate their belief's truth.
Thanks for the video. As a Protestant, I think you’re missing one of the more important Protestant objections. Should the vernacular be translated from the Latin (as Trent confirmed) or the Greek/Hebrew? While St. Jerome gave the Latin from the Greek/Hebrew, Tyndale and John Rogers were aiming to the source. Even the Knox Bible you mention later still works from the Latin while only consulting the Hebrew/Greek for accuracy. Trent’s fathers argued that for the standard acceptance of the Vulgate. You're right to argue it is all about the authority to translate the Bible, but the Protestants were looking for the historic Bible as its chief authority over present concerns.
The best "original" source for the Bible was the Latin Vulgate for two reasons: it was translated from the earliest and most common sources, and the Latin language doesn't change.
Classical Greek has changes since 2000 years ago. Translators still debate words today even with the accumulated knowledge since the 1500s.
Ecclesiastical Latin was created for the Church. Classical Latin did not have all the words needed for Mass or Scripture. These definitions have remained static for 2000 years. That is why knowing the Latin can be more simple and revealing than retranslating the Greek.
The KJV uses the Latin as a source for translation along with 3 fringe Greek sources that most scholars do not use in modern translations.
I would discredit any Bible that translates "Hail, Mary, full of grace" to "favored one". This is a purposely mistranslation to demote the theological implications of Mary's sinlessness to a sinner that was chosen by God to bear the New Ark of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. Only one other person in the Bible was "full of grace" and that is Jesus: "full of grace and truth".
The Catholic Church has the fullness of grace and truth. Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. Everything in the Catholic Church points to Jesus Christ.
@classicalteacher - I would agree with your statements about the strengths of Latin (I've taught Latin for a number of years in our Classical School.) Although these are not the reasons that the Fathers at Trent gave.
The Reformation fathers were interacting with the scholarship of men like Erasmus and the recent scholarship advances in Greek and Hebrew (only recently coming to the University during the time of Tyndale).
In his 95 Theses, Luther cites these differences, specially the difference between “repent” and “do penance” (Poenitentiam agite) in the Vulgate version as how the mistranslation of St. Jerome imported a doctrine into the text. As for “Full” of Grace, that idea of "full" isn’t a literal translation of the Greek text, but I wouldn’t say it is wrong either. Even the RSV and RSV-CE differ on it.
The Council of Trent defended the Vulgate as the authoritative Bible - above other texts:
“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”
The strength of the Vulgate according to Trent was that the Church tradition had approved it. Protestant use of the other manuscripts undermined the authority of the Roman church, not of the Scripture.
“Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.”
Council of Trent, Session 4, 2nd Decree
@@classicalteacher:
I fully agree.
Since we know that words can change their meaning over time, I always go back to the Vulgate as I trust St. Jerome's interpretation.
"...full of grace..." is good enough for me!
@@FrSteveMaciasAs a non-Catholic, it is my understanding that the Council of Trent's "closing of the canon" and making the Vulgate the authoritative text, is overstated. It is less so that, and more establishing them as boundary marks which cannot be transgressed. The reason for this is the Greeks. It was known at Trent that the Greeks had texts in their canon which were not in the Vulgate. However, there were no texts in the Vulgate which the Greeks would not accept. Rather than settle that question, Trent phrased it in a way that would prevent books from the Vulgate, or the Vulgate being considered less authoritative than the Greek or Hebrew, but does not place the Vulgate over the Greek or Hebrew. Technically, the Greeks could agree with the statements of Trent on the Vulgate even though they did not use the Vulgate themselves.
@@classicalteacherWhat do you think of the recent discovery (Named "The Elton Anomoly") that the total "wordcount", including verses, chapters, and titles, of the KJV bible comes out to exactly Seven to the Seventh Power (823,543)?
This was one of the Protestant myths I had to unlearn in my conversion to Catholicism
This is not propagated by Protestant scholars, that’s like saying Catholics scholars and authorities claim Martin Luther removed books from the Bible when he didn’t.
It is not a myth. There was no reasonable argument given here.
You don't burn people because they translating the bible.
You burn them because they believe sleep souls, justification by faith, which is the whole narrative of Trent, which even more ridiculous reasons to burn people. Roman Catholicism is false authority, it was never intended to be the infallible institution apoointed by Christ.
The grave mistake on interpreting the word of Jesus: "Upon this Rock I will build my church."
Christ is called a rock, 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself.
This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: "I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."
The comment above shows why the Catholic Church had to suppress heretics and blasphemers.
@@matthewashman1406
Obviously you didn’t watch the video because Trent lays out the history in a clear and concise way indicating that’s a Protestant myth.
It seems like you’re still in the state of needing to unlearn a lot of falsehoods that you’ve been taught by the church.
As a protestant from Hungary I can just confirm one of the main points. For example between the first protestant and first catholic hungarian translation of the Bible is only around 30 years difference (which means almost contemporal work in the 16-17. century) There were partial Bible translations by catholics even before the reformation. I think it is correlated not just with the reformation but book printing technology as well.
Anyway: I like this channel because it is an excellent example that good faith is inspiring regardless to denominational differences.
Hungarian is so difficult
The invention of the printing press in the 1400’s really was a game changer. When you think about it, Luther’s reformation wouldn’t have gotten far if he didn’t have access to printing presses, since his ideas could spread faster than the church could respond to or control.
Why is it acceptable to put people to death for heresy in these contexts?
@@quiteballin
Same reason it’s acceptable to jail people in several countries for denying a certain event in the 20th century.
I don't think it's morally acceptable, but it is understandable why it happened. The reformers weren't just presenting theological ideas in a vacuum, they were in open opposition to what was at the time the state enforced religion and the real danger was the political threat that they presented. Which was a completely legitimate concern for the various rulers of the 16th century to have - every single monarchy in Europe collapsed within the next couple hundred years pretty much as a direct result of the Reformation.
He addressed that in the video between 17-19 minutes.
@@zacharynelson5731so ... You implying that Holocaust denial shouldn't be illegal but heresy should be punishable by death? What's your point? personally I think both are free thought/ free speech
It isn´t acceptable. It´s murder. Plain and simple.
And any church involved in this automatically has disqualified itself.
Also this video still insufficiently articulates the gravity of the favt that in the Middle Ages, before the Reformers, most people didnt read or understand Latin and therefore, largely, the clergy understood the Bible for them. Circa the time of the reformers, the Catholic Church fairly and unfairly discouraged vernacular translations for sale of heresy or disagreement - and then also suppressed these, burned these, and burned heretics.
I would posit the last, offends Jesus. But what do you think?
This video answers some more extreme Protestant strawmen.
It doesn't explain why:
1) The Church produced nothing in English after Hastings for 600 years.
2) The Church didn't produce an English Bible or even an NT for 200 years after Wycliffe.
3) Nor for even decades after Tyndale.
4) And during those decades, the Protestants released no less than 5 or 6 translations into English, before finally settling on the KJV.
5) The original DRB comes with notes complaining that the public shouldn't have access to a vernacular Bible but that it was necessary to release it due to the Reformation.
Fun fact: The revision of the DRB from 1749 onwards actually used the KJV as the base text type, not the original DRB. It's basically a Catholicised KJV. Which, ironically, means that the single largest translator of the modern DRB is....Tyndale.
Oh yeah, the NABRE has 'repent' in Mark 1:15, same as Tyndale.
The DRB is older than the KJB. It was completed in 1609, making it older than the KJV, which was not published until 1611. The fact that the Rheims New Testament was published in 1582 meant that it appeared almost thirty years before the KJV New Testament.
Your presentation of John Wycliffe is not correct.
1) The Lollards formed with extreme versions of some of Wycliffe’s views. They went well beyond Wycliffe. He may have inspired a popular movement, but he was not connected to it and certainly was not a leader of it.
2) Wycliffe wasn’t burned alive for heresy because King Richard resisted heresy burnings until 1401. Once the first burning was ordered, it more broadly swept across England. It also caused Wycliffe’s remains to be dug up and defiled, as well as his books to be burned. So technically it’s true he did not die a martyr… but that’s not from a lack of trying from the papacy.
3) He rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation. Not the divine presence in the Eucharist. Keep in mind, a majority of Catholics polled today do not accept transubstantiation. So this shouldn’t be that shocking.
I don’t think your presentation on Jan Hus was very strong either. It’s well established that Jan Hus was burned for numerous things that is easiest summarized as… fighting with papist clergy.
He accused them of simony and debauchery specifically, among other things. His execution as a heretic is so egregious it is acknowledged by the Catholic Church as a tragic mistake and two popes have apologized for the role of the Catholic Church regarding the burning of Jan Hus. So to suggest this is simply some misunderstanding and he was absolutely a heretic that needed to burn is absolutely wrong and even conflicts with your Pope’s views on the issue.
If a pope views it as a tragedy and offers a formal apology, then it is prudent to submit to his decision and accept that the Catholic Church committed an egregious mistake at a minimum.
Why do you blame the Church? It was the monarch who executed him
@@deutschermichel5807because the monarch is the one who hands down the sentence of the church, and they’re in bed together. No separation of church and state, this video is LOADED with sins of omission and not a faithful dialogue.
@@deutschermichel5807 who killed Naboth? Was Pilot or the Pharisees responsible for the death Christ? Adam or Eve responsible for taking the fruit?
In those days church and state worked in tandem and the state generally executed anyone the church handed over to them in the way the church prescribed. Leaning on a technicality like this is goofy
Trent has a history of fairly bad-faith engagement. In debates in the past, he has stated that his goal is to move as many people as possible to his side first, and to educate second. He’s specifically said that he’ll give superficially convincing arguments that aren’t sound alongside sounder arguments that are less convincing, because this may win more people to his view.
In the most faithful of interpretations, these things (the ends and the means) are constantly competing for him.
I think you are downolaying Jan Hus's errors, he refused to recant his heresies which involved a denial of Saint Paul's involvement with the murders of christians, a denial of Saint Peter's leadership amongst the Apostles, a denial of the passing down of the apostolic charism of Saint Peter's leadership. A denial that man can be part of the church and fall away from it
I feel like separation of church and state never meant to be separation of Christian ethics and state. I doubt the founding fathers would have seen the secular world we’ve come into as a good thing.
It was more of the State can't influence the church but the church can influence the State in my understanding
@@Masowe. Thats the catholic understanding, that the state submits to the church but the church reigns supreme over all things.
The law doesn't apply to the church it only restrains Congress.
That so funny I was having a chat with a Protestant that said William Tyndale was executed for translating the Bible. I had to correct him, and told him that he was allowed to carry on his translation while in prison so that can't be the reason why he was executed.
I also told him that he was executed for his books on heresy the church investigator Catholic inquisitor, Jacobus Latomus, gave him the opportunity to write a book stating his views and there was a back and forth with Latomus trying to convince him of his error.
That is interesting, but you agree he was indeed killed by the Catholic Church because of his “error”. I hope you can also agree that killing someone simply for holding a view that is believed to be in error should never be considered morally acceptable. I’d imagine you would think this to be a great evil if it were your views which were the ones being persecuted.
@@micahstory I don't think the issue was simply that he held that belief, it might have had more to do with him spreading that error
@@micahstory Funny enough it wasn't the Catholic Church that executed him, it was the state of Brabantine for sedition.
The Catholic inquisitor did find him guilty of heresy. But then handed him over to the state for sentencing. In the state of Brabantine heresy was look at in the same way as sedition and carry the sentence of death
The Catholic inquisitor Jacobus Latomus was actually trying to save his life, and had a back and forth with him for a year and half. If he had recounted his heresies and went back to orthodoxy they wouldn't have been able to execute him.
One must remember that the secular government wanted him out of the way because of civil unrest. It was a regime that got it legitimacy from the Catholic Church and would have executed Tyndale straight because of his writings. But the Catholic inquisitor was there to make sure things were done fairly and to give Tyndale a chance to reconsider his ideas about the faith with some one that knew the faith.
So in all no I don't agree that the Catholic Church killed Tyndale.
Except that’s a lie. Tyndale certainly wrote the letter in the Belgian archives _asking_ for his hebrew books, but there is no evidence he received them. To claim he was translating while in prison is to make something up whole cloth.
@@TryingToFollowChrist37 just so you know, I’m not a Catholic hater. I like Trent and I listen to other Catholic yt channels as well. You clearly know quite a bit more about this topic than I do, so I have no way of disputing what you’re saying, however, if the Catholic inquisitor interrogated him, clearly it was the Catholic Church that was in charge of whether he lived or died. That would be like someone saying that it wasn’t the Jewish religious leaders who had Jesus killed, it was Pilate. While it could be debated over who bears the most guilt, clearly, without the Catholic Church being involved, Tyndale would not have been killed. The fact that there was a death sentence for “heretics” is very much against the teachings of Christ. You won’t find him or the disciples killing any heretics in the New Testament, even people like Simon the Sorcerer were spared that.
Wow, that's about as low as you can possibly go. Tyndale, Wycliffe and several others were horribly executed simply because they translated the Bible into the vernacular, and the documents from the day SPECIFICALLY STATE THIS.
Oh what a relief, Tynedale wasn’t burned for his Bible, but his “Lutheranism”, that makes it so much better. “English had a harder time getting vernacular versions”. Yes, because you killed them all.
This is by far Horn’s most laughable take yet. He conveniently left out the part of how they dug up Wycliffe’s bones and burned his bones. This is what happens when you decide to defend Rome at all costs
You from the same camp, blinded by your hatred Mr.
Trent is not representing the people who did that. That's the lie the hate speech spin doctors tell.
You cling to the lie more that the Christian values you purport to defend, yet you are from the same ilk as those who did what you say.
The fact that Catholics could even judge the translations of William Tyndale is absolutely unbelievable. William was well learned in Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. He could read and write in the languages of Scripture, and his translations were well received and lauded for how correct they were. In fact, his translations were so linguistically coherent and loyal to the native languages of Scripture that it was the Catholic translation into Latin that was considered to be off by language scholars.
The simple fact is that William sought only one thing: That Scripture be available to all: From the least to the most of humanity. And, because his translations were practically beyond complaint (minus fickle complaints regarding undotted "i's"), the Catholic church had to prohibit his translations in fear that man might actually realize it doesn't need the church.
Were other translations available? Yes. There were other translations; Coptic, Gothic etc, but none that were in such a common vernacular as English. The simple and damning fact is that the Catholic church did not release an English translation of Scripture until much, much later, and after they had burned alive many men of God for their devotion to Christ and His Holy Word.
William Tyndale is the man that sought to have Scripture accessible to all people. And, even now the Catholic church rejects this and calls him a heretic. Only Satan would endorse the prohibition of Scripture, because through Scripture, we are saved. It is Scripture that convicts the heart, cuts through every lie of Satan and equips man for every spiritual battle and adversity.
William Tyndale is a true Saint and man of Christ. And, Catholics will smear and insult him forever because their church is their God, not Christ. William Tyndale died for Christ. The church kills for itself. Pseudochristos.
Not familiar with the guy, but we should go with the authority that can actually trace its roots to the Apostles, which is the Catholic Church. No one prior to the protestants taught that the church was unnecessary, besides maybe non-christians (arians, gnostics, etc). To learn history is to fail to be prostestant.
👏👏👏
Never forget the Gunpowder plot in 1605 by the Catholic Jesuits to blow up the Parliament building in England to prevent the KJV from being created.
It's what the movie V for Vendetta Symbolises , the mask stands for Accepting Catholicism as the new Religion hiding your face behind a Mystery mask from Rome.
V represent the Jesuit who got caught and his back story is a false victim role where England banned all Jesuits from the country.
Babylon Mystery Religion
The Catholics never wanted to give acces to the common man. Without pay.
"Man might realize he doesn't need the Church"
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter,* and on this rock* I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades* shall not prevail against it.* I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,* and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” - Matthew 16:17-19
I'll stick with Jesus who established the Church.
You're right on every point except our need for the Church. When we come to saving faith, Christ redeems us and brings us into the fellowship of the saints, the Church He established by His Blood. Denying the Church is not same as denying Christ, but it is very close, because Christ is the one and only Head of the Church, His Body and Bride, and so you reject a deep part of Christ's power and authority in your life with this statement, when you, dear brother, have no doubt proclaimed your total alleigance to Christ and His Word.
The Church is where we hear (primarily) hear the Word of God preached to us, where we receive Baptism (which has replaced circumcision in the Kingdom of God) as public ceremony and means of grace which confirms our faith before the Church and the world, and where we (spiritually) feed on the body and blood of Christ in Communion/Eucharist, (which has replaced the sacrificial system). I get that it's not easy to trust institutions, liturgies, or other religious functions. Indeed, I certainly don't trust them in themselves. Instead, I trust that the Holy Spirit will work through them and through us as individuals as Jesus promised us He would be.
As someone who reads the Bible in Church Slavonic and saw some of the earliest Old Church Slavonic translations, I can say that a significant number of Greek vocabulary had to be borrowed in order to produce a usable translation.
Languages have to evolve before the Bible can be faithfully translated.
I'll argue. They don't "have to evolve," they just end up importing terminology from whatever language was the basis of the translation.
@@StoaoftheSouth if you look at which words the English had to import into Polynesian languages before they could make treaties everyone understands, you will change your opinion
@@deutschermichel5807 Did they end up importing a bunch or English terms?
First. Viva Il Luce!
Congrats Luce!
VIVA LUCE
*la
@ I ain’t Italian, sue me.
Over 500 years after the tragic event, Pope John Paul II came to the homeland of Jan Hus and apologized for the cruel death inflicted on him (see pg. 4). Here is the story behind that sad yet triumphant episode in church history.
Forbidden to Speak
The date was July 6, 1415. The priest who stood alone in the Cathedral of Constance, hands chained in front of him, had a favorite saying, "Truth Conquers." Watching to see if he would stand for truth or flinch were hundreds of churchmen and Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor. Noblemen of Bohemia, knights and other witnesses also looked on.
Jan Hus (pronounced Yon Hoos) was about to be ritually stripped of his priestly office. Outside the cathedral, a stake was in preparation at which to "cook the goose." (Hus means "goose" in Czech.)
A list of charges was read, but as Hus tried to answer them, Cardinal Peter D'Ailly ordered him to be quiet. Hus was told that he could reply to all the charges at one time. "And how should I reply to all of them together when I cannot reflect upon them all together?" protested Hus. He continued to try to answer each charge but was told, "Be silent now. We have already heard enough from you!"
"I plead with you, for God's sake, hear me, so that those standing here will not believe that I held such errors. Afterward you can do to me what you like!" cried Jan. But he was forbidden to say anything at all. At this, he fell to his knees and committed his cause to God. A few minutes later he was even rebuked because he had appealed to God!
Hus was on trial because he was the most vocal champion of reform in the Czech church. For years he had preached to his fellow Czechs in their own language at Bethlehem Chapel, one of only two chapels in the whole nation allowed to offer vernacular sermons. The reforms he called for were not extreme. To some extent, his views were formed by his reading of the works of the English reformer John Wycliffe, but Hus never accepted Wycliffe's most radical demands.
At first, Hus was supported by his archbishop, Zbynek (pronounced Sbiniek) and by mad King Vaclav IV. But Zbynek, who had bought his office, had little scriptural knowledge and soon believed those who said Hus was a heretic. For his part, Vaclav supported Hus only until Hus denounced the methods being used to sell indulgences. Pardons for sins were being hawked shamelessly, and Vaclav wanted his cut of the profits.
Repeatedly accused of heresy, Hus was excommunicated four times, once in violation of church procedure. He appealed and sent spokesmen to represent his true positions, but these messengers were mistreated and even cast into prison.
Two radical reformers, who had gone far beyond Hus, were pressured to recant. They turned on Hus and claimed he taught things he hadn't. To answer these claims and to clear himself, Hus accepted an invitation to present his case at the Council of Constance. Emperor Sigismund guaranteed his safety.
Sigismund's promise proved worthless and he himself would eventually call for Hus' death. As for the churchmen, many were stung by Hus' denunciation of their greed, gluttony, sexual sins and ignorance. Indeed, on the walls of Bethlehem chapel, paintings contrasted the lives of rich proud popes with the humility and poverty of Christ and the apostles. The very council that condemned Hus proved his point. Thousands of churchmen gathered to end a split in the papacy, which saw as many as three popes ruling at once. One of their acts was to imprison Pope John XXIII for a long list of serious crimes, including rape, piracy and murder--while 1,500 prostitutes thronged the town, eager to serve the delegates.
On June 8, Cardinal D'Ailly put a choice to the prisoner. He could cast himself on the mercy of the council, renouncing a list of errors he was alleged to have taught, or he could insist on one more hearing. D'Ailly recommended against Hus requesting another hearing.
Having long taught that one must stand by truth, regardless of the consequences, Hus could not accept the first choice. And his experience with the council showed him that the second option was a sham.
Now, almost a month later, he had his final chance. The council urged him to reject certain heresies that they claimed he had taught. Hus declared that he would gladly root out all heresy if he could be shown from the Bible anything false that he had taught. He flatly refused to pretend he had ever promoted the lies attributed to him.
He prayed aloud for God's forgiveness of the clergymen who had rigged his trial. But those for whom he prayed jeered at him.
The lonely priest was stripped of the symbols of his office. When they took the cup from him, he declared his hope that Christ would not take the cup of mercy from him. When they committed his soul to the devil, he committed it to Christ.
Outside, they led him to the stake. After kneeling in prayer, he was chained by the neck. Wood was piled around him.
Urged one last time to renounce his errors, he replied that he had never taught the things charged to him. "The principle intention of my preaching and of all my other acts or writings was solely that I might turn men from sin. And in that truth of the Gospel that I wrote, taught, and preached in accordance with the sayings and expositions of the holy scriptures, I am willing gladly to die today."
When the fire was lit, the brave reformer began to sing.
The Daring Reformer of Prague
Jerome of Prague was a daring Czech reformer who delighted in taunting the opposition. It was Jerome who had brought Wycliffe's works from England to Prague.
Although he knew the risk he was taking--Hus had already been burned-- he slipped into Constance, supposing he could slip out again. He almost succeeded but was caught before he reached the safety of an international border. When tried by the council, Jerome wavered at first, but eventually stood firm to his beliefs and was condemned. A paper hat with devils painted on it was placed on his head. Like Hus, he was burned.
What Hus Wanted
Reform of the clergy and papacy
Preaching in local languages rather than in Latin.
Testing church teachings by the word of God.
Administration of the Eucharist as both bread and wine to lay people (who were only allowed the bread).
Embrace of poverty by the priesthood.
Obedience of the priesthood to Christ.
Judgment of Wycliffe's writings and his own by fair standards.
Reform of the methods by which indulgences were promoted.
Nice fanfic👍
@SonOfThineHandmaid
Typical !
He had no authority just like Luther. I can assure you that nothing happens without God’s permission. The real history is much more complex.
@revelation12_1
I'm well aware
Jan Hus day is a national/ Bank holiday in Czechia, the day after the Sts. Cyril and Methodius Day.
Ortlund has you guys on your toes. Feeding you content.
Gavin is fighting a losing battle. Protestants who read history for themselves see his manipulations.
@@fantasia55 I think you are not very well studied at all if you think history supports Catholicism
Your video is titled the 'Myth' of the protestant bible martyrs. You seem to feel you got off the hook because Wycliffe died by stroke. But you left out that the church dug up his body after his death and burned his bones (thus declaring what they wish they had done). Not to mention they burned several of his followers who were alive. You also say Tyndale was killed for heresy not for translation. Firstly, he was in hiding for 12 years because he was known to be translating, secondly he was nearly arrested by raids on his printing presses. Thirdly, if the catholic church blatantly said translation was the problem it would have been a direct admission that they were hiding something. So of course they didn't charge him with that. But their every action was set to stopping him from translating.
Even if Luther and Calvin committed atrocities (claims I wouldn't deny), I have no problem condemning it. This is because I am under no illusion that churches, and church leaders can stray from right biblical practice. I don't have to defend them, the bible is my foundation. It would be nice if there was more academic integrity on the part of this video to fairly represent the history.
There won't be. Videos like these are made with the express interest of denying the truth for optical convenience. To persuade people with a lie. Such is not the way of christ who is the truth.
You are right. It was remiss that many people in authority in the Church abused their power.
You are wrong and deliberately misrepresenting what he has produced in the rest of your statement.
Probably to further the traditions that fed your history, the history THAT you like and purport as true.
Tyndale was sought after and killed by the English KING for SEDITION.
Tyndale was producing a MIS-translation that directly had his theology in it, like the Jehovah Witness New World translation. A blatent mistranslation and changing text to support their "truth" that is being deliberately "hidden" by Christendom
The Church had produced many English (vernacular) bibles were produced, Alfred the Great's translation in English was done in 900AD, and Guthenburg was a Catholic, and the first book first western printing press was Jerome's vernacular Bible.
They were not hiding anything as the Catholic Church's hierarchy, power, mass and sacraments are thoroughly bibical, despite your unbelief .
They were right to protect translation of it as they HAD witnessed heretics using translation and scripture against the faith.
They acuse the bible of being altered... but when the church tries to stop it, they cry foul... darned if you do, darned if you dont.
@@ethancrawford9461 yup
They have to argue in bad faith because even a remotely objective and honest depiction of the church proves how blatantly ridiculous and misunderstood the reformation was
The same people who argue it's wrong for a licenced professional (aka bishops and priests) to arrest someone they deem to be a fraud, as these people have no proven experience in the craft.
Are you the same who argue it's fine to do so for doctors? Lawyers? psychiatry? Police? If you argue it's bad for masters of a teaching to some-what gate keep the practices, especially if these practices are super coherent, and proven to work (even if you don't believe in it, not all believe in psychiatry btw) then why would it be bad if i randomly try to do a heart transplantation? Please stay consistent here.
What are the heresies? Against dogmas of pagan catholics? Lol
@learn1924 two points. Trent tells what the heresies are, if you watch the video, and who says the Catholic Church is pagan?
"Don´t worry guys, we didn´t kill all the people who translated the bible. Only the ones that disagreed with us."
As Luther and many protestants did to the anabaptists translation of the Old Testament, and you try to do to us.
Hence your attempt.
If you want to preach heresies, at least leave the Church first.
@@MeanBeanComedy i was never in a protestant church bro.
Sounds like Protestants during the reformation. Don’t throw stones from a glass house.
Wufia’s Gothic Bible wasn’t used by the Catholic Church because he was Arian, and it was associated with Arianism because the Goths were by and large Arian.
St. John Chrysostom did oversee a translation of the liturgy into Gothic, however.
What's the basis for that claim about Chrysostom? Sounds interesting, and I would litonko know where you are pulling that from.
@@StoaoftheSouth I’m sorry to say, I don’t remember where I read that. I read it in a couple of places before I actually believed it because I was skeptical about it at first too.
Modern society doesn't think heresy is a sin. We need to spell it out to them that heresy is bad and not good. Schism is bad and not good. Most people in America need to hear this or they won't get it.
If you were in charge of society, would you execute people for it?
It is. But most of the schisms arose from the heresies of the Catholic Church that they refused to correct, until decades after the schisms, when they realized the “heretics” were actually the correct ones. Waiting for the next schism from Catholics to happen so they can fix a few more things
They absolutely think heresy is a sin. They just disagree with calling it heresy.
Everyone thinks error has no rights
@@newglof9558
If it's a matter of opinion, then it doesn't really exist.
And since there is no ecclesiastical authority for Protestants, there is no such thing as heresy.
Precisely why progressive Christianity is a grave issue among Protestants.
The whole punishing heretics topic was *the* hardest obstacle for me in becoming Catholic. I really identified with the heretics, freedom of speech, etc. I held onto more Americanist views for quite a while even after becoming Catholic. But with time, and observation of the world around me, I’ve been coming around to your perspective here. I would have appreciated this video back then, but I suppose I appreciate it more now. Lord, have mercy.
I was in British Library yesterday to see original Tyndale bible exhibited. Researching as protestants always use this to attack the faith. This video made my search so easy. Thank you! 🤩
So… because Tyndale was burned for being a heretic based on the edict of worms and not for his translation I’m supposed to feel better?
Deliberate misrepresentation of what he said.
Tyndale was burned for sedition.
🙄 people are always just thinking about themselves, what about Tyndale himself!
Oh, that's it, he's dead now, so it doesn't matter.
@@williampeters9838 this video makes it pretty clear that Trent is only against the death penalty bc the church says so.
But he would be pro if the church said so, even though the magisterium is unchanging? Riiiight, very convincing
Yes.
Well said, man! In psychology, we call this "minimizing". When we find ourselves guilty we do several things - shifting the blame and also minimizing the sin. It's classic defense mechanism.
"Oh, the Inquisition wasn't that bad!"
Really... Tell that to the Jews whose fingernails you pulled out or whose bodies you pulled apart on your racks.
Denial and minimization. It's a shield against confronting the truth of your own sin. It prevents repentance because, "it wasn't so bad".
They were executed but that's okay cause it was for heresy and not for translating the Bible 🤔
He discusses this starting at 16:31. Executing heretics wasn’t just a Catholic problem. You have to remember also, they didn’t have separation of church and state, so heresy was criminal. They were truly concerned for the salvation of souls, and if you have heretics running around turning people away from the gospel, you’re putting souls at risk of eternal damnation. They would rather see one person die than thousands go to hell by following heresy. Basically they considered it a necessary evil.
And again it was for translating the bible, just not in the way the catholic church would like. For instance Tryndale correctly translates repentance, but the catholic church wanted him to translate it as pennance. Seems the catholics were the ones practicing heresy...
That's the jist of it.
Do you support burning of heretics against Catholicism ? Do you think it ought to be done today ? Should people be arrested for heresy?
He discusses this starting at 16:31. Executing heretics wasn’t just a Catholic problem. You have to remember also, they didn’t have separation of church and state, so heresy was criminal. They were truly concerned for the salvation of souls, and if you have heretics running around turning people away from the gospel, you’re putting souls at risk of eternal damnation. They would rather see one person die than thousands go to hell by following heresy. Basically they considered it a necessary evil.
Very informative..I knew a little on Cathars etc but not the history of the Bibles translation into the vernacular languages.
1:15
This is a very disputable claim. These languages weren’t “primitive” because they weren’t pulled out of thin air. Where do you suppose they come from? They’re called the Romance languages for a reason! If Latin had vocabulary to express it then so did they, making full use of Latin words.
As always, quality stuff Trent.
Excellent video Trent!
Really good, Trent!
Yeah, he just justified murder in the name of Christ.
Dropped the mask without noticing it....
Happy All Saints Day Trent and to your family and to The Counsel of Trent! May the Lord bless you and keep you continually in His holy love now and for all eternity!!! 💕🙏💕🙏
Trent Horn and Joe Heschmeyer are the Catholic Mythbusters 💥🔥😎
Btw... a Mythbusters-style collab between CoT and Shameless Popery might actually break the internet and restore Christendom to its former glory 👀
Our Lady does that
I think for me Protestantism is just being able to read the Bible freely and leave room for their own discernment. May be dangerous for wrong interpretation but that’s where a diligent Christian should seek for consistency, research and etymology of translations, and ultimately let the scripture teach without necessarily an institutioned man having to read and explain for you.
you know not every Protestant has the science, intelligence and time to become a scholar
But Jesus founded a Church to preserve and preach the Gospel, not a book. And practically speaking, it doesn't work. Even faithful, Protestant scholars disagree on fundamental aspects of the Gospel.
Amen
@@BrewMeister27 it’s not just a book. It’s the Word of God.
You think wrong.
Happy Reformation Day!
Excellent. So many rumors, innuendo, and flat out lies have circulated since division has been championed.
Excellent content
Trust and believe the Gospel 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV to be saved ETERNALLY Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Amen. The correct gospel from the correct bible.
@ Good work brother glad someone here stands for Paul’s Gospel and the KJV Bible 💪🏻
amen
Fr Stephen DeYoung in the Orthodox Church has a good article breaking down the issues in Hart’s translation
Reality is not a myth. It actually happened.
Wow, that's deep.
@@OnYaBoya It's just the truth.
That’s why I don’t comment in the vernacular.
Same here, fam.
@ thanks for the solidarity, my red-headed brother in the LORD
There are remarkably strong arguments that the Cathars as a single heretical movement did not exist, and instead there was a combination of localized Christianity combined with the use of torture to extract "confessions" in beliefs that no one had, but that were the torturers derived from knowledge of old heresies.
Clear, concise, and considerate. Thank you for your work. God bless.
The way you end the video highlights a key difference between how Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church handle historical wrongdoing. When Protestants execute heretics, even members of the same denomination can readily condemn it, since they don’t assume their church is infallible. Catholicism complicates this because while Catholics admit the church can make mistakes, they also maintain that its teachings are infallible-even when those teachings have been reversed or deemed misguided. This creates room for apologists to shrug off past evils while insisting the church remains trustworthy and authoritative and directly guided by the Lord. Protestants can easily condemn Luther’s errors, but for Catholics, calling a past teaching or practice evil requires complex (if not convoluted) justifications.
Very well said.
You are simply misrepresenting what is being said. The Catholic position is unequivically one that mourns these executions.
It is a deliberate misrepresentation of historical fact to claim that these errors came from the infallible teaching of the Church and not from the fallible beliefs of its fallible members. That is what Catholic apologists object to.
If you think better understanding the actual facts of history is just fabricating complex/convoluted justifications, then the truth will always escape you.
Even among Protestants, there is an unfortunate reflex to justify these executions with the worthless idea "well, they were men of their time" or "that's just how things were back then." I think the bigger complication for Rome is the plain contradiction which exists between her current view on the death penalty, and her historical practice when she held real power over secular states.
@@carl-yawatha It's not. The Council of Constance infallibly teaches that Hus needed killing, and the Church maintains to this day that Tyndale had 4 heretical translations. The only one I've looked into (metanoia = repentance) is now translated that way in modern Catholic Bibles, but they still can't admit they were wrong to burn him. Just like in this video.
In Canada and other bizarre cultish places, one can be imprisoned for simply stating what a woman is. Thank God for his beautiful church and her infallible guidance in the Holy Spirit.
I live in Canada. Nobody is going to jail over this lol. Get off the internet
@@rileypare7946 A father whose child was being butchered by gender ideology fanatics was imprisoned for six months. And worse , they can steal your child from you if you try to defend him or her.
I don't know how Trent thinks he can just add works to salvation by his errant and private interpretation of Romans 2 , in which Paul is explaining the futility of works in appeasing God. How crazy can it get?
Works do not appease God, but you can not say you are faithful to God if you do not so what He tells you. If a doctor told you “you will not live another year because of this disease in you” and you went out and made a series of long term investments, that shows you do not have faith in the doctor. The same way, Christ tells us throughout The Gospels to do works, and if we have faith we will perform those works. The works do not save us, no one teaches works save you except Pelagianists. Only God can save you, and nothing you do can ever merit salvation. This is a statement that all Christians, including Catholic and Orthodox agree with
@@DANtheMANofSIPA Here is the problem: Roman Catholic heresy in the Catechism.
CCC 2027 says, "Moved by the Holy Spirit, _we can merit for ourselves...all the graces needed_ to attain eternal life..."
Truth is, we can't merit *anything* for ourselves in the attainment of eternal life!
Thank you Trent for the fair treatment of the subject. I also have taught similarly especially concerning Tyndale and Wycliffe. I never heard anyone argue Hus was killed for translating the Bible. I have no idea why anyone would think that, except that they just threw Hus onto their list of Protestant "saints" and slapped on martyrdom for the Bible. He did advocate translating sermons to the local vernacular and he did that with his own after writing them in Latin.
Trent the morality we find in scripture cannot change. The death penalty will ALWAYS be admissible.
He who is without sin, cast the first stone....
“The Catholic Church didn’t execute people for making translations”
“The Catholic Church ‘regulated’ the use of the Bible by executing people… and that’s a good thing!”
No, they just didn't allow the vernacular translations in places were a heresy relying on that translation was rampant.
@ “No, they just burned people at the stake for carrying pages of the Bible in their coat!”
@@williamthompson4761you just repeated the original post and acted as if you didn’t…
@@williamthompson4761 The Church shouldn't have the power to execute anyone.
The Roman Catholic Church is as innocent as the Pharisees when they accused Jesus of Rebellion. Just as it was not the Pharisees who directly strike Jesus, but they condemned Jesus and brought to the Romans to be execited, it is the same with the Roman Catholics who judge the people of heresy and have the Governing Authorities to have them executed.
Christ didnt just give us a book but a Church, not only invisible but visible one.
And the Church kills people for disagreeing its interpretation and doctrines.
And its apostolic all the way to the first church.
Okay im convinced!
Saul (Paul) kept muderous threats against disciples, he also approved of Stephen's murder, yet was still selected by Jesus. Paul even called himself the world's worst sinner.
Peter cut the ear off of a soldier, he also denied Christ three times.
Jesus still selected Judas to be an apostle despite knowing he would completely betray him.
Only one apostle would decide to attend the crucifixtion.
Thomas doubted the resurrection and demanded proof of it.
Isaiah and Daniel both admitted to being sinful men in the old testament.
Even Moses killed an Egyptian under the old covenant.
Fallible men can still be part of an infallible institution.
@@frankovstovski yet they were directly chosen by God and changed their course after touched by God.
What about these roman daddies after receiving the “key” continue to kill people and wage war in the name of Christ?
Why not now?
Christ sent the Holy Spirit to indwell us and guide us. Do you hear, listen to, and follow the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit? Or are you fixated and dependent on the external guidance of your clergy? Wolves can dress in clerical garb, you know. But the Holy Spirit never deceives.
Awesome as always. Love your stuff. Thanks
Very timely video. I heard someone read a version of Psalm 46 today that set off alarm bells in my head.
7:51 - I’m sure this is what you meant to say, but the primary dialect was Norman French from 1066 among the nobility only - the vast majority of people in England continued to speak old English.
But why do all English speakers now have 70% French words?
@@deutschermichel5807the most common words in English come from Anglo Saxon. The huge number of French words are elite and specialized. Although there are lots of them, they do not make up the majority of words that people speak.
For example, my first paragraph contains, I believe, 83% Anglo Saxon words and 17% French words. My active vocabulary is mostly French if you are looking at gross numbers of words, but in terms of actual usage, it is overwhelmingly Anglo Saxon.
We can say the same thing ‘’the myth of the catholic church ‘’
Next, let's debunk Foxes Book of Martyrs.😊
Why not it leads to anti catholicism.
Gods Catholic Church comprised & gave The Holy Bible to the world. Written in 325AD, canonized in 382AD & reaffirmed in 393AD & 397AD. Over 1500 years later, Protestants, WITHOUT GODS AUTHORITY, rewrote it, added/deleted words, verses, chapters, books m, giving their version of Gods words. Rev22:18-19. Jer26:2, 2 Pet1:20-21, 3:16
The Didache quotes the part of the Lord's prayer that they (Catholic church) remove
Catholic Encyclopedia IV
Page 779: "'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the holy Vine of David Thy Child, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be the glory for ever'. And of the broken Bread: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the Life and knowledge which thou has made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be the glory for ever For as this broken bread was dispersed over the mountains, and being collected became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from he ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.'"
All but a few MSS of Matthew (there are hundreds in total) have the part of the Lord's prayer that they remove.
Catholic Encyclopedia IV
Page 779: "The text of the prayer is not quite that of St. Matthew, and it is given with the doxology "for Thine is the power and the glory for ever", whereas all but a few MSS. of St. Matthew have this interpolation with "the kingdom and the power" etc."
Cracker: (Only 1.6% of Greek manuscripts remove it according to the official text and textwert from Kurt Aland)
The Catholic church changed Genesis 3:15 to make it be about Mary instead of Jesus Christ. aka more blasphemy against God
Genesis 3:15 Catholic DRA (from the Vulgate): I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Genesis 3:15 KJV/Hebrew/earliest writings: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Their change to "she" instead of "he" cannot be defended critically, and originated after the 4th century
Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 7
Page 675: "The translation ‘“‘she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth cent (‘‘ Katholik”, 1893, 425), and cannot be defended critically."
Their change of "thou shalt bruise his heel" to "thou shalt lie in wait for her heel" is also not what the Hebrew says, or what the early witnesses say.
They plainly changed it for their own agenda
Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 15
Page 464B: "This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text: first, the Hebrew text employs the same verb for the two renderings “she shall crush" and “thou shalt lie in wait”; the Septuagint renders the verb both times" as ""to lie in wait; Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac and the Samaritan translators, interpret the Hebrew verb by expressions which mean to crush, to bruise; the Itala renders the verb.." "employed in the Septuagint by the Latin ‘‘servare’”’, to guard; St. Jerome (Quaest. hebr. in Gen., P. 1. XXIII, col. 943) maintains that the Hebrew verb has the meaning of “crushing” or “bruising” rather than of "lying in wait”, “guarding’’."
This altered reading was the only one the Catholic church approved historically
The Glories of Mary
Page 156: "But in our Vulgate, which is the only version approved by the Council of Trent, it is She, and not He."
This doxology-or prayer of praise to God-is not in Luke’s version (Luke 11), nor in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew. Beginning in the revised translation of the Mass promulgated after Vatican II, the doxology was provided as an additional prayer, not as an exegetical concession to Protestants, who had prayed it for many years in their liturgies. So, at Mass, after the priest’s words following the Lord’s Prayer, the faithful conclude, “For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours, now and forever.”
The doxology was an addition to Matthew’s text, though it was seen early in Church history, such as in the Didache, which purports to be the teaching of the Twelve. So while it does have ancient roots in Christian liturgy, because this doxology is not part of Scripture, it’s not part of the official Lord’s Prayer (see CCC 2759ff.). For the unbiased truth of Gods Only One True Apostolic Catholic Church, read or listen to audio of The Catechism of The Catholic Church, visit CatholicAnswers online or consult with a Catholic Priest.
Quoting KJV as a source negates your claim as Protestants rewrote The Holy Bible over 1500 years after Gods Catholic Church comprised it and gave it to the world. God gave His authority, power, Doctrine, Sacraments and Teachings to His apostles and their direct successors, Catholic Priests. The Pope has Gods authority and power over all matters of His Catholic Church as He is led by The Holy Spirit. Instead of trolling Catholic videos to twist Gods Teachings, which is a grievous sin, try to learn Gods truth by the only Church He established.
@@southernlady1109 Miss, uh, you seem to not understand the most basic thing of Luke.. That is a different event. It is not the same. And scripture is not wrong. Luke was not wrong to not have it, it was simply not part of that time. It was part of what Matthew described. Also, you appeal to the CCC for authority that it is not legitimate.. Surely you see the circular argument you make. And, the Lord's prayer (as is correct in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, not the Catholic Latin though), is as stated, which you somehow ignored, despite your own church using it to support her claims... in the Didache..
Are you Catholic through and through, or do you pick and choose things to accept to support your side? From the evidence in your posts, it is sadly just what you choose to accept at varying times.
You can tell Trent was holding back laughter when he read the “word on the street” Bible. 🤣
So Christ left His Church leaderless and dropped off a Bible and let everyone figure it out on their own
If you're protestant, yes
That's a ridiculous caricature
Isn't protestantism wonderful?
@@tbrickmanno thats how heretic protestants think happened .
He left the holy spirit
OOf never this early
Great work Trent
I feel Trent simply is trying to smash anything Protestant (or Proto-Protestant) as “wrong” at any price. For example, he mentions from credible sources that ”the medieval church didn't forbid translations in the vernacular”… but is that the whole truth? Did the church not have “liturgical” languages? Only allowing the liturgy to be served in certain languages that were “sacred”?
Trent here is making use of the fact that Protestants value Scripture the most; but for the medieval Church it's the liturgy that was most valued, and the fact that it was not served in the vernacular, but Scripture was translated, is actually proof of the ignorance the Church felt into, not a proof of liberalism and freedom.
Scripture simply was not important enough.
Liturgical Languages doesnt mean No Venacular Translations.
First two second were muted, so for me this video started with the words: "Burned people at the stake for translating the Bible into English? I have!"
Just a note: The separation of Church and State was first theorized by Dante Alighieri under the name: "Theory of the Two Suns" (In Italian: "Teoria dei Due Soli"). As everybody obviously know, Alighieri was a Catholic...
This video did not do any favors for the Catholic Church in my opinion. While it's true that not all Bible versions were suppressed, the argument that the murdering of heretics over doctrinal disagreements is still horrible.
This isn't just the fault of the Catholics, protestants did it too. This presentation comes across as means to cover up and gloss over the sins of the past. Why not just accept that the reaction was extreme and wrong? I would have way more respect for Catholics and for Trent if that was brought out. There was intense persecution of various groups for mostly political reasons, and I hope Trent would consider doing a follow up video or having a long form conversation with another protestant youtuber.
I think we'll find both traditions have made errors in the past, and the sinful severe persecution of "heretics" in most cases I would hope would be a point of agreement among Christians.
This is my exact issue as well. So many of the explanations that I see are a combination of:
1) It didn’t happen
2) It did happen but the Protestants were doing it to
3) It did happen and the burning of heretics was justifiable
The problem that I have is that instead of just saying that the execution of heretics was wrong, they will try to find reasons to justify it. If it was justifiable, why aren’t they burning heretics now? How would you differentiate between someone who you should convert with the Gospel vs burn at the stake? And if it was justifiable, by what standard can you criticize the Protestants for doing it?
And that’s not even mentioning the fact that Pope Francis has ruled that capital punishment is “Always inadmissible” on the basis that it violates human dignity.
Protestants did the same thing at this time
@@peterhenryzepeda3484 I agree, and I said as much in my comment.
@@peterhenryzepeda3484 were the Protestants wrong for doing so?
@@OfficerTyreekI think the both of you are ignorant of these times where violence was not the monopoly of the state. People were dueling eachother, highwaymen preyed on unarmed and sparse travellers, and people could not stay in prison for long because the prisoners had to pay for their stay in prison. The judicial and penitentiary system is the product of thousands of years of legislation. In those times it was cheaper and effective for society that the lawbreaker repent or face immediate corporal punishment or execution. In this area the Church was consistently more merciful. Jan Hus was allowed to do explicitly illegal things (like translating Wycliffe's work into Czech) for 12 years until his execution, and during this time inspired a movement that took 25 years of warfare (that the Hussites started) to extinguish, and where the moderate Hussites were indistinguishable from orthodox Catholics and the extreme ones nudist Adamites. Conclusively heresy is a danger to society. Through a secular utilitarian worldview, heresy is justifiably punishable by death to prevent social upheaval and warfare and promote national/civilizational identity and harmony. In those times, it is out of Christian ethic that heretics were to be burned just as is out of the Christian ethic that they should no longer be burned given the monopoly of violence by the state (the Hobbesian Leviathan).
Why were the anabaptists slaughtered en mass
The powerful are always threatened by people who disagree with them. cf Mao's cultural revolution, etc
Ask protestants
Trent, you are being disingenuous about the Lollards and Tyndale. The Lollards were referred to as "Bible-men" in their day and were burned at the stake on orders of the anti-translation Bishop of Canterbury. The anti-Lollard laws were later used to persecute Tyndale in England. That is why he moved to the Holy Roman Empire to complete his Bible translation-canon law was different there- and the first editions of his translation only had the unadorned translation and were still burned by Roman Catholic priests in England.
For any that want to see a more in depth breakdown of the anti-translation movement of the medieval English church, check out the video on William Tyndale over at Truth Unites.
@@emmaus5975
Still -- tyndale was killed for heresy.
Not for translation.
@@charlesjoyce982 His "heresy" was being Protestant. Are you sure you want to go there?
@@emmaus5975
The point is he was executed for heresy -- not translation.
@@charlesjoyce982 I think you are missing the forest for the trees.
If you feel truly confident you're correct and in possession of the truth, I think that you don't need to impose your views on others, slander them or threaten them, particularly people trying to live a normal life who are not seeking conflict, damaging property, challenging for converts, or otherwise breaking the law. Hopefully this is a lesson that everyone can take to heart.
If a society tries to forcibly compel the assent of a private citizen who is employed, who does not seek conflict, damage property, challenge for converts, or otherwise break the law, and who lives an exemplary moral life, I find it hard to distinguish that society from the totalitarian dystopia presented in the pages of 1984, as cliche as such a reference may seem at first glance.
Unfortunately, we all live at the whim of a state in which, quite frankly, the so called 'inalienable rights' turn out to be inalienable only until push comes to shove.
I suppose the best you can do in that case is fulfill your part of the bargain, i.e. retain employment, avoid seeking conflict, abstain from damaging property, keep silent about your convictions in the public square, and refrain from serious lawbreaking, all at the whim of the arbitrary power of the state and its executive, hoping all the while that your good faith will be reciprocated. If not? You certainly won't be the first person in history to suffer such a grave injustice, nor, unfortunately, will you be the last.
There is a fiction that America is tolerant of dissidents, indeed a haven for such. This may have been true at one time. In my life experience, America is a society that does not extend mercy or understanding to the designated outsider, a society in which the majority are characteristically cruel, intolerant and tyrannical. Hopefully America can live up to its professed ideals.
The RSV is a construct of Westcott and Hort. The first version to have scripture altered and removed
Westcott and Hort are certainly in hell right now.
I've been struggling with anger lately so I will say a prayer against that and just say that while I find the content of this video, mostly unobjectionable it's starting point stoked a great deal of outrage. Tyndale's heresies being for translating the bible with Lutheran sympathies makes him a martyr to me brother. Not just another dead heretic. That's not a myth. This hurts me. I agree that most often generically "protestant" understanding of the greater issue of vernacular translations is a straw man, but there have to be better ways to say it, and better thesis statements then, "The Myth of Protestant Bible Martyrs." Godspeed Trent.
Tyndale wasn't imprisoned for translating a book, Tyndale was imprisoned because he was teaching heresy
@johnisaacfelipe6357 What heresy, and why does that make it ok?
@@HyraxusPrimus You see the Catholic church has never made any martyr's from any other traditions because the Catholic church decides who's a martyr and whose a heretic. That way they never have to stand to account don't you know. If it's not a Catholic martyr, and they did the martyring then it's a myth.
@@centurion7398 Ironically, following the strict (albeit) definition of martyrdom, if the Protestants in question were "only" executed for their faith and most definitely not for "simply" translating the Bible...that exactly makes them martyrs. I did however only know beforehand that Catholics "canonized" saints, not that they had a special class for martyrs. Interesting.
The most disturbing part about this topic to me is that based on how hard they (certain Catholics) want to justify the executions of the past, I get the unfortunate feeling a lot of them would be totally onboard if the church brought it back in the present.
@@HyraxusPrimus The belief that the Charism of Saint Peter didn't pass down, the belief that there should be a clergy/laity distinction. This is what Tyndale was teaching against.
Let's just say Gavin was persuasive!
When?
ua-cam.com/video/2DetuTE_XCo/v-deo.htmlsi=QRb4uFkbpZlZmWwy
I agree. I thought this video would be a direct response to Ortlund's video.
He can still be correct but with caveats.
11:25 “merely”. So the evidence is so strong that he was you have to say merely so you can deflect
Also lost me on advocating for a Christian government. What he really means is Catholic. And then its a hop and a skip back to executions.
@ 100%. I am somewhat shcoked that the comment isn’t calling him out. He said some ridiculous stuff in this video.
Yeah, to fully lay out my argument: If you believe that heretical executions are wrong, and the church has done the right thing by revising its position on them, then you must advocate for the separation of church and state. Because the church’s change of heart is in response to its changing status in society, not the other way around. An institution as large as the church will always seek to maximize its power (for holy reasons) and once you have that power there is nothing stopping them from deploying violence to counter heresy (again, for holy reasons).
There is another argument to be made for religious freedom and who gets to call the shots. The church would also not be happy if the government goes into the hands of a non-catholic religious institution, or even a non-christian one. It should advocate for the separation for its own sake too.
20:34 thats all we get for the gravity and nature of the situation? It would be more prudent to explain which Catholic kingdoms, accepted Catholic teachings and norms should be condemned. And to do the same for protestants. For its not just - some religious state did this - no, they thought it was rational and connected it to a teaching or a teaching they accepted, didnt mind, or exploited.
Your are the man Trent!! Amen brother amen 🙏 thank you