Lay people denied copies of the Bible...?

[ElizabethPH]

William Tydale who first translated the Bible into English was burned at the stake by the early church.

^^^Having said that…I believe it.

It was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536.

 

[Bishop93]

It was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536.

“Court”…

For translating the Bible into English:bighanky:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Also, he wasn’t the first to translate the Bible into English. And he was not burned by "the Catholic Church’ for the ‘crime’ of writing an English Bible. Give it a rest, that tired old refrain has been proven false for centuries. Unfortunately, like a host of other ‘gospel-true’ stories which are total lies, it ‘lives on’ because it suits the agenda of those whose idea of Christianity is an ABC one (Anything But Catholic).

And, in fact, the Bible had been translated into other ‘vernacular languages’ as well as Latin in the early Middle Ages, even before the printing press.

But some people don’t want to give up their cherished (though false) ideas. We can’t confuse them with facts when they are certain, yes certain, that their falsehood is truth. We can only pray that God will open their mind as well as their heart.

 

[NotWorthy]

To anyone who condemns the Church for trying to put down false and mis-translated bibles, I would ask them what would they do if MGM tried to produce a movie that portrayed Jesus as being gay. Wouldn’t they boycott it and try and get MGM to cancel the project?

 

[crazzeto]

“Court”…

For translating the Bible into English:bighanky:

Not only was his translation bad, but the end notes were all fully subversive against not just clergy and Church, but state as well! He signed his own death warrent.

 

[miamijoe]

Sabriner… you were asking:
Romans 10:17 “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.”

 

[rwoehmke]

The pages were made of velum, which is cow or sheep stomach and it literally took a whole herd to make enough pages for one Bible. Add to that the years of laboriously copying the pages by hand, one letter at a time. Bibles were way out of the price range of most folks.

Good answer, but one nit pick. Vellum is actually the skin of any mammal which has been processed to make it into a material for writing upon. Quality varies widely with the animal as well as the condition of itsb skin.

 

[jmcrae]

Today I met a Jehovah’s witness and we started getting deep in discussion. She eventually revealed to me that her parents were denied owning a copy of the Bible. People would search your house and if you had it, they would take it away. Clearly she believed these people to be Catholic authority, as she mentioned it as a case against Catholicism.

What country was this in, and what year? During the rise of Communism, in Mexico, Latin America, and European countries, Communist agents would dress up as Catholic priests and go around taking all religious artifacts, including Bibles, away from the people, and say that the Church was now forbidding them to be used.

It is possible that this is what she experienced.

 

[TimothyH]

I get this sort of junk from Fundamentalists, Evangelicals and Baptists who get all their history of the Catholic Church from anti-Catholic sources. The Jehovas whome you met seem a bit over the top though.

The use of the Bible was restricted by the Church in a specific area in the south of France around the year 1229. This was because of the Albegensian heretics who were preaching from the Bible, twisting the words to state that marriage is evil, promoting fornication and even suicide. According to Kark Keating in his book “Catholicsim and Fundamentalism”, they opposed the taking of oaths, upon which the social order of the feudal society rested and this caused alot of unrest and suffering.

Once the heresies died down, the ban was removed. The ban was never in force outside of this specific area in Southern France.

I was also told that the Church does not want people to understand the Bible and was informed that this is why the church “Used to chain Bibles to the table.” The Church did indeed chain bibles to the table, but not to prevent people from reading it as some claim, but to prevent expensive hand copied bibles from being stolen. Claiming that the church chained bibles to the table to prevent them from being read is like claiming that the post office chains pens to the table to prevent people from using them.

Let the Jehova’s believe what they want but don’t take the bait.

-Tim-

 

[anode]

I have researched Catholic Theology and other Catholic documents clear back to the invention of the printing press and I found absolutely nothing that prohibits personal ownership and use of the Bible, but what I did find - repeatedly - was “the Church forcefully encourages the study of the Sacred Text”.

Of course, this does not rule out some wayward priest, acting on his on accord, against Catholic Theology, who may have prohibited private ownership and use of Scripture, but there is still no evidence at all of any Catholic officials entering into a person’s home.

There are many Catholic Apologetics Web sites that offer some insights on how to deal with JW’s. For that matter, there are many Protestant Apologetics web sites that also offer some good insights as well. However, make sure you “source” the information to make sure it’s an accurate quote and verifiable.

Catholic Apologetics sites have a lot invested in trying to show that the Catholic church never prohibited lay people from reading and owning Bibles in the vernacular. There were many such translators, such as John Wycliffe and William Tynedale, some lived to an old age and some didn’t. Wycliffe lived in England, was a popular preacher and reformer, and published his translations of the New Testament. He died in his bed in old age after ‘apoplexy’, but Pope Martin V had an apoplectic fit that Wycliffe had not been burned alive, so he exhumed his remains, and burned them and his books. This didn’t hinder Wycliffe’s reforms from spreading all over Europe.

William Tynedale wrote a brilliant translation of the Bible which got him into a lot of trouble with St. Thomas More, then chancellor of England, who persecuted him to the stake. He died in Brusselsin 1536. Fortunately, he was strangled before he was burned. Before he died, he prayed aloud for God to change the heart of the King of England. Within 4 years there were four translations of the Bible in English in England, all circulated and legal. That king, Henry VIII, appears to have been the first monarch to sponsor translations in the vernacular. Tynedale’s translation influenced the Kin James, published in the early 1600’s, which dominated the Protestant versions until the second half of the 20th century, and remains popular.

 

[crazzeto]

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER XIII

(ii) Well, William Tyndale (and for that matter Martin Luther too), was born almost a 100 years after John Wycliff died, that is, 1484. He studied at Oxford and became a priest, and was seized with the ambition of getting the Bible printed in England. Now, there were three great objections to this step being approved. (I) In the first place, Tyndale was not the man to do it; he was utterly unfitted for such a great work. He says himself he was ‘evil favoured in this world, and without grace in the sight of men, speechless and rude, dull and slow witted.’ He had no special qualifications for the task of translation. He was but a mediocre scholar, and could not boast of anything above the average intellect. Indeed, non-Catholic authors have admitted that the cause of Scripture reading in the vernacular was distinctly prejudiced by having been taken in hand by incapable men like Tyndale.
…
Every one of the little volumes, containing portions of the sacred text that was issued by Tyndale, contained also a prologue and notes written with such hot fury of vituperation against the prelates and clergy, the monks and friars, the rites and ceremonies of the Church, as was hardly likely to commend it to the favour of those who were attacked.’ Tunstall, Bishop of London, declared he could count more than 2,000 errors in Tyndale’s Bible ‘made in Germany’; whilst the learned Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, found it necessary to write a treatise against it, and asserted that to ‘find errors in Tyndale’s book were like studying to find water in the sea’. In short there is not an unprejudiced enquirer now but admits that the Church could not possibly tolerate Tyndale’s Bible as though it were a true or correct version of the Holy Scriptures; she had no alternative but to prescribe and forbid it; otherwise she would have been sinfully neglectful of her guardianship over the word of God, and idly standing by whilst her children were being poisoned.

So much for Tyndale, Wycleff has his own chapter too. BTW, the CC has had venacular bibles in england since ~700AD, betcha didn’t know that

 

[miamijoe]

she had no alternative but to prescribe and forbid it; otherwise she would have been sinfully neglectful of her guardianship over the word of God, and idly standing by whilst her children were being poisoned.

I’m glad we have a Mother that has been lookin out for us unruly kids for 2,000 plus years! Love ya Mom!

 

[peary]

Today I met a Jehovah’s witness and we started getting deep in discussion. She eventually revealed to me that her parents were denied owning a copy of the Bible. People would search your house and if you had it, they would take it away. Clearly she believed these people to be Catholic authority, as she mentioned it as a case against Catholicism.

Certainly not here in the United States. What country was she referring to?

I’ve never heard this before. She said only within recent decades were lay people allowed to own personal copies of the Bible. This sounds completely unbelievable to me but her personal experience obviously had an impact on her.

People make up stuff all the time and even begin to believe the veracity of their imagination.

How true was this instance for the entire Church? I believe her story, but I suspect it’s only an isolated one.

I don’t believe any of her story. Now, if it was in a communist country, I might see it as somewhat accurate.

She also mentioned back in the Middle Ages people weren’t allowed to own copies of the Bible, and then some guy William Tillman (not sure of the name?) came up with an English translation, which the Church disapproved because they didn’t want people to read it. Which doesn’t make sense to me, because it approved the Vulgate, which was the vernacular of the time it was created, and anyway until the printing press people just listened to the Word of God for lack of copies. At least, that’s my understanding of it… I think I gathered a general picture, let me know if I’m wrong… I explained this to her but that one experience with her parents remained a stumbling block.

The vast majority of people in the Middle Ages couldn’t read or write. What does she say about THAT?

Some background info: she’s from Africa (not sure where) and is in her middle-ages (so this happened a few decades ago.

What makes her think that it was the ‘Catholic’ authority and, not say, Muslim? Or tribal?

 

[sabriner]

peary,

Today I will ask her more about her story. She probably was very young at the time. Hopefully this will make things clearer.

 

[peary]

She is also inaccurate as to why the church condenmed his translation. First,he is was a priest and priest are not teachers with authority,only bishops have such an authority. Likewise,his translation was not what we call stellar by any means.

The JW is like most JW’s,full of wild stories about the RCC.

Correction: Tyndale was neither a Catholic or Anglican priest. The notes that he presented in his Bible translation was quite out-of-the-ordinary, and therefore it was condemned.

yes, the JWs have a lot of wild stories regarding the RCC.

 

[anode]

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER XIII

So much for Tyndale, Wycleff has his own chapter too. BTW, the CC has had venacular bibles in england since ~700AD, betcha didn’t know that

Why don’t you digest the material and fight (write) your own battles, instead of doing the cut-and-paste thing?

More did pursue Tynedale to the stake, instead of confining his arguments to the printed word.

Have you heard of freedom of the press? This came with the printing press itself!

People, some people, anyway, actually can think for themselves!

 

[crazzeto]

Why don’t you digest the material and fight (write) your own battles, instead of doing the cut-and-paste thing?

More did pursue Tynedale to the stake, instead of confining his arguments to the printed word.

Have you heard of freedom of the press? This came with the printing press itself!

People, some people, anyway, actually can think for themselves!

Are you serious with this freedom of the press stuff? Like Wycleff before him Tyndale’s notes represented a direct threat to the crown, do you really think he was going to survive? Heck, More him self was beheaded by the Protistant King Henry VIII for remaining silent about his illegitimate re-marriage…

As for Tyndale, his book was such a bad issue for the crown that eventually the crown had to come up with it’s own bible. Ever hear of the King James version bible?

 

[Zooey]

Tyndale was actually executed fro his political activities. He was opposed to the British monarchy. (Being Irish, I can appreciate the feeling…Nonetheless, it was NOT over religion; he tried to use the Bible as a weapon against the king )
Treason is treason, whatever the religious faith of the traitor, and Tyndale was guilty. He was, in fact, not killed for translating the Bible into English. (Nor into Mandarin Chinese, for that matter). It was a lousy translation, but the real problem was that he intentionally mistranslated passages to make them sound like they supported his agenda…kind of like, (ahem, cough, cough) the Jehovah Witnesses’ translation of the Bible, as a matter of fact.

Which leads me to my second point:** If** her parents were ever “denied a copy of the Bible”, it is just barely possible that someone who loathes the JW’s profanity deleted] “bible” as much as I do, saw that they had one, & told them to “throw that [obscenity deleted] in the fire where it belongs; you’d be better off without a Bible at all, than have that deleted] taking up space”.

In fact, now that I think of it, I** have** said that to someone! Not in Africa, & not to an actual JW, but that is what I THINK every time I see one of the bluidy things. (I once used one to line a garbage can, actually).
Of course, I use a** lot** of [extremely rude tho not entirely obscene adjective] things to line garbage cans & my cat’s litter box, but I’m Irish…as I think :blush:I may have mentioned…

 

[sabriner]

Tyndale was actually executed fro his political activities. He was opposed to the British monarchy. (Being Irish, I can appreciate the feeling…Nonetheless, it was NOT over religion; he tried to use the Bible as a weapon against the king )
Treason is treason, whatever the religious faith of the traitor, and Tyndale was guilty. He was, in fact, not killed for translating the Bible into English. (Nor into Mandarin Chinese, for that matter). It was a lousy translation, but the real problem was that he intentionally mistranslated passages to make them sound like they supported his agenda…kind of like, (ahem, cough, cough) the Jehovah Witnesses’ translation of the Bible, as a matter of fact.

Which leads me to my second point:** If** her parents were ever “denied a copy of the Bible”, it is just barely possible that someone who loathes the JW’s profanity deleted] “bible” as much as I do, saw that they had one, & told them to “throw that [obscenity deleted] in the fire where it belongs; you’d be better off without a Bible at all, than have that deleted] taking up space”.

In fact, now that I think of it, I** have** said that to someone! Not in Africa, & not to an actual JW, but that is what I THINK every time I see one of the bluidy things. (I once used one to line a garbage can, actually).
Of course, I use a** lot** of [extremely rude tho not entirely obscene adjective] things to line garbage cans & my cat’s litter box, but I’m Irish…as I think :blush:I may have mentioned…

Thanks for the info, Zooey, on that first part.

Actually, she grew up Catholic with Catholic parents. So I’m guessing she had a Catholic Bible at the time…? Though a child’s memory is not always accurate.

Your post brings to mind a different question… so how do Catholics regard non-Catholic Bibles? They’re not blessed, so they’re not sacramentals, but they contain some parts of the Word of God, though not in its entirety and even twisted to different interpretations… though a person could easily misinterpret a Catholic bible as well… ?

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Look up the Council of Trent.

“It is no secret to you, venerable brethren, that a certain Society, vulgarly called The Bible Society, is audaciously spreading itself through the whole world. After despising the traditions of the holy Fathers, and in opposition to the well-known Decree of the Council of Trent, this Society has collected all its forces, and directs every means to one object,–the translation, or rather the perversion, of the Bible into the vernacular languages of all nations. … IF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES BE EVERYWHERE INDISCRIMINATELY PUBLISHED, MORE EVIL THAN ADVANTAGE WILL ARISE THENCE, on account of the rashness of men”

(Bull of Leo XII, May 3, 1824) Source: Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, 1851, p. 21

The issue was not that the Bible was forbidden as such; just that translating it from Latin was.

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,–thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,–print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author’s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.

Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and twisted to all sorts of profane uses, to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt, and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God, be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment.

In practice, this meant that under Mary Tudor in England, possession of a bible other than the approved version - in Latin - meant an automatic charge of heresy, and unless a full confession and recantation were made, the stake.

Of the 280 or so “burnings” in Mary Tudor’s reign, only a handful were of common people caught with a bible in English, who the inquisitors were unable to persuade that their souls were in peril because of this. Many were elderly, and were incapable of seeing the subtleties and nuance involved. That to read a sentence in an unapproved Bible was heresy, while to read the exact same words in an approved bible was piety. They were given every opportunity to see the error of their ways.