For example, Baptist is currently the largest denomination in the United States but there are many dozens more. How did this happen? Where did they all begin? To understand the Protestant Reform movement, we need to go back in history to the early 16th century when there was only one church in Western Europe - what we would now call the Roman Catholic Church - under the leadership of the Pope in Rome.
The lectures were afterwards expanded, and appeared in a series of articles in the Catholic pressand are now with slight alterations reprinted.
Their origin will sufficiently account for the colloquial style employed throughout. There is, therefore, no pretence either of profound scholarship or of eloquent language; all that is attempted is a popular and, as far as possible, accurate exposition along familiar lines of the Catholic claim historically in regard to the Bible.
It is candidly controversial without, however, let us hope, being uncharitable or unfair. Friends had more than once suggested the reissue of the articles; and it appeared to the writer that at last the proper moment for it had come when the Protestant world is jubilating over the Tercentenary of the Authorised Version.
Amidst the flood of literature on the subject of the Bible, it seemed but right that some statement, however plain and simple, should be set forth from the Catholic side, with the object of bringing home to the average mind the debt that Britain, in common with the rest of Christendom, owes to the Catholic Church in this connection.
Probably the motive of An introduction to the history of popes after the protestant reformation present publication will be best understood by a perusal of the following letter from the writer which appeared in the Glasgow Herald, 18th March, Without striking one single jarring note, I hope, in the universal chorus, yet I feel it would be rather ungenerous, and indeed historically unjust, did we not turn our eyes at least in passing to that venerable figure standing in the background surveying our celebrations, and, as it were, saying, 'Rejoice over it, but remember it was from me you got it'.
As a Scotsman, who cannot forget that it is the Bible that has made Scotland largely what she is today, I yield to no one in veneration of the inspired Scriptures and in admiration of the incomparably beautiful Authorised Version. Still, honour to whom honour.
We shall only be awarding a just meed of praise and gratitude if we frankly and thankfully recognise that it is to a council or councils of the R. Church that we owe the collection of the separate books into our present Canon of the New Testament, and that to the loving care and devoted labour of the monks and scholars of that Church all through the ages we are indebted, not only for the multiplication and distribution of the sacred volume among the faithful when as yet no printing press existed, but even for the preservation of the Book from corruption and destruction.
It is, then, undoubtedly true to say that, in the present order of Providence, it is owing to the Roman Catholic Church that we have a Bible at all. Or if she cannot altogether prevent its publication or its perusal, at least she renders it as nearly useless as possible by sealing it up in a dead language which the majority of people can neither read nor understand.
The people eagerly gazing upon the open Bible, saw they had been befooled and hoodwinked, and been taught to hold 'for doctrines the commandments of men', and forthwith throwing off the fetters, and emancipating themselves from the bondage of Romanism, they embraced the pure truth of the Word of God as set forth in Protestantism and Protestant Bibles.
Is not this the tale that history tells about Rome?
Has she not burned at the stake, or at least banished from their home and country, servants of the Lord like John Wycliffe and William Tyndale for no other crime than that of translating and printing and putting into lay folk's hands the sacred text of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Who does not know instances, even in our own days, of pious old women especially in Ireland chancing to light upon a Bible which they have never seen before and reading it especially St John's Gospel iii, 16and going to the priest about the new light they had received through the blessed words, and then the priest snatching it out of their hands and throwing it into the fire?
This is not at all uncommon it is said in Catholic lands, where the poor people sometimes chance to get a copy of God's Word through the devoted labours of Bible-women and tract-distributors.
This I repeat, is the commonly accepted idea about Rome and her attitude towards Holy Scripture among the masses of non-Catholic people.
I have said advisedly 'among the masses', for happily there are now a goodly number of enlightened and impartial persons, and of scholars who have studied the matter fairly for themselves, men, for example, of the stamp of the late Dr S. Maitland, among whom the idea is quite exploded.
And one may not blame the masses too severely for entertaining the notion above alluded to: They have believed the tradition as naturally as they believed that the sun rose in the east and set in the west; or that monasteries and convents were sinks of iniquity and dens of corruption; or that there was once a female Pope called Joan; or that Catholics pay money to get their sins forgiven.
You cannot blame them altogether, for they had, humanly speaking, no opportunity of knowing anything else. The Protestant account of pre-reformation Catholicism has been largely a falsification of history.
All the faults and sins that could possibly be raked up or invented against Rome, or against particular bishops or priests, were presented to the people of this unhappy land, and all her best acts misconstrued, misjudged, misrepresented, and nothing of good told in her favour.
She has been painted as all black and hideous, and no beauty could be seen in her. Consequently people came to believe the tradition as a matter of course, and accepted it as history, and no more dreamed of enquiring whether it was true or not than they dreamed of questioning whether Mary wrote the Casket Letters or blew up Darnley at Kirk o' Field.
Add to this the further fact that, Catholicism being almost totally wiped out in Scotland, the people had no means of making themselves personally acquainted with either its doctrines or its practices, and being very imperfectly educated till the beginning of the nineteenth century, were as incapable of arriving at a true knowledge of the interior life of the Catholic Church as of the internal organism of an antediluvian tadpole.
Hence one can easily understand how it came about that, among the mass of the people in Bible-loving Scotland, the Pope was recognised as the Anti-Christ foretold by St John, and Rome herself, that sitteth upon the seven hills, identified as 'Babylon, the Great, the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth', and the 'woman drunken with the blood of the saints'.
The story goes that one day the Merry Monarch, Charles the Second, propounded to the learned and scientific men about the Court the following profound problem: How is it that a dead fish weighs less than a living one?
The learned and scientific men discussed the grave difficulty and wrote elaborate treatises on it to please the Royal enquirer, but came to no satisfactory conclusion. Finally it occurred to one of them to test whether it really was, as the King had said; and of course he discovered that the thing was a joke; the fish weighed exactly the same dead as living, and all the time the Merry Monarch had been 'having them on'.
People have been acting much in the same way in regard to the assertion so glibly made that Rome hates the Bible, and persecutes it, and tries to blot it out of existence. Are we sure of our facts? Are we not building up mountains of abuse and calumny on a false suppositon?
By a calm consideration of the facts of history and a mind open to conviction on genuine evidence, they will be driven by sheer force of honesty to the conclusion that the Catholic Church, so far from being the monster of iniquity that she is painted, has in very truth been the parent, the author and maker under God, of the Bible; that she has guarded it and defended it all through the ages, and preserved it from error or destruction; that she has ever held it in highest veneration and esteem, and has grounded her doctrines upon it; that she alone has the right to call it her book; that she alone possesses the true Bible and the whole Bible, and that copies of the Scriptures existing outside of her pale, are partly incorrect and partly defective, and that whatever in them is true, is true because derived from her who alone possesses the Book in its fulness and its truth.
If they were Catholics, they would love God's Holy Word more and more; they would understand it better; they would adore the Divine Providence that took such a wise and sure means of preserving and perpetuating it; and they would profoundly admire the Catholic Church for her ceaseless vigilance, untiring zeal, and unswerving fidelity to the commission entrusted to her by Almighty God.
Some Errors Removed Now, in order to understand properly the work of the Catholic Church in creating and defending and perpetuating the Holy Scriptures, we must say a few preliminary words as to the human means used in their production, and as to the collecting of the Books of the Bible as we have it at present.
There are some common erroneous ideas which we would do well to clear away from our minds at the very outset. To begin with, the Bible did not drop down from Heaven ready-made, as some seem to imagine; it did not suddenly appear upon the earth, carried down from Almighty God by the hand of angel or seraph; but it was written by men like ourselves, who held in their hand pen or reed and ink and parchment, and laboriously traced every letter in the original languages of the East.
They were divinely inspired certainly, as no others ever have been before or since; nevertheless they were human beings, men chosen by God for the work, making use of the human instruments that lay to their hand at the time.A-level Art History; Contribute an essay!
Smarthistory video creation guide; Close; Europe – The Protestant Reformation Introduction to the Protestant Reformation (part 1 of 4): Setting the stage (at one point in the late s and s church was ruled by three Popes simultaneously). Popes and Cardinals often lived more.
History of Protestantism. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Part of a series on: Protestantism became the best-known representative of the Bohemian Reformation and one of the forerunners of the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation: A Very Short Introduction () Noll, Mark A.
A History of Christianity in the United States and. Albrecht Dürer: The Genius with a Great Soul. Albrecht Dürer was not only the greatest artist of the Northern Renaissance, but also a unique personality, his genius coexisting with a pure, noble character.
by The Right Rev. HENRY G. GRAHAM, Author of "Hindrances to Conversion," etc. Twenty-second Printing. Nihil Obstat et Imprimatur JOANNES RITCHIE, Vic. Gen. Sources. For controversial matter see any Catholic or Protestant textbooks.
The Catholic standard work is BELLARMINE, Disputations de Controversiis Christianoe fidei etc. (4 vols., Rome, ); on the Protestant side: GERHARD, Loci Theologici, etc.
(9 vols., Berlin, ).For the historical, political, and social history of Protestantism the best works are: DÖLLINGER, Die Reformation (3.
Even among more religious Catholics and Protestants, high levels of acceptance of one another. Despite the long history of Catholic-Protestant conflict in the aftermath of the Reformation, Western Europe’s Catholics and Protestants are now very accepting of each other.