Popes repress bible

[addictedkoala]

Now, I am quite aware that this is just one of those crazy quote mining out of context arguments against the Church, however I am very curious about the context and what the actual reasons were that the popes were saying these things. Thank you I don’t really care for the other falsities on the page, just for these quotes.

jesus-is-lord.com/nobible.htm

Pius VII said, “It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit.”

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed “against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue.”

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has “long been condemned by the holy chair.”

 

[Cristiano]

Now, I am quite aware that this is just one of those crazy quote mining out of context arguments against the Church, however I am very curious about the context and what the actual reasons were that the popes were saying these things. Thank you I don’t really care for the other falsities on the page, just for these quotes.

jesus-is-lord.com/nobible.htm

Pius VII said, “It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit.”

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed “against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue.”

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has “long been condemned by the holy chair.”

Why do you believe those quotes to be true?

 

[addictedkoala]

Why do you believe those quotes to be true?

Because I can look them up, unfortunately I can’t find any info on the circumstances for which they were said. They’re not random, they’re from encyclicals. It’s not like I’m bothered by them, I just want to know what the historical context is and they only place I can find them is in the encyclicals themselves or anti-Catholic sites, neither of which gets me what I want.

 

[Cristiano]

Because I can look them up, unfortunately I can’t find any info on the circumstances for which they were said. They’re not random, they’re from encyclicals. It’s not like I’m bothered by them, I just want to know what the historical context is and they only place I can find them is in the encyclicals themselves or anti-Catholic sites, neither of which gets me what I want.

Can you please refer me to the encyclicals. Name and/or link to the Vatican web site will do. Thanks.

BTW did you read the encyclicals? Usually they are quite self explanatory when it comes to context.

 

[crazzeto]

I have the full Council of trent here in PDF format, I was unable (doing a quick search) to find the text discussed. I was going to attach a full PDF of trent, but it violates upload limits apparently (hurting for cash?). Anywho, here’s a link to the full text

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

Here is the Decree concerning the edition, and the use of sacred books

DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
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 [Page 21] 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.

So yeah, I’m having trouble substantiating their first claim regarding Trent.

Now at one point, the church did implement an Admonishment to the lay, that they only read scripture in the presence of their spiritual director, or priest (durring a time in which getting such assitance was easy). I’ll have to look at my Haydock bible again to get the particulars, but it is clear the Church for a time wanted you to read the bible with spiritual direction.

This was a response to protistantism, obviously the Church ended up having quite some problem with people innovating their own interpetations of scripture. This problem had to be delt with, and for a time the best way was to make sure people read the bible with proper spiritual direction.

Now to head off another potential follow up question,

Yes the Catholic Church burnt bibles, one which were so full of errors it was dangerous. One such bible subtituted “killed” for “filled” when Christ says “first let the childeren be filled”. Could you imagin the problems created from people taking that literally?

It should be noted that the Protistants also burnt bibles, they burnt scores of valid properly printed Catholic bibles.

 

[Joe_5859]

First, an FYI, I believe it is against forum rules to link to anti-Catholic sites (of which jesus-is-lord.com qualifies).

Second, it is important to keep in mind that, simply because some anti-Catholic article or website gives a quote doesn’t mean that the quote is even accurate. A good litmus test for this is to take one of the quotes and google it. If it is a genuine quote, there should be thousands of hits, with all the top hits being from credible Catholic sources (those sites that contain the text of Catholic documents). On the other hand, if there are only a handful of hits and/or if all the top hits are non-Catholic sites, that’s a pretty good indication that the quote is unreliable and simply gets circulated around amongst those searching for cannon fodder with which to bombard Catholics.

In this case, a google search of your first quote yields results just such as these. There are 9 hits, only one of which is Catholic. The only Catholic site to use the quote is one that is responding to anti-Catholicism. The quote appears only in the Catholic’s quote of the anti-Catholic charge he is responding to. This sheds serious doubt on that being an actual quote of Pius VII.

When you encounter stuff like this, they should have more than just a name of a Pope or Council. That link you provided doesn’t give the name of any document from which the quote was pulled, let alone a paragraph number which would give any sort of indication that the author of the site actually researched this himself. All he did was cut-and-paste from some other anti-Catholic source.

Frankly, if they think so little of us Catholics that they do not even bother to check their facts by verifying them with real sources, they don’t deserve any attention or response.

 

[abenassi]

I found this (more complete) quote of the Gregory XVI excerpt, though not in a Catholic document per se, though the source claims it was dated May 8th, 1844 (note highlights are my own):

“Subsequently, when heretics still persisted in their frauds, it became necessary for Benedict XIV. to superadd the injunction that no versions whatever (of the Bible) should be suffered to be read but those which should be approved of by the Holy See, accompanied by notes derived from the writings of the Holy Fathers, or other learned Catholic authors.”

“As for yourselves, my venerable brethren, called as you are to divide our solicitude, we recommend you earnestly in the Lord, to announce and proclaim, in convenient time and place, to the people confided to your care, these apostolical orders, and to labor carefully to separate the faithful sheep from contagion of the Christian Alliance, from those who have become its auxiliaries, no less than those who belong to other Bible societies, and from all who have any communication with them. **You are consequently enjoined to remove from the hands of the faithful alike the Bibles in the vulgar tongue which may have been printed contrary to the decrees above mentioned of the sovereign Pontiffs, **and every book proscribed and condemned, and see that they learn, through your admonition and authority, what passages are salutary, and what pernicious and mortal. Watch attentively over those who are appointed to expound the Holy Scriptures, to see that they acquit themselves faithfully according to the capacity of their hearers, and that they dare not, under any pretext whatever, interpret or explain the holy pages contrary to the tradition of the Holy Fathers, and to the service of the Catholic Church.”

" Let me know, then, the enormity of the sin against God and his Church which they are guilty of who dare associate themselves with any of these societies, or abet them in any way. Moreover, we confirm and renew the decrees recited above, delivered in former times by apostolic authority, against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the Holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."

So you see, the fullness of the context is not against all Bibles, but just those Bibles that were not approved Bibles, but rather produced by heretics. And those out of context “quotes” now anti-Catholics try to use to defame the Catholic Church. They are a bunch of lies, and lies are of the devil, who hates the Catholic Church.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

My great-grandfather’s bible from 1853 has a letter, dated “the calends of April 1778”, from Pope Pius VI to the bishop of Florence approving his new translation of the bible

…you judge exceedingly well that the faithful should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures: for these are the most abundant sources, which ought to be left open to every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are so widely disseminated in those corrupt times: This your have so seasonably effected, as you declare, by publishing the Sacred "Writings in the language of you country, suitable to every one"s capacity; . . .

 

[SyCarl]

I have the full Council of trent here in PDF format, I was unable (doing a quick search) to find the text discussed. I was going to attach a full PDF of trent, but it violates upload limits apparently (hurting for cash?). Anywho, here’s a link to the full text

The quote is not from the proceedings of the Council of Trent. It is from the Rules on Prohibited Books that resulted from Trent. It is from paragraph 4.

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.

fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html

 

[crazzeto]

The quote is not from the proceedings of the Council of Trent. It is from the Rules on Prohibited Books that resulted from Trent. It is from paragraph 4.

fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html

Put into context, it’s easy to see that the bible was in fact, not being suppressed. Rather as I stated in my post, RE Admonishment the Church was taking care to ensure that the bible was being read with Pastor or Spiritual director.

 

[Abu]

The thread statement is very misleading, as any “repression” was solely to guard the faithful from error, faulty translations and incomplete texts. Promoted by the ignorant and not to be believed.

We only know which books belong to the Bible through the authoritative decision of the Church in the fourth century. Anyone is able to have a Bible today, as I have, because the Catholic Church collected the writings and made an infallible declaration on the canon of the Scriptures as to which books are the inspired Word of God. Most non-Catholic Bibles are missing seven books and thus many miss out on vital truths as they follow Luther’s error of “Scripture Only”.

From the earliest times popes and councils, saints and scholars have encouraged Bible reading; half-educated Catholics don’t know this. Until some years after the printing press was invented, Bibles were scarce and expensive because copied by hand - so often there could be only one book in a town but, nearly everyone who could read could read Latin. Catholic monks faithfully copied the texts, and the production and use of translations, corrupted to support false teachings, was condemned. Without the Holy Mass, Protestants had only the Bible for spiritual growth and came to see it as the only way to God, missing out on many essential truths, and splitting into some 50,000 differing denominations. Also, the Scriptures privately interpreted cannot always guide us on contraception, on remarriage, on capital punishment, IVF, cloning and many other modern problems - this results in uncertainty and lack of unified Christian action at times. [See *What Catholics Really Believe, by Karl Keating].

Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455. Luther was not born until 1483. There were 18 German editions of the whole Bible before the Catholic monk Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517, and there were German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Polish editions before Luther left the Church. The first English edition appeared in 1525. James I in England authorised the “King James” version only in 1604.

The Church has declared that the Sacred Scriptures are without error as they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, while individual opinions and interpretations are not without error. Error is incompatible with truth.

 

[peary]

Because I can look them up, unfortunately I can’t find any info on the circumstances for which they were said. They’re not random, they’re from encyclicals. It’s not like I’m bothered by them, I just want to know what the historical context is and they only place I can find them is in the encyclicals themselves or anti-Catholic sites, neither of which gets me what I want.

If you can look them up, then it is up to you to do so to prove that those quotes are accurate. It is easy to say that they are from encyclicals, but when the encyclical from which the quote comes from cannot be substantiated on the website, then it is, quite probably, not true. Try the Vatican website to find them.

 

[PJM]

=addictedkoala;6338272]Now, I am quite aware that this is just one of those crazy quote mining out of context arguments against the Church, however I am very curious about the context and what the actual reasons were that the popes were saying these things. Thank you I don’t really care for the other falsities on the page, just for these quotes.

jesus-is-lord.com/nobible.htm

Pius VII said, “It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit.”

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed “against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue.”

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has “long been condemned by the holy chair.”

So we ask WHY is this?

** Luke.11: 28** But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”/I]

It is because there are thousands of teachings, many of them too profound, too sublime, for everyone to grasp.

** 2 Cor. 4: 2 **“We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.

**1 Peter 4: 17 **For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?”

How can salvation come without proper understanding?

***The Bible was written specifically for trained and HS guided Catholic [only] TEACHERS of the faith!

Is hearing , not self interpetiation what God expects? It would seen so. Look at the proliferation of MANY THOUSANDS of Protestant churches, caued more than any other reason on incorrect understanding of what the bible actually is teaching.

Why then has this not happrened also in the CC? Because we understand that if what we choose to understand in reading the bible ourselves, what does not allign with what Mother Churches teaches… We are wrong!

Any and ALL understanding not in complete conformity to CC Teaching HAS to be and factually is incorrect. So say’s God. [Matt. 16: 15-19].***

 

[itsjojo]

Why does 1John2:27 say not to let any man teach you but that the spirit that dwells in you
teach you all things?

 

[JReducation]

Why does 1John2:27 say not to let any man teach you but that the spirit that dwells in you
teach you all things?

The Apostle John was very conscious of the Apostolic Succession. He understood that only those who were ordained by the Apostls and their descendants were used by the Holy Spirit to teach the faith. The Holy Spirit that speaks through the ordained deacon or priest who has Apostolic Succession is the spirit that you receive at Baptism. Therefore, when you are listening, you see a man, but it is the Spirit speakin, because the man has received the Holy Spirit through the Apostolic Succession. That’s why John felt that he had the authority not only to write four books in the bible, but also to teach the early Fathers. He has received the Holy Spirit from Jesus himself. When he spoke, it was the Spirit who did the teaching and so on with everyone whom he ordained and they ordained and so foth until today. That’s why Apostolic Succession is so important. Only Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians have Apostolic Succession. There may be some small schismatic groups too. But the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics are not schismatics, even though the Orthodox remain is schism. But that’s for another thread.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[peary]

Why does 1John2:27 say not to let any man teach you but that the spirit that dwells in you
teach you all things?

Why don’t you ask a protestant, since all protestant denominations were started by men.

 

[Shin]

It’s rather obvious that printing the Bible full of heretical and sacrilegious footnotes and mistranslating it is going to be opposed by the Church for the sake of God and man.

It greatly offends God to do this and is a sin.

The Church has always provided the scriptures to her children, and taken care to see no one mistranslated and twisted them.

 

[Abu]

Itsjojo
Why does 1John 2:27 say not to let any man teach you but that the spirit that dwells in you
teach you all things?

If you listen to Christ’s Church you need not be confused by Her Scriptures. This is what She teaches:
St John counsels us:
“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6). Note St John’s insistence on the apostolic teaching.

The Scriptures do not have all that Christ taught us: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

Importantly, “The Spirit will lead you into the fullness of truth (Jn 16:13ff) – in John’s ecclesiological discourse:

1. To the Twelve only;
2. The Twelve will be taught things in the future which they cannot bear at present;
3. This teaching consists in “being led into the fullness of truth,” – to grasp the meaning, or a fuller and deeper meaning and contents of what they had already been taught; Jesus insists “I have manifested to you everything I have heard from the Father (15:15);
4. This further teaching or development of Christ’s teaching is to be by the Spirit to the Twelve;
5. That the Twelve may “bear witness to Christ” (15:27);
6. This teaching is still Christ’s teaching for the Spirit “will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.” (16:14).

Our Lord insists again: “I have given them Your word …consecrate them in the truth: Your word is truth.”(17:17).

Then: “He who receives him who I send receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me (13:20).

The particular concern of Christ for the Twelve – instruction, protection, questioning, and enlightenment of the Spirit was directed to their “ministry” as preachers/teachers of the “word” in their missionary work. The comparison of the Vine and the branches treats of this material at a deeper level.

That is the commission of Christ’s Catholic Church to whom many have come home.

 

[Adonia]

Wow! i went to that website, accoring to him Christians can’t even watch TV. He is truly off the wall! After reading what he said about the Mass, I can’t wait to get there!

 

[PJM]

=itsjojo;6343278]Why does 1John2:27 say not to let any man teach you but that the spirit that dwells in you
teach you all things?

Friend lets PRETEND same author, the same book, same chaper v. 24 does NOT EXIST. And simply ask; do you actually understand what is being said to you?

1 John 2: 27 but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him

The anointing here refers to what you have already been taught, the truth you have already been exposed to, and accepted.

The “let no MAN” teach you; simply means to NOT abide heritics. The CC is NOT “a man”
rather it is the means to ones salvation, a church, [and thee Church founded by Christ Himself], not a person.

Don’t select only what please YOU. That friend is listening to “man.”** Matt.16 Verses 18 to 19** And I [JESUS] tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Eph. 2:19 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and** members of the household of God,** [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular[/COLOR]] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

NOW friend add to this what v. 24 say’s BEFORE the words of v. 27 are written for your instruction.

1 John.2: 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father."

May our Lord Bless you and guide your correct understanding

Pat