Did popes murder those who read the bible

[ZMystiCat]

It must have been severely difficult to get people to sign up to lector.

History’s plot twist: The Black Plague was really the mass slaughter of anyone who dared lector! The Church covered it all up with a fake story about rats so that they could keep at least some idiots interested in lectoring.

The printing press was invented by a Catholic and the first book he printed was a bible.

And ironically, it was the invention that really gave the Protestants any staying power. I think my previous priest put it well (basic summary), “Without the printing press, you have no Protestant Reformation. Without it, the doctrine makes no sense.”

I’ve known so many deeply faithful beautifully committed Baptist people. It seems so antithetical that some of them would embrace and propagate such outrageous misinformation.

Most of them probably don’t realize that they’re propagating lies. It may have started off as malicious or from someone who had some mental problems, but by now, it’s sort of a false “common knowledge” in some Baptist circles.

 

[goout]

This whole issue illustrates the danger of fundamentalism, which takes things that occurred in a whole other context and rigidly forces them into modern culture, language, and understanding.
Ironically, fundamentalism is modernism to the extreme.

 

[Wannano]

If you want to know “where did this story originate”, you would be best off asking your Baptist minister friend.

I suspect it originated in some other Baptist’s imagination.

While I agree that the question “did the popes murder those who read the Bible” is seemingly preposterous by itself, I am reminded that “where there is smoke, there is fire.” The statement conjures up images of the Pope sneaking into the house of someone who read the Bible and stabbing them in the quiet of the night etc. I doubt that ever happened.

The question contains two aspects: 1. Did popes murder? 2. Those who read the Bible? I am interested that most of the answers here have centered around the thought that people were illiterate, were too poor to even have a Bible etc etc. These arguments against the original question quickly trash the whole original question as ridiculous. HOWEVER, are we concerned about discerning if there is any truth in the smoke of the original question? “Did popes murder”?
While that portion of the question indicates personal action of a Pope which I doubt ever happened, and while I believe the Church teaching has never taught or sanctioned murder, one would have to have his head deeply buried in the sand to not know that many people were killed in various ways for “owning their own beliefs”. I know that Catholics repeat that the Church never killed anyone but that that was done by the governing officials. The Church only identified the offenders and handed them over to the State, but in doing so, knew full well of the fate of those victims who professed a non-Catholic belief.

It is murky in the mind of a non-Catholic who has not studied Catholicism just who or what the Church is so I believe some would confuse a statement by calling the Church “popes” as in the OP. To take the statement at face value and conveniently trash it as a perpetuated lie may also mean being actively involved in a lie.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

while I believe the Church teaching has never taught or sanctioned murder, one would have to have his head deeply buried in the sand to not know that many people were killed in various ways for “owning their own beliefs

That is not the question.

The question is “did Popes murder people for reading the Bible in the Middle Ages”.

The question is not, did a Pope ever somehow sanction a murder of someone who had some belief/ did some practice that the Church did not approve of. We know that this happened.

(You will also note I made a later post suggesting that maybe this query stemmed from the idea of someone being killed for not just reading a Bible but forming their own interpretation of it and proceeding to publicize that interpretation, which is a lot different from “killed for reading a Bible”.)

I’m all for having a reasoned discussion of what a particular Pope did, which means that the person discussing has either read all the surrounding history or is open to listening to a deeper discussion of it than “bad ol’ Catholic Church killed people”. That would be just as bad as me saying “bad ol’ Protestant Church killed Catholics for being Catholic” which indeed also happened, but there was a lot more context around it at that time.

If you have spent any time around certain categories of Baptists, which I have, some of them have these wildly oversimplified ideas about Catholicism and the evils that Popes did which are about on the same level as when Catholics accused Jewish people of crucifying Catholic children in their basements. This type of statement from some random Baptist falls in the same category to me unless and until said Baptist, or a similar Baptist, adds some context and depth to it, not someone else changing the entire scenario and adding depth in an attempt to make an apologia for a Baptist.

P.S. It’s also a fact that in the Middle Ages, most people had no access to a Bible and also couldn’t read, or couldn’t read well enough to comprehend a Bible, so those people who might be reading a Bible would tend to be relatively educated or wealthy people or clergy, who are also the ones who might likely go beyond just reading and come up with some incorrect/ heretical interpretation and start propagating it to the dismay of the hierarchy.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

while I believe the Church teaching has never taught or sanctioned murder, one would have to have his head deeply buried in the sand to not know that many people were killed in various ways for “owning their own beliefs

That is not the question.

The question is “did Popes murder people for reading the Bible in the Middle Ages”.

The question is not, did a Pope ever somehow sanction a murder of someone who had some belief/ did some practice that the Church did not approve of. We know that this happened.

Tis, I could have responded to other posters with my comments but I knew I could depend on you to respond with reasoned thought so I chose you…you have not disappointed! I envy your ability to communicate.

I agree with the arguments you presented. For me personally, to have you print " We know that this happened" is huge. Maybe I have been blind but I believe this is the first time in my experience that I have seen that acknowledgement printed here on CAF. Please forgive me if I am wrong.

I have no experience with weird Baptist types but I know there are other non-Catholics who equate the Pope with the Church. They have no knowledge that Catholics can have an evil man as a Pope and the Church is still somehow pure.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Your friend made the claim, it is up to HIM to provide the proof. It is backward to ask you to provide counter evidence.

So, ask his proof (I imagine I know what it will be, but, I will keep that to myself for now).

 

[guanophore]

“Did popes murder”?

It would not surprise me at all if the Leo X did not wish Luther’s death, or communicate to those close to him that was what he wanted. Luther was thought he may be assassinated on the was to the Diet of Worms Ultimately he was kidnapped on the road by Frederick the Wise Saxony held in the Wartburg Castle near the town of Eisenach for his own protection.
Obviously everyone expected for him to be killed and this was the edict issued by Emperor Charles after the Edict of Worms. He was declared a heretic given the death penalty. I agree with you, Wannano, where there is smoke, there is fire.

It was common knowledge that heresy was considered treason, as the Catholic governments considered it an insidious corruption against social order. They were absolutely right, and we see the results as the Reformation and the fruits thereof progressed, there was ultimately a complete separation of Church and State. The Popes lost all political power, and were eventually sequestered to Vatican City.

It is murky in the mind of a non-Catholic who has not studied Catholicism just who or what the Church is so I believe some would confuse a statement by calling the Church “popes” as in the OP.

Yes, including Catholics who don’t know their own family history. No one who makes an objective study of the Medicis can perpetuate that these men were in any way not secularly ambitious and greedy for worldly power and influence. The common phrase “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” was first made about a Catholic Bishop.

 

[Wannano]

It was common knowledge that heresy was considered treason, as the Catholic governments considered it an insidious corruption against social order. They were absolutely right, and we see the results as the Reformation and the fruits thereof progressed, there was ultimately a complete separation of Church and State. The Popes lost all political power, and were eventually sequestered to Vatican City.

Where have you been hiding?

I know this is off topic but I believe Jesus meant it when He said His Kingdom is not of this world.

 

[guanophore]

(You will also note I made a later post suggesting that maybe this query stemmed from the idea of someone being killed for not just reading a Bible but forming their own interpretation of it and proceeding to publicize that interpretation, which is a lot different from “killed for reading a Bible”.)

I think the one flowed into the other. The CC did not want the laity to interpret the Scripture because it did help keep them in power. One can be a much more effective gatekeeper if one has all the keys tightly in hand.

Indeed it was the printing press, and widespread dissemination of Reformation ideas that made the movement so successful. Without the printing press and bibles in hand, the movement could have been squashed as others had in the past.

If you have spent any time around certain categories of Baptists, which I have, some of them have these wildly oversimplified ideas about Catholicism and the evils that Popes did which are about on the same level as when Catholics accused Jewish people of crucifying Catholic children in their basements.

Yes, I have sojourned among my Baptist brethren also, and you are right, these misperceptions seem to expand and proliferate. Those who are told them rarely investigate to find the facts. I had to do this for myself - one factor that led be back to the Church into which I was baptized.

 

[guanophore]

Catholics can have an evil man as a Pope and the Church is still somehow pure.

It is an odd idea, and I think difficult to grasp for those who have a deficient understanding of the Church. If the Church is really only “the body of believers on earth” then Jesus is really a disconnected Head (not really in charge). If the Church is not ensouled by the Holy Spirit, she does not have any identity apart from human beings, and therefore cannot help but fall to corruption.

The Church is incarnational, like Christ, with both divine and human elements. It is not the corrupt persons attached to her that preserve her purity, but only the Divine elements. It makes sense that people reject the Church/Pope when they see the smoke of satan if one does not really believe that Jesus will keep His promise to guide her into all Truth. Men are always in need of Reform.

Maybe I have been blind but I believe this is the first time in my experience that I have seen that acknowledgement printed here on CAF. Please forgive me if I am wrong.

I think honest acknowledgment of the sins committed by Catholics, especially Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes is an important step toward healing the Body of Christ. We are seeing this again with the abuse scandal. Hiding the sins committed by leaders is counterproductive. Assassinating those who raise a call to order is the ultimate counterproductivity for the Church.

 

[twf]

It’s my understanding that certain unauthorized translations were on the Index. It would hardly make sense for Sacred Scripture in general to be on the index as its texts were proclaimed at every Mass…
Of course, the majority of medieval laity couldn’t read, so it was mostly a moot point.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You have to also understand that a Pope who did not object to State elimination of “heretics” is not necessarily “evil”. Popes make mistakes, they can be weak, they can commit sin, they can feel their hands are tied, and they also may have genuinely thought they were doing good things for the Church. Furthermore, a Pope is quite capable of doing a mixed bag of good things and bad things.

We must be careful of judging in hindsight, and careful about judging in general. St. Jacinta saw a vision of the then-Pope crying in his room while mobs rioted outside. She felt sorry for him and always prayed for him extra after that. We need to pray for Popes, including deceased Popes. The Lord appropriately applies the prayers at the correct time.

 

[leland]

Nope.

You might almost say that Popes murdered those who read the Quran, but most people killed in the Crusades were probably illiterate

 

[guanophore]

I know this is off topic but I believe Jesus meant it when He said His Kingdom is not of this world.

I am not so sure it is entirely off topic. It all boils down to authority. The CC was reluctant to disseminate the Scripture because guarding it (in their minds, I think) would help them maintain their authority over the flock. History seems to have validated this idea, since they lost control as soon as the Scriptures escaped their custody.

Yes, Jesus reigns over the Kingdom of Heaven, but He has brought the Kingdom here, in time and space, so that we do not need to wait until the end of this life to experience His reign. He established a visible, authorative Church to guide the faithful and protect the faith. He promised to Guide that Church into All Truth, and see that the gates of hell would not prevail.

 

[smcl]

Wow, thank you everyone. The Baptist Minister I was communicating with responded to my taking his words seriously and investigating the truth as if I am happy to live in fantasy land. I told him I love him but will defend against all ant-catholicism. I hope and pray I planted a seed. I am on fence about warning him he is bearing false witness by telling others falsehoods about the Catholic Church and banning the Bible. Should I??

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am on fence about warning him he is bearing false witness by telling others falsehoods about the Catholic Church and banning the Bible. Should I??

No, just leave it be. Pray for him. He seems to want to be willfully ignorant for whatever reason and he also doesn’t sound like somebody who can rationally discuss the ups and downs of the Papacy. It’s pointless to argue with people like that.

 

[smcl]

You are correct in everything u have posted. I’ve never tried to do this before. Talk religion to a Baptist. THIS EXCHANGE started as a Facebook post in which I partially blamed Protestant Reformation and sola scriptura for the spirit of relativity we have in the world as well as our beloved church. I was upset that in Ireland teenagers no longer have to inform parents to get an abortion. This minister, my deceased friend proceeded to spew inaccurate info about our Church. Believe me folks I totally get we are all sinners and at the same time Christ’s Holy Catholic Church on Earth is true and the fullness of Christs teachings on earth. Praise God. I did start this discussion with my FB rant. I am totally upset people can form a new church anytime their interpretation disagrees with those with whom they worship. This makes relativism possible. Now relativism says parents don’t have the right to protect the lives of their unborn grandchildren. Whomevervsaid this is all about authority hit the nail on the head. Once again thank you

 

[TheLittleLady]

I would buy him a copy of this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Bearing-Fals...+debunking+centuries+of+anti-catholic+history

 

[Sbee0]

smcl:

I don’t think so either but I need to know where this falsehood began as evidence to refute the claim. thanks for quick response. smcl

It may have come from the fate of bible translator John Wycliffe- who although he died of natural causes- was exhumed and tried post mortem at the behest of the reigning pope.

I believe Tyndale (who also attempted to translate the bible to English and deliberately got many parts wrong) was tried and executed for heresy. Could have come from there too though it was the king and English authorities who condemned him not the pope.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Tyndale was during the Reformation, not during the Middle Ages.

Wycliffe was considered pre-Reformation and he did live during the Middle Ages.