Unfortunately, there are Pastors and supposed Christians that teach that volunteerism is just that...secular do-goodism = bad, because how dare anyone do good without attaching it to religion. It's sickening. I don't think the person you responded to was promoting it, but rather staying the fact that there are these people out there. I'm absolutely disgusted by the so called pastor in the original post. IMO, we should be working together, not just as individual churches, but as a community. I'm disgusted by the segregation of churches down here. Up north, the community we were part of had ONE food pantry and ONE clothing closet. Here: "we only help those that are members of our own church"

In Illinois, they were rude about it (and this was back when I had four and five). In Pennsylvania, we were average (out family went up to eight, still average). In South Carolina, we are odd for our generation, but many came from larger families. We get the the shocked looks and I laugh. No big deal though. I think I'm also too old to care what others think anymore though. When half your children are grown, or near grown, you are old enough to no longer be as self conscious. Everyone else can get over themselves.

I had to go look something up, because I had remembered from other discussions and readings that Wycliffs translations into the vernacular were not the main issue with the Church. He attacked: 1) Clerical wealth (in fact, he was against clergy owning ANY temporal possessions. So if your pastor owns a wedding ring, a nice watch, some suits, a house, a decent car...yeah, Wycliffe was against that. If it were only extreme wealth, then I would agree with him. Often, most clerics lived in Church owned property and such was not an issue). 2) Authority of the Church 3) Transubstantiation (his view was closer to what the Lutherans came to hold). On top of denying Transubstantiation, he placed more emphasis on preaching and Scripture than he did on the Sacraments. All of these are of import, but he basically dismissed one set in lew of the others. However, the doctrine of Justification by Faith (alone) was not something that Wycliffe held to. So, basically, Wycliff was teaching heresy as far at the Catholic Church was concerned. There would be understandable concerns over his preaching, his writings, and concern about him corrupting a translation. They did not want him teaching heresy to Catholics. He would equally be considered a heretic by Baptists of the most fundamentalist types (in fact, by all Baptists).

Which ones, where, and what dates are you speaking of?

Orthodoxwiki St. Patrick St. Germanus St. Celestine Definitely some organization going on there. (And yes, I'm pretty certain I could follow that back to the Apostles)

Yes, the Greeks would object ;)

Reread Patty Joanna's post.

God did not write them. God did not dictate them. They were written by men that were inspired by God and their faith. Some were written by men recording histories at the behest of other men they are accredited to and were inspired by God and their faith.

I'm glad there's a good update. I will add that I had to chuckle over the name of the thread. Bad Kitty is the name of a sex shop in Charleston :LOL:

Teannika, I would like to encourage you to take some history classes outside of an IFB type Bible School. Perhaps interact with people on certain boards such as Catholic Answers (they have a non-Catholic board and the people there are great with sources). Heavens, even the PuritanBoard would be beneficial at this point (though anti-Catholic due to bring Reformed), as they enjoy a good discussion, sources, history, translational issues, etc. Less active, but also good, is Monachos (Eastern Orthodox). I was raised IFB. Kinny, Stauffer, Hyles-Anderson, Jack Chick...heavens, one of my former pastors is on the board of BJU. I know the teachings, inside and out. I lived and breathed KJVOnlyism into my mid twenties. I lived and breathed premillenial dispensationalism until I was nearly thirty. Convincing you is not something I'm going to make my goal, but I will challenge you to start reading and searching outside of a limited circle. You have this preconceived view of a group of people based on what you've been told. I'm telling you that a lot of context has been left out, incomplete and downright inaccurate histories given, etc. And, ftr, no, not ALL IFB believe this way, but it's rampant enough in those circles to mention that the racist views on races/nations (kinism) is strongly held by many in those circles. I will let this go for now. Prayers, Mommaduck

http://iocc.org/countries/countries_syria.aspx Read all the way through. You will find that we've been dealing with this since at least 2012. Catholic Charities is another good one.

NM, already found the answer.

If I remember correctly, Calvin even pleaded with Servetus to save his life. Servetus was basically banned from a particular city/region and was told not to come back (if Servetus believed himself correct, then even Scripture talks about shaking the dust from his sandals and leaving). Servetus was ornery and full enough of his own import that he came back as though no one could touch him, continued his preaching that had been forbidden, and suffered the legal consequences be had been warned of by the government of the area. He didn't have to die and he's not a martyr. Servetus was banned for preaching heresy (mainly denial of the Trinity) and without a license.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages You'll find the Church was NOT against the vernacular at all. You WILL find that there was concern with certain translations or translators and concern with renegade perchers; the concern was heresy. One of the jobs of the Church was to prevent heresy, and definitely not to enable it's spread.

Took me less than two minutes. http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2009/07/15/why-did-the-catholic-church-prevent-vernacular-bible-translations/ Ftr, the Latin Vulgate WAS in the vernacular, or vulgar, language of its time. That language continued used, especially amongst the educated (those that could actually read) for a long period of time. The priests' job was to use their abilities to being the Gospel to those that were and weren't educated. People did not have time to be educated as many were just surviving. Religious education was through living (the religious calendar), oral teaching and the reading/interpreting the Scriptures to the people, hymns, and various forms of iconography and artwork (celtic crosses, stained glass, pageants/plays). The Gospel was NOT kept from the people.

This!

The common people didn't have the manuscripts, because most of the common people could not read and there manuscripts would have been sold due to their value and eventually lost to all. Seriously, are you THAT ignorant of history and society?? The Catholic Church's issue was NOT the vernacular, it was too prevent just anyone from randomly "translating" and possibly inserting their own heresies or doing it poorly. These manuscripts were not, nor ever, a free for all (which would have destroyed them). Could you imagine if the manuscripts today were simply placed out on common tables and everyone was told, "here they are! Come and get them!" Do you know what would happen to them? They would be gone and never to be seen again. They would crumble to nothing. Yes, God bless those that would protect such things! Will I claim that the RCC is perfect? Of course not! We're there some people in it that did wrong? Absolutely! Just as there were Anabaptists that took over an entire city, murdering people and polygamous (Munster and a springboard for Menno's very different views) and there were certain Waldensian groups that separated husbands and wives. However, I will not claim that the RCC is Evil, the Whore of Babylon, the Anti-Christ, the holder of Satan's Sun Wafers, or some such craziness; I was raised on that garbage and a bit of maturity and learning actual history beyond what barely educated, fundamentalist preachers regurgitated of sensationalist authors and a cartoon drawing fanatic changed everything. Yes, I went to all the seminars, speeches, and read the books (Hunt, White, and Riplinger amongst them). You dig more and more and further back and you find just how messed up their scholarship is. Erasmus, yes, had issues with one of the manuscripts. It's still listed as a source he used, not completely rejected in whole. A bit of googling outside of fundamentalist websites and you can find this information.

Agreed! If it weren't for them being protected (locked up), we wouldn't have them today.

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num3.htm

Ftr, the Waldensians joined with the Reformed Protestants of the Reformation and that is where they stayed to this day. There were some sects of them that were Seventh Day.

Erasmus used it as a source for his work on the Textus Receptus.

Nearly ALL manuscripts are locked up somewhere. It's how they are protected.

There are actual theological views that have people divided up by skin colour and heavily grounded in its own form of racism. Yes. Through history, groups have migrated and intermingled. Every group and tribe can be traced back to a variety of others that came from a variety of others, etc.

I'm not getting this "don't belong to the Catholic Church" bit. Catholics didn't use just what they supposedly "owned". They used manuscripts. They weren't "owned" by this group or that group.

Based on what you said before, it does not seem you define it the same way.