Denominations

[PastorDiane]

Where you think that some people had a bible or read a bible is nuts, the only people that had their hands on text where the clergy, there were very few copies, and the monks did them all by hand, AND very few people new how to read, there was several very difficult languages that most books were written in and they were not universal languages and the dialects of the time further complicated matters............so please dont speak off the top and say there were educated poeple who had access....the whole horrid issue of the dark ages of the church was the lack and and ability to read the scriptures

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Where you think that some people had a bible or read a bible is nuts, the only people that had their hands on text where the clergy, there were very few copies, and the monks did them all by hand, AND very few people new how to read, there was several very difficult languages that most books were written in and they were not universal languages and the dialects of the time further complicated matters............so please dont speak off the top and say there were educated poeple who had access....the whole horrid issue of the dark ages of the church was the lack and and ability to read the scriptures

Hi Diane-
They were called the Dark Ages because the Roman Empire collapsed and the western world fell into chaos and disorder. It has nothing to do with the lack of availability of the bible to peasants. You'd have to call everything from 13,000,000,0000 BC to 1600 AD the Dark Ages otherwise.

The texts were in universal languages. They were generally written in Greek (which was the language of the east) and Latin (the language of the west).

Educated people could afford the hand written bibles- and also speak Latin and Greek.

[Father Rick]

I think everyone's arguments here are proving to be a bit ethnocentric as well.

Remember, there were parts of the world OTHER than medieval Europe. The eastern churches were continuining on-- with the scriptures in the common languages of the people. (Remember folks, people in Greece spoke greek!). It was only in western Europe that Latin was the primary language used...

[edb19]

. . . . . Luther worked in every way he could think of-- for a decade and a half--NOT to be separated from the Church we call Catholic. His objective was to have IT reform itself, not for him to start another one.

Agreed re: Luther's desire for the church. He loved the church and had no desire to leave it, his desire was for them to return to the teachings and practices they had when first begun.


Some people did read the word, but books were scarce and the Catholic Church's position was the it was the institution that was supposed to interpret the Bible and faith for the people. Even if everyone had had access to the word, the Church's view that it, and not the common person, should be studying it would still have remained.

Luther had an earned Doctorate degree and was a member of a religious order. He, therefore, had access to the scriptures. His study persuaded him that the institutional Church canot rightly require Christians to believe what their consciences do not bring them to believe. This does not mean, though, that any belief is as good as another or that every person is to decide on his own. He did not teach that Jesus is for each person whatever that person wanted to make of him.

My mother-in-law was born and raised in the RCC. She told me more than once that even through the late 60's/early 70's (when she quit practicing) that the priests made it pretty clear that the church members shouldn't read the Bible - as they might misinterpret something. Scripture was for the priests to read and interpret for the church members. I don't know how prevalent that was - but she's not the only person in her age group that I've heard that from.

[Albion]

What is a mess is her strawman, not what i actually said.

The kings subscribed to the Reformationist doctrine as a means to separate themselves from the Church.

OK, depending upon which "kings" you had in mind. But that is not what you wrote before and so it is not what I responded to. In that post, you wrote, "kings created their own churches." Now, you write, "Kings subscribed to the Reformationist doctrine." Those are quite different ideas. Then too, you wrote that these kings created new doctrines, which of course is not the same as saying they "subscribed" to Reformed teachings.

In view of that, the unproven motives you ascribed to them for what you now say they did not do (that they wanted to "control the faith of their people") aren't in play, either.

So, I think you can see that there was good reason for me to have said what I did then. And as regards her "strawman," well, I wasn't commenting one way or the other on that, but just wanted to keep these Reformation-era facts correct.

[Simon_Templar]

The dark ages are generally a very misunderstood time period. There are highly respected historical scholars (including CS Lewis) who have argued that the 'darg ages' as they are commonly taught never even really occured.

Some things I would like to point out

#1 - literacy among the "common" folk remained very low until the mid to late 18th century. During the "dark ages" specifically from around 500 - 800 AD there was a lack of trained scholars in western europe because the social infrastructure including education institutions had collapsed with the fall of the western empire. Basically there were a few scholars among the clergy, but that was about it. That changed with Charlamagne and Alfred the Great, both of whom founded educational institutions in their kingdoms and fostered scholarship. However, this was still limited to clergy and nobility.

Even after the reformation when the bible was made available in common languages, most people could not read it for themselves because literacy rates were still low.
It was only after the great awakening in the mid 1700's that literacy among the common folk really increased. This was also mostly limited to England the United States, but there was an explosion of literacy at that time with the rates even among the "common" folk reaching nearly 100%

#2 - the linguistic situation of western europe is generally not well understood or conveyed well by history teachers today. The common language of all western europe during the rule of the empire was Latin. Everyone spoke latin. That is why there was a dialect of latin called "vulgar" latin, vulgar means "common". It is also why the latin translation of the bible was called "the vulgate".
It was only after the decline and collapse of the empire in the west that the other languages like french, and english, itallian, etc started to come to the fore front and Latin fell into disuse.
However, even when these languages started to be used more, they were fairly rudimentary by comparison to Latin (at the time), because they had not developed.

The first literary works to be written in the local languages were not done until the the 12th-14th centuries. Thats asside from the bible, just other literature. The reason for this was that these languages didn't have the complexity and the vocabulary to support the needs of "high" literature.
For example Dante wrote the divine comedy as the first major literary work to be written in Italian, and that was in the 14th century. Even then he is often credited with inventing, and establishing modern itallian because he had to make up so many words but borrowing from Latin, because Itallian simply didn't have words to describe what he needed.

Translating the scriptures into the common languages of western europe, up until problably the 15th century or so, would be equivalent to translating it into ebonics, or some other slang language, today. The concern was not keeping the scriptures away from people (who couldn't have read it even if it was translated), but rather wether the scriptures could actually be translated into those languages without losing its meaning, and being grossly distorted.

Even later, when Tyndale translated the bible into English. The objection was not that he was translating the bible into the common language. Tyndale applied for permission to publish his translation, and was denied because in his translation he had deviated from the common accepted view on certain words and translated them in a way that the Church felt was an attack on the Church.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

My mother-in-law was born and raised in the RCC. She told me more than once that even through the late 60's/early 70's (when she quit practicing) that the priests made it pretty clear that the church members shouldn't read the Bible - as they might misinterpret something. Scripture was for the priests to read and interpret for the church members. I don't know how prevalent that was - but she's not the only person in her age group that I've heard that from.

Well, that's simply absurd. Either she misunderstood the priest or someone has made suggestions to her that aren't true.

The Church has always taught that reading the scripture was a good thing. I have never heard of anyone saying the Church discouraged them from reading scripture. These are usually the claims made by fallen-away Catholics or protestants. I know a lot of old Catholics and no one has ever said such a thing.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

OK, depending upon which "kings" you had in mind. But that is not what you wrote before and so it is not what I responded to. In that post, you wrote, "kings created their own churches." Now, you write, "Kings subscribed to the Reformationist doctrine." Those are quite different ideas. Then too, you wrote that these kings created new doctrines, which of course is not the same as saying they "subscribed" to Reformed teachings.

In view of that, the unproven motives you ascribed to them for what you now say they did not do (that they wanted to "control the faith of their people") aren't in play, either.

So, I think you can see that there was good reason for me to have said what I did then. And as regards her "strawman," well, I wasn't commenting one way or the other on that, but just wanted to keep these Reformation-era facts correct.

This is going back and forth. The original complaint was the claim that I said the reformers were tools of the kings (which I didn't).

Kings created their own churches in some instances- and of course, subscribed to reformationist doctrine to do so. But King Henry didn't tell Martin Luther was to right, or any of the Germanic kings. They picked up their teachings as a way of separating from Rome.

[Albion]

This is going back and forth. The original complaint was the claim that I said the reformers were tools of the kings (which I didn't).

All I was responding to is what you wrote, not what you may have meant, and not what she said.

What you said was: "kings created their own churches."

Except for the case of England, where that statement is very questionable as to its accuracy, the Reformation did not come from kings doing anything, let alone start their own churches in order to control the people, etc. and certainly not with the invention of new doctrines--which, as I noted, is also what you wrote.

Kings created their own churches in some instances

Well then, perhaps you should name these kings you have in mind.

[Albion]

Well, that's simply absurd. Either she misunderstood the priest or someone has made suggestions to her that aren't true.

The Church has always taught that reading the scripture was a good thing.

No, you're simply misinformed there. But we also must keep separate what the Roman Church said during previous eras and what is the policy today. During the Reformation--which is the age in the spotlight here--the policy absolutely and officially (Read the proclamations of the Council of Trent, for example) was that the common people were not to read for themselves.

Since Vatican II (but edb19 was speaking of an earlier time in this century, to be fair) the Church has encouraged private Bible reading.


I have never heard of anyone saying the Church discouraged them from reading scripture. These are usually the claims made by fallen-away Catholics or protestants. I know a lot of old Catholics and no one has ever said such a thing.

You're wrong there, but keep the strawmen out of it in any case.

[NewGuy101]

This is going back and forth. The original complaint was the claim that I said the reformers were tools of the kings (which I didn't).

Kings created their own churches in some instances- and of course, subscribed to reformationist doctrine to do so. But King Henry didn't tell Martin Luther was to right, or any of the Germanic kings. They picked up their teachings as a way of separating from Rome.
Gee, I really want to hear what you have on Calvin....:D

[TheDag]

So what do they all actually stand for? What *are* the differences? How are denominations created in the first place?
Well if you wish to know what The Salvation Army (SA) beliefs are go to Cyber Corps and you will see a sticky called Online Resources-SA and other. In there you will find a link to the 11 doctrines of the salvation army. The reason they have so few doctrines is because they started of as the East London Mission (ELM). The ELM ministered to people largely forgooten and ignored by the established churches. The lowest of the low. It was started by William Booth who was a presbyterian minister. The idea was for all converts to go into existing churches. However most of them felt unwelcome at the established churches and ended up returning to the mission. The misson did hold services as a way of trying to help them get used to church. At one point in time someone was talking about the mission and called it a salvation army and the name stuck.

Like alot of churches in the west the SA has become very respectable and no longer is the radical group it once was when members were arrested and they were criticised by other christians. The other problem that it often faces is people don't realise it is a church and they want to help out so they join meaning you get people who may not be christian there. it is similar to other churches like the Anglican who have the problem of having people attending because that was the socially acceptable thing to do years ago and now that society doesn't care they go out of habit.

Edit to add: Sorry if I have offended anyone. As far as the modern problems churches have that is backed up from my experiences in churches I have attended.


Edit to add: Sory if I have offended anyone but what I have said (as far as problems in those churches today) is backed up by my own experience from attending those churches.

[Rhamiel]

any other denominational questions