A question about how the Bible was read a while back

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidetrack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sidetrack

Guest
I once heard that ( I think that before Vatican Council II) people were’nt allowed to read the Bible because there was the concern that if they read it they would misinterpret it.Only certain people like the priests could read it.I once told this to someone else and they said that they’ve never heard of that.If this is true then why?.
 
That is not true. Bibles existed in homes of people in the past. The difference is that in the distant past, before Reformation, printed books were hard to make and were expensive. Thus their availability was scarce among the laity. This is a common lie propagated against the Catholic Church. Rich people would have bibles back then because they can afford it. Also note that the rates of illiteracy was higher in the past, thus most believers couldn’t even read. So bibles weren’t much use for them.
 
There does appear to be some truth to that.
…Index of Forbidden Books, which Roman Catholics were forbidden to read or possess on pain of excommunication. They showed that even the Bible was once on the blacklist. Translations of the holy book ended up on the bonfires along with other "heretical’’ works because the Church, whose official language was Latin, was suspicious of allowing the faithful access to sacred texts without ecclesiastical guidance.
…
withchrist.org/archives.htm
Click to expand...
That said, I still have a copy of my Douay-Confraternity Edition with an Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, copyrighted 1951.
 
ProVobis said:
There does appear to be some truth to that.

That said, I still have a copy of my Douay-Confraternity Edition with an Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, copyrighted 1951.
Click to expand...
Those bibles that were forbidden were not written by Catholics and contained many graves errors, which could lead people astray.

Hah! mine’s newer: copyright 1957:p same Imprimatur though.
 
I’m siding with Constantine on this discussion. he is 100% correct.
 
ConstantineTG said:
That is not true. Bibles existed in homes of people in the past. The difference is that in the distant past, before Reformation, printed books were hard to make and were expensive. Thus their availability was scarce among the laity. This is a common lie propagated against the Catholic Church. Rich people would have bibles back then because they can afford it. Also note that the rates of illiteracy was higher in the past, thus most believers couldn’t even read. So bibles weren’t much use for them.
Click to expand...
Correct. The Bible was never banned, but unauthorized translation were.
 
ConstantineTG said:
That is not true. Bibles existed in homes of people in the past. The difference is that in the distant past, before Reformation, printed books were hard to make and were expensive. Thus their availability was scarce among the laity. This is a common lie propagated against the Catholic Church. Rich people would have bibles back then because they can afford it. Also note that the rates of illiteracy was higher in the past, thus most believers couldn’t even read. So bibles weren’t much use for them.
Click to expand...
agreed
 
Rich people would have bibles back then because they can afford it. Also note that the rates of illiteracy was higher in the past, thus most believers couldn’t even read.
Click to expand...
One of Gutenberg’s first projects was to print the Bible in Latin using movable parts of metal. Prior to that it was painstakingly hand-written, much done by the monks. So yes, there weren’t too many copies to read back then.
 
I believe the English translations date back to the 16th century. Earlier there were various language translations such as Greek by Erasmus in the 15th century and so forth. Earlier was latin and so forth.

But even in the 18th century the leather, gold leaf Bibles existed. I have a 1869 Rev Roswell Hitchcock edition here. The Douay is a good version in English and basically what I use. I have my Grandmothers from 1905.

BTW I have a New American Bible memory edition from when my Grandfather passed away in 1960 that I really like also. What its does differently than the others is give a basic understanding for each scripture verse in notation at the bottom of the page’s. So the thinking of the Catholic Church theologists is basically included to that period also.
 
sidetrack said:
I once heard that ( I think that before Vatican Council II) people were’nt allowed to read the Bible because there was the concern that if they read it they would misinterpret it.Only certain people like the priests could read it.I once told this to someone else and they said that they’ve never heard of that.If this is true then why?.
Click to expand...
From ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENTBKS.HTM

IV

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing.

**Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission **may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary.

Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the **crime **they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop.

Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.

so in summary; one cannot receive absolution from their sins if they have a Bible (even when written by Catholic authors)without the written permission from the Church
 
The reading of the Bible was NEVER prohibited for Catholic Laity. But, in fact until recent time, the majority of the Laity could not read, nor could they afford to purchase a Bible. Until the 19th century, schooling was very uncommon for those that were not wealthy, and even wealthy women were often excluded from having an education.

The only general exception was for those studying for the ministry (this includes the Protestants). Those aiming for a clerical profession were educated. Lawyers, and other “professionals” all began studying the Clerical courses, and then branched out later.

In England, some schools were established for bright commoners in the 14th through 17th Centuries (such as Winchester). But, those lucky students were generally referred by their local Priest, and they went into the professions, which effectively removed them from their commoner backgrounds.

I had a Douay (spelling?) Bible immediately after I decided to convert at the age of 9. I bought it at a Catholic Bookstore in 1953, and I kept it for many years (including my time in Seminary). I now prefer the Jerusalum Bible for everyday reading.
 
Some of those unauthorised translations contained glosses on the text to ‘support’ heretical doctrine.
 
at least implicitly is was true after the Council of Trent CONDEMNED theses: (Errors of Quesnel 1713)

1430 80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
1431 81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
1432 82. The Lord’s Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with
readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is
harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.

It was only Benedict XIV (1740-1518) who approved “that
permission is granted for reading vernacular versions which have been
approved by the Apostolic See, or have been edited with annotations
drawn from the Holy Fathers of the Church or from learned Catholic men.”
(DS 1632) . This rule was in effect even in my lifetime: only approved translations with annotations were allowed to be read by laymen.
 
sidetrack said:
I once heard that ( I think that before Vatican Council II) people were’nt allowed to read the Bible because there was the concern that if they read it they would misinterpret it.Only certain people like the priests could read it.I once told this to someone else and they said that they’ve never heard of that.If this is true then why?.
Click to expand...
If memory serves - Pope St Pius the X Granted indulgences for Catholics if they spent 15 minutes in Scripture study a day. Anyone can correct me if they know conclusively as this is from memory ! What the Catholic Church has always frowned upon is self interpretation contrary to what the Church teaches. Not Scripture Study itself.
 
Robert_Burns said:
If memory serves - Pope St Pius the X Granted indulgences for Catholics if they spent 15 minutes in Scripture study a day. Anyone can correct me if they know conclusively as this is from memory ! What the Catholic Church has always frowned upon is self interpretation contrary to what the Church teaches. Not Scripture Study itself.
Click to expand...
Good memory. There is an attachment to the Imprimatured version I have: “An indulgence of 3 years is granted to all the faithful who read the Holy Scriptures at least a quarter of an hour with the veneration due to the Divine Word and as spiritual reading.” (Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, 694)
 
ProVobis said:
Good memory. There is an attachment to the Imprimatured version I have: “An indulgence of 3 years is granted to all the faithful who read the Holy Scriptures at least a quarter of an hour with the veneration due to the Divine Word and as spiritual reading.” (Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, 694)
Click to expand...
And your Douay bible should have the prayers that go with that indulgence.
 
fbl9 said:
And your Douay bible should have the prayers that go with that indulgence.
Click to expand...
In fact it does.

Before: “Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of the faithful…”

After: Prayer of St Bede the Venerable.

Yours too?
 
ProVobis said:
In fact it does.

Before: “Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of the faithful…”

After: Prayer of St Bede the Venerable.

Yours too?
Click to expand...
yep
a plennary indulgence of five yrs usual conditions, recite daily for a month.
Enchiridion Indulgentearum 287

Indulgence of 3yrs for 15 min of scripture reading with due veneration of the Divine word.
Enchiridion Indulgentearum 694
 
ProVobis said:
Especially the ones written in English.

frontline.org.za/articles/TheForbiddenBible.htm
…
It may surprise most English speaking Christians that the first Bible printed in English was illegal and that the Bible translator was burned alive for the crime of translating God’s Word into English.
…
Click to expand...
He was tried and convicted for corrupting the Bible with heresy, not for translating it. source]

According to Saint Thomas More, the whole Bible was translated into English and read without condemnation earlier than the translations mentioned in the frontline.org article:
‘The whole Bible long before Wycliff’s day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read’. source]
and
“The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as be already reproved for naught * as Wycliff’s was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff’s days, they remain lawful and be in some folks’ hands.” “I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen’s hands and women’s too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion.” source*]

St. Thomas’ protestant contemporary, Thomas Cranmer, similarly stated:
“If the matter should be tried by custom, we might also allege custom for the reading of the Scripture in the vulgar tongue, and prescribe the more ancient custom. For it is not much above one hundred years ago since Scripture hath not been accustomed to be read in the vulgar tongue within this realm. And many hundred years before that, it was translated and read in the Saxons’ tongue, which at that time was our mother’s tongue: whereof there remaineth yet divers copies, found lately in old abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking, that few men now been able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common usage because folk should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain, and be daily found.” source]

Please note that they are talking about whole Catholic Bibles, in English, before the Wycliff and Tyndale versions. Anglican Priest John Henry Blunt suggests that these early Catholic Bibles were lost to us when they were destroyed during the reign of Edward VI (the first ruler of England who was raised as a Protestant). source]

Partial translations of the Bible into English were done at least as early as the end of the seventh century, when the monk-poet Cædmon translated a large part of the Bible into Old English.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top