Banning the Bible

[Cruxis117]

I’ve heard a statement made by a friend that in 1199, Pope Innocent III banned the Bible from the common people. Does anyone know whether this is true, or whether this may be a historical fact that may have been twisted? Any help would be appreciated.

 

[MarcoPolo]

See this section from Wikipedia, and see the cross-referenced footnotes.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Another Pope did though, didn’t they?

I remember watching a documentary when I was much younger about the campaign to have the Bible printed in English. Apparently one guy was sentenced to hanging, and when the campaign continued his remains were publicly exhumed and then burnt to teach the protesters a lesson. This was in England. There was also a point where English Bibles were distributed, but then called back after a law change?

I think it was during the Tudor period when people started demanding the Bible in English. I know that Queen Bloody Mary, who was a Catholic, did not believe that common people should be able to read the Bible.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Another Pope did though, didn’t they?

I remember watching a documentary when I was much younger about the campaign to have the Bible printed in English. Apparently one guy was sentenced to hanging, and when the campaign continued his remains were publicly exhumed and then burnt to teach the protesters a lesson. This was in England. There was also a point where English Bibles were distributed, but then called back after a law change?

I think it was during the Tudor period when people started demanding the Bible in English. I know that Queen Bloody Mary, who was a Catholic, did not believe that common people should be able to read the Bible.

Um. . .I hadn’t heard that Mary Tudor (who incidentally had far fewer people executed as ‘heretics’ in her reign than her sis “Good Queen Bess” had executed as ‘traitors’ (<<cough, Edmund Campion, cough>>) in a similar time frame 'didn’t believe that common people should be able to read the Bible.

Care to give the source? Mary Tudor was remarkably well educated for a woman of that time and other court women were educated with her, including Henry VIII’s last wife Catherine Parr, who did feel the common people should read the Bible and who got on quite well with Mary Tudor in spite of their religious differences. . .

Actually, it was London and the nobility ‘demanding the Bible in English’. The majority of the country, especially to the North, was quite solidly Catholic in Henry’s time. . .still a good 50/50 during Queen Bess’s early reign. . .and we had ‘vernacular Bibles’ in the Catholic Church well before the Tudors, provided they were, shall we say, ‘orthodox’ and not, um, Lollardised or some such.

 

[Cruxis117]

So, I did some research while I was waiting for responses, so then I could see what others had to say, and I found some interesting stuff. For example, I believe that my friend was referring to the year 1299, with regards to the Council of Toulouse and Canon 14, which states that people cannot own a translation. However, I believe that this was taken out of context, and there is a perfectly good thread here that discusses the matter:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15058

However, I would still prefer if people could give me more references, and their thoughts on the matter. I’ll continue to look, but as the old saying goes, many hands make light work.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Um. . .I hadn’t heard that Mary Tudor (who incidentally had far fewer people executed as ‘heretics’ in her reign than her sis “Good Queen Bess” had executed as ‘traitors’ (<<cough, Edmund Campion, cough>>) in a similar time frame 'didn’t believe that common people should be able to read the Bible.

Care to give the source? Mary Tudor was remarkably well educated for a woman of that time and other court women were educated with her, including Henry VIII’s last wife Catherine Parr, who did feel the common people should read the Bible and who got on quite well with Mary Tudor in spite of their religious differences. . .

4 February 1555 - The first Protestant martyr is publicly burned - John Rogers, translator of the Bible, is convicted under the new heresy laws.

englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/marygovt.html
Wikipedia:

After Tyndale’s death, Rogers pushed on with his predecessor’s English version of the Old Testament, which he used as far as 2 Chronicles, employing Myles Coverdale’s translation (1535) for the remainder and for the Apocrypha. Although it is claimed that Rogers was the first person to ever print a complete English Bible that was translated directly from the original Greek & Hebrew, there was also a reliance upon a Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible by Sebastian Münster and published in 1534/5.
Tyndale’s New Testament had been published in 1526.

The complete Bible was put out under the pseudonym of Thomas Matthew in 1537; it was printed in Paris and Antwerp by Adriana’s uncle, Sir Jacobus van Meteren. Richard Grafton published the sheets and got leave to sell the edition (1500 copies) in England. At the insistence of Archbishop Cranmer, the “King’s most gracious license” was granted to this translation. Previously in the same year, the 1537 reprint of the Myles Coverdale’s translation had been granted such a license.

Ten days later (August 16, 1553), he was summoned before the council and bidden to keep within his own house. His emoluments were taken away and his prebend was filled in October. In January 1554, Bonner, the new Bishop of London, sent him to Newgate Prison, where he lay with John Hooper, Laurence Saunders, John Bradford and others for a year. Their petitions, whether for less rigorous treatment or for opportunity of stating their case, were disregarded. In December 1554, Parliament re-enacted the penal statutes against Lollards, and on January 22, 1555, two days after they took effect, Rogers (with ten other people) came before the council at Gardiner’s house in Southwark, and defended himself in the examination that took place. On January 28 and January 29, he came before the commission appointed by Cardinal Pole, and was sentenced to death by Gardiner for heretically denying the Christian character of the Church of Rome and the real presence in the sacrament. He awaited and met death cheerfully, though he was even denied a meeting with his wife. He was burned at the stake on February 4, 1555 at Smithfield. Noailles, the French ambassador, speaks of the support given to Rogers by the greatest part of the people: “even his children assisted at it, comforting him in such a manner that it seemed as if he had been led to a wedding.”

Actually, it was London and the nobility ‘demanding the Bible in English’. The majority of the country, especially to the North, was quite solidly Catholic in Henry’s time. . .still a good 50/50 during Queen Bess’s early reign. . .and we had ‘vernacular Bibles’ in the Catholic Church well before the Tudors, provided they were, shall we say, ‘orthodox’ and not, um, Lollardised or some such.

So if the majority of the country were Catholic therefore not demanding the Bible in English, does that mean that it is unCatholic to read the Bible? Therefore could be considered taboo in a Catholic Country?

Will find some more sources.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Wikipedia:

Tyndale’s translations were condemned by both church and state in England, where it must be said it took longer for the reform movement to take hold. Tyndale was forced to flee England for the continent where he found safe haven in pro-reform areas.[12] The church and state reacted strongly against Tyndale’s work, banning his New Testament of 1526 from England. In addition any copy of his work found in England was to be burned.[13] Many Catholic scholars attacked Tyndale and his translations, the foremost of whom was Thomas More.[14]

More and the Catholic Church refuted Tyndale’s translations because they argued that Tyndale had purposefully mistranslated the texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views.[15] More specifically attacked Tyndale on the grounds that he had corrupted scripture by changing certain words and thus the meaning of scripture. More focused on four key words that Tyndale had changed in his translation.

The terms, as appearing in the Catholic texts, were “church”, “priest”, “do penance” and “charity”. These words became “congregation”, “senior” (changed to elder in the revised edition of 1534), “repent” and “love” in Tyndale translation.[16] More and the Church took great offense to these changes because they challenged many of the systems and doctrines that made up the foundation of the Catholic Church during this period of time. In 1536 the crown authorities strangled Tyndale to death and subsequently burned his body.

Wikipedia again:

The Tyndale Bible also challenged the Catholic Church in many other ways. The fact that it was translated into a vernacular language made it available to the common people. This allowed everyone access to scripture and gave the common people the ability to read (if they were literate) and interpret scripture how they wished, exposing it to the threat of being “twisted to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Peter 3.16) instead of relying on the church for their access to scripture. The main threat that Tyndale’s Bible caused to the Catholic Church is best summed up by Tyndale himself when he tells us of his reason for creating his translation in the first place. Tyndale’s purpose was to “[cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more scripture] than the clergy of the day”,[28] many of which were poorly educated. Thus Tyndale sought to undermine the Catholic Church’s grip on the both access to and interpretation of scripture. They were no longer needed as intercessors between the people and God.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible#Reaction_of_the_Catholic_Church

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Interesting, my dear sister in Christ, but you said that “Queen Mary” didn’t believe the common people should read the Bible. That’s what I wanted you to give a source for, which I don’t believe you have done.

Also, there is nothing in the wiki that speaks of the Pope forbidding the writing, or reading, of the Bible ‘by the common people.’

Certainly reading the Bible is a very Catholic thing to do. We get indulgences for doing so! *(No, really, we do). I said that there had existed vernacular Bibles (even the Wiki acknowledges that) before Mary Tudor (if I recall correctly, AD 1553-1558 were her ruling dates) and that the Church had no problem with that.

I don’t like to imply that a foreigner (U.S. citizen) is better versed in the history of England/Brittain than a British citizen, but let’s face it, there are ‘honors history students’ in my country who think the U.S. declared its independence from France in 1865 (smacks head) and even more who believe George Washington had wooden teeth and chopped down his daddy’s cherry tree. (None of the above, of course, is true). So any person could learn less-than-accurate history of his/her own country, perfectly innocently, and be astonished to find out years later that some of what they thought they knew wasn’t really correct. I’ve been wrong myself (gasp) a few times and am always willing to acknowledge any errors, but I truly don’t recall any Pope in Henry’s time slamming the common people for reading the bible. There may have been a Papal recommendation not to read an English PROTESTANT Bible, since these bibles would have been incomplete, heretical, and thus not accurate, but it wouldn’t have been because the Bible itself was not ‘for the common people.’

 

[LemonAndLime]

I think it is impossible for anyone to know every aspect of their nations history, so I do not see any offence in you suggesting that I do not know as much about the Tudors as you do - but just remember that my country is a much older than yours, so there’s a lot more to remember.

Apparently the people of the realm took the Archbishop’s instructions to heart. Many came to church when no services were in session just to read the Bible. Others found the reading of the Scriptures in their own language more interesting and appealing than listening to the preacher. The king had to issue a decree banning the reading of the English Bible
aloud during church services. Even then, the bishops continued to complain that the people were reading the Bible instead of listening to the sermon.

During the latter years of his reign, Henry became increasingly reactionary. As Protestant doctrine grew in influence, the king moved to suppress the influence of Tyndale and Coverdale. All but the Great Bible were outlawed – even though that edition was, essentially, the work of Tyndale and Coverdale. Bible burning came back into vogue. Preaching and the public reading of Scripture were strictly licensed and restricted. However, with the death of Henry in 1547 and the accession of the boy-king Edward VI, nearly all such restrictions were lifted. Protestant influence set the religious tone of
the nation for the next six years, and Bible publishing and reading flourished.

helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5Bible/print/TransBibleIntoEnglish.pdf

Not sure how reliable this source is though.

 

[Zooey]

Another Pope did though, didn’t they?

I remember watching a documentary when I was much younger about the campaign to have the Bible printed in English. Apparently one guy was sentenced to hanging, and when the campaign continued his remains were publicly exhumed and then burnt to teach the protesters a lesson. This was in England. There was also a point where English Bibles were distributed, but then called back after a law change?

I think it was during the Tudor period when people started demanding the Bible in English. I know that Queen Bloody Mary, who was a Catholic, did not believe that common people should be able to read the Bible.

No pope banned the Bible. From time to time, a particular version of the Bible was made by heretical groups who had deliberately fabricated/changed/distirted the actual texts, & these groups’ unchristian writings were gathered up & destroyed.

Some British monarchs tried to ban the Bible within England. This was a political move, since one of the main problems with some early English Bibles was that they were printed with notes that were political in nature.

Today’s equiivalent would be destroying a Jehovah’s Witness “bible”, something I have done myslef, to keep it from deceiving folks.

 

[Cruxis117]

No pope banned the Bible. From time to time, a particular version of the Bible was made by heretical groups who had deliberately fabricated/changed/distirted the actual texts, & these groups’ unchristian writings were gathered up & destroyed.

Some British monarchs tried to ban the Bible within England. This was a political move, since one of the main problems with some early English Bibles was that they were printed with notes that were political in nature.

Today’s equiivalent would be destroying a Jehovah’s Witness “bible”, something I have done myslef, to keep it from deceiving folks.

See, that’s what I thought. I’ve been checking different sources, and they’re telling me the same thing too. I’m surprised someone would make this accusation, but in the end, I guess I can’t really do anything but try to remain educated and continue to check my facts. Thanks for helping me out

 

[ClamDigger]

I’ve heard a statement made by a friend that in 1199, Pope Innocent III banned the Bible from the common people. Does anyone know whether this is true, or whether this may be a historical fact that may have been twisted? Any help would be appreciated.

That’s impossible. “Common people” hear the Bible at Mass. Therefore, how could it be banned?

 

[StTommyMore]

englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/marygovt.html

So if the majority of the country were Catholic therefore not demanding the Bible in English, does that mean that it is unCatholic to read the Bible? Therefore could be considered taboo in a Catholic Country?

Will find some more sources.

To suggest that it is “uncatholic” to read the Bible is beyond ridiculous. The Catholic Church was the Church that first translated the Bible into the vernacular (The Latin Vulgate). St. Thomas More called for faithful translations by well educated Catholics.

 

[TimothyH]

***There was a council in 1229 … in Toulouse, France. … It was called to deal with the Albigensian heresy, which maintained that the flesh is evil and therefore marriage is evil, fornication is not a sin, and suicide is not immoral. They also opposed taking oaths, which completely undermined medieval feudal society, which was based on oaths. These Albigensians were using corrupt vernacular versions of the Bible to support their theories, twisting the Bible to “prove” their point. To combat this, the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until this heresy was ended. This was a local restriction, not a universal one, and when the heresy was over, the restriction was lifted.

This restriction never affected more than one area of southern France, and is a far cry from the Catholic Church banning the Bible from all laymen. ***

Read More… Also see Dave Armstrong’s excellent site.

Other similar events took place throughout Christian history on both the Protestant and Catholic side. There was a Bible known as the “Baby Killer” Bible which read “Let the children first be killed” instead of “Let the children first be filled.” Some guy killed a child over it and the Bibles were rounded up and burned and rightly so.

For a funny list of Bibles which were banned, burned or recalled see The International Society of Bible Collectors page about collectable Bibles with misprints and strange translations at biblecollectors.org/articles/curiosities.htm.

1638— “Vexing wives” Bible. In a KJV Bible at Num. 25:18 it reads “for they vex you with their wives” instead of “with their wiles.”

The word of the Lord! Thanks be to God???

-Tim-

 

[LemonAndLime]

To suggest that it is “uncatholic” to read the Bible is beyond ridiculous. The Catholic Church was the Church that first translated the Bible into the vernacular (The Latin Vulgate). St. Thomas More called for faithful translations by well educated Catholics.

Those weren’t my words, another posted commented on how it was only the nobility and the middle classes who were demanding the Bible, as the rest were staunchly Catholic - which sounds to me like it’s implying that the Catholics in England didn’t want the Bible.

I am aware that the Church is the first one who made the Bible available for the masses.

 

[StTommyMore]

Those weren’t my words, another posted commented on how it was only the nobility and the middle classes who were demanding the Bible, as the rest were staunchly Catholic - which sounds to me like it’s implying that the Catholics in England didn’t want the Bible.

I am aware that the Church is the first one who made the Bible available for the masses.

What they wanted was a good translation, for those who could read. We have to remember that literacy was not all that widespread until the 19th century or so.