Restriction of the Bible from Lay people

[Catherine_W]

Hi,

My fiancé is learning about Catholicism and recently read that Lay people were not allowed to have their own bibles and not allowed to read it for themselves. And that when Luther began making bibles available to lay people that this was something Catholic priests/leadership were upset about. After hearing this it made him very sad.

I have looked at old posts and found some answers concerning this topic, but I am still looking for more answers if possible, and even some good book suggestions that could explain this?

Thanks!

 

[Reepicheep]

If you are yourself Catholic:
Can you point out to him that you have a copy of the Bible?
Ask a few Catholic friends to show him their Bibles, and let him know they’ve never been discouraged from having them?
Take him to Mass, and point out that every Mass involves a reading from the Gospels, one from the Epistles, one from the Book of Psalms, and one other from the Old Testament?
Take him to a Catholic bookstore and show him all the Bubles on sale?

As for the claim about the past, I would suggest you search these forums for earlier threads, using “Bible forbidden” and similar keywords. Or go to the main EWTN site and check for articles on the subject. It seems to be a common accusation from anti-Catholics, and there are plenty of sources that refute it.
May the peace of Christ fill your heart, and his.

 

[Little_Mary]

Before the printing press it was a very expensive and laborious task to reproduce a bible.

Bibles the churches did have were chained in so that they would not be stolen - so that everyone who came in to the church would have an opportunity to see and read it.

About the time Luther went off the deep end is about the time the printing press came into play - so it seems like he made it more widely available but he is being given credit where credit is NOT due!!!

 

[Maranatha]

Catholic were never forbidden from reading a well translated version of the Bible. In Luther’s day, the printing press was new and the rush to translate and publish the Bible in local languages resulted in some very poor translations. Some of the translations were so bad that people were lead in to error. In an effort to protect the faithful, the Church put some translations of the Bible on the Index for forbidden books.

Perhaps the Catholic church was too slow in getting well translated versions in to each local language. We can see today when each person is lead by what they think is the Holy Spirit in their own interpretation of the Bible, we get many different interpretations that case division.

 

[Catherine_W]

Yes I am Catholic, and he is well aware that I have and read my own bible. He has also come to mass with me many times and has seen the readings in mass. I don’t think he doubts the use and access to bibles today, but his questions are about the past.

He holds the Catholic Church up to a higher standard than any other Christian denomination, because we claim to be Christ’s Church, the closest to the truth, and to have infallible teaching and so on. So whenever he sees something in history that doesn’t look right, it diminishes his whole view of the Catholic Church. Since the Catholic Church claims to be absolutely correct on its doctrines he thinks that it should not have any error in its actions.

By reading that Luther was the 1st to make bibles available to Lay people, it made him think the church was in error in action and he questions if we have access to bibles today only because of the Protestant Reformation.

So any hard proof I can show him that Luther was not the first to make bibles available, or/and a good explanation of why people were discouraged from reading the bible themselves, would be greatly appreciated.

 

[LilyM]

Books in the middle ages were extremely rare and valuable, being hand written, hence they were chained - as were most books of all kinds, to shelves or desks.

Remember too that the printing press was around for decades before Luther split from Rome. Of course, as many are all aware, the Bible was the first book cranked out by Gutenberg when he invented it. You think in those first decades it was only Protestant bibles being produced? Nonsensical.

 

[Andruschak]

Hi,

My fiancé is learning about Catholicism and recently read that Lay people were not allowed to have their own bibles and not allowed to read it for themselves. And that when Luther began making bibles available to lay people that this was something Catholic priests/leadership were upset about. After hearing this it made him very sad.

I have looked at old posts and found some answers concerning this topic, but I am still looking for more answers if possible, and even some good book suggestions that could explain this?

Thanks!

That was then, this is now.

Then, few of the lay people could read at all. Bibles were few and far between, copied laboriously by hand.

Now, Bibles are all over the place, some in editions approved by the Catholic Church, and a lot more that are not.

Every mass includes readings from the Bible. Three years of Sundays and you have most of it covered. Add in weekday Masses and you get it all in two years or less. If you get into the Liturgy Of the Hours, you get even more in your life:thumbsup:

 

[Zooey]

I found these in a quick google:
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711clas.asp

cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/bible.htm

members.aol.com/johnprh/reading.html

members.tripod.com/~frjoe/bigot6.htm

I know there is more right here at CAF, & by searching over on the home site of Catholic Answers, but these were what I found first…
The short answer to your question is, that the Catholic Church actually preserved the Bible so that all of us today can have Bibles to read. The only Bibles that were restricted were those made by groups who had deliberately twisted the Scriptures & tried to get people to join what we would call today cults, by the use of these books.
This is, by the way, exactly what I was taught growing up in the Free Methodsit Church, & it is what my own United Methodist Church’s pastor would cheerfully tell you if he were here instead of just Your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist…
HTH!!!

 

[Zooey]

There is a good book online called “How We Got the Bible” by Henry Graham. I cannot recall if he addresses this exact point, but it does a super job of showing how indebted we are to the Catholic Church, who are non-Catholic Christians reading Bibles we would not have had without Catholics!!

 

[papaspicy]

There were in the medieval church some restrictions on who could have bibles, but as mentioned above this was to protect from misinterpretation by the poorly educated. Very few could actually read, and those that could typically read Latin. It is surprising to many people, but even the most educated might ONLY read Latin and not their local language. For example, written Italian didn’t really develop until the 13th century. Anyone who has studied the two languages will tell you that the vocabulary is very similar, but the grammar is very different. If you only had a rudimentary reading level and spoke medieval Italian, you could very easily misunderstand what the text was saying. This is just one example of why some restriction was important.

Times change, and as the printing press was invented so were the early stages of organized, large-scale education. All of this led to wide spread cultural changes, including the formalization of modern languages, which led to the access of people to the bible in their own languages. Plus, before the time of printing press, as has been mentioned, bibles were extremely expensive to make, and a new translation into the local language would be even more expensive. Why spend that much to translate the bible into Spanish or English for the handful of people who can actually read it, especially when nearly all of those that can read it in the those languages can just as well read it in Latin.

Some people argue that the church was keeping the bible away from the masses by restricting it to Latin, but when you look at that time in the educational, linguistic, and historical context, this argument doesn’t really make sense. Protestants often say Luther was the first to translate the bible into the vernacular. That is a slap in the face to St. Jerome, who did it in 405! Over a millennium before Luther.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

As Rev. Henry Graham addressed this topic in 1911, The CC can only be charged with a “general” restriction of scripture ONCE–under very particular and extreme circumstances.

That restriction occurred with the REGIONAL council at Toulouse (France) in the early 13th Century. The reason for that council was the aftermath of the Albigensian Crusade–the surpression of a gnostic heresy that among other things threatened the very survival of medieval civil society (please check modern sources over who the Albigensian-Cathars (AC) were–they were NOT proto-protestants).

The AC used their own “translations” of Holy Scripture to support their doctrines of re-incarnation, creator god as an evil demiurge. Jesus being a spirit being who didn’t have a actual body–wasn’t crucified let alone die for our sins, etc… The AC’s would also use selective, out-of context quotes from approved copies of Scripture–much like Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mormons, etc…

At Toulouse, the bishops decided there had to be a temporary restriction on lay (non clergy) ownership of Scriptures, to halt the spread of doctrines that supported euthanasia, infanticide, revolt against legitimate authority—sins that could threaten a believer’s eternal soul–and “translations” from the Latin Vulgate had to be strictly supervised by the Church to make sure corruptions were not introduced (like the NWT of the JW’s)

The restrictions on Scripture lay-ownership were ONLY temporary and only applied in the areas that had been infested by the AC heresy (Southern France). Psalters (Psalms & Proverbs) were still allowed lay ownership. Scripture continued to be read to be read (in the vernacular) EVERY Mass, and public-access Bibles (secured by a chain to prevent theft) were still in every Parish that could afford one, availible to any literate person (if you were literate in the Middle Ages you almost certainly could read Latin). Once the AC heresy died out (in about a century) the ban on lay scripture ownership expired as well.

 

[Verita]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg_Bible

This entry on Wikipedia talks about how the Latin Vulgate (Catholic) Bible was printed in 1455. 180 bibles were printed by Gutenberg in just one year. The ammount of time (probably less) that it would have taken to produce just one Bible previously! 180 may seem a small number in today’s standards but back then it was amazing.

Also if your fiance brings up how Bibles were chained in Catholic churches, remind him that today phone books are chained to phone booths. And consider that one of those hand copied and illuminated Bibles would have been worth the equivalent of thousands of dollars.

 

[scylla]

Verita makes a good point that completely destroys that arguement that Luther is the one who made Bibles available.

All your fiance needs to do is look to see which were the first Bibles printed…

Catholic Bibles

So the Catholic Church allowed the Bible to be printed way before Luther.

So whoever came up with that accusation is promoting a lie, to attack the Catholic Church. Of course bad translations were prohibited. Since the Catholic Church was the one who preserved the Bible and considered it the Word of God then it would be very careful that someone would misrepresent the Holy Word of God.
This is why people who didn’t care if there were mistakes or God was blasphemed were so badly regarded by the Catholic Churchmen. Wouldn’t you be offended if God was insulted publicly by carelessly printing bad translations of the Holy Scripture?

If the Bible is 100% correct, why would we want to make bad translations and put lies in God’s mouth? That is how serious we should take the Bible. This is how serious we should take truth, which many people don’t care about these days.

(It always disgusts me that people think that every opinion of God is valid. That is putting man above God and saying anyone can say what God says and you have to respect that)

God Bless
Scylla

 

[runandsew]

There is a good book online called “How We Got the Bible” by Henry Graham. I cannot recall if he addresses this exact point, but it does a super job of showing how indebted we are to the Catholic Church, who are non-Catholic Christians reading Bibles we would not have had without Catholics!!

Were We Got The Bible.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It just goes to prove the validity of the statement of Alexander Pope, “A little learning is a dangerous thing. . .”

What has happened is that some people have taken a fact (that lay people in one area, due to a specific heretical movement in a specific time, were for a limited specific * time, in order to preserve their faith from the heretics and their * wrong bibles, told not to read those bibles.

And through error, carelessness, or deliberate malice, they have extended that ‘one’ fact into a flat out for all time accusation that the entire Catholic Church ** from the beginning ** “kept bibles from lay people.” And of course they totally ignore any fact which shows up this lie, such as the facts that:
Most people could not read.
Bibles before printing presses were few, because they had to be copied by hand, a process which could and did take years.
Even though most people could not read and did not have access to their ‘own’ written Bible, they had access to Scripture through the Mass and through the good and holy priests, monks, and nuns who spread the faith throughout the world. Most places in Europe, for example, in the Middle Ages were within at worst a week’s distance (walking) from a convent or monastery, and most had a lord or landed gentry who had if not a ‘house priest’ a literate ‘clerk’ (which word comes from clergy; since most non nobles who learned to read and write were educated BY priests or nuns) who read the Bible to the people.

 

[yinekka]

jloughnan.tripod.com/fun1_2.htm

Germany was literally teeming with vernacular translations before Luther’s was made. The first non-Catholic version was Luther’s (made between 1522 and 1530). Before his was even started, the following Catholic versions in German from Hebrew and Greek (not Latin) had been made:

That of Fust, printed at Mentz in 1462;

that of Bemler, at Augsburg, in 1467;

that of two other translators at Augsburg and Nuremburg in 1477.

At the Caxton Exhibition of 1877 there were no fewer than nine Catholic editions of the Bible in German dating before 1483, the year Luther was born!

The Calvinist David Clement refers to two copies of a Catholic version In German, made in 1466, kept in the Senatorial Library at Leipzig. He points out that there were at least sixteen editions of this translation made before 1522 — one at Strasburg, five at Nuremburg and ten at Augsburg!

Three other Catholic editions were printed at Wittenberg in 1470,1483 and 1490, and one at Augsburg in 1518. These latter four are referred to by Seckendorf, Luther’s biographer!

A further Catholic edition in Lower Saxon was printed at Lübeck in 1494, and one in Bohemian (Slavic) at Prague in 1488 referred to by Westwood in his Paleographia Sacra Pictoria. This Bible was reprinted at least three times — at Cutna in 1498, and at Venice in 1506 and 1511. Before Luther had even begun his translation there had been at least 33 printed editions of Catholic translation!

France…British Museum where there is a beautiful vellum manuscript translation in French which was found in the tent of King John the Good (1319-1364) after the battle of Poitiers in 1356! A French translation of the New Testament appeared in 1478, and two more before 1487; the last of these had passed through sixteen editions before 1547.

Italy had its first known translation of the Bible in the early part of the thirteenth century by the Archbishop of Geneva, Giacomo a Voragine. Numerous printed editions of other translations appeared, such as one in 1471 simultaneously printed in Venice and Rome. Before the appearance of Luther, the translation of the monk Nicholas Malerimi had gone through thirteen editions!

In Spain, before the era of printing, translations of the Bible had been made in the various dialects of the various provinces throughout the country. Alfonso the Wise (1221-1284) had the whole Bible translated into Castilian. Boniface Ferrier, in 1405, produced a printed version of another translation in the dialect of Valencia.

In Flanders, the first translation was made before 1210 by a certain Jacob Merland — and once again we have Protestant Archbishop Usher as our witness. The Bodleian Library at Oxford has a manuscript copy of a translation made in 1472. After printing was popularised, numerous translations appeared: Cologne, 1475; Delft, 1477; Gouda, 1479; Antwerp, 1515, etc.

A translation of the whole Bible was made into Polish by command of St Hedwig, wife of the famous Jagellon, Duke of Lithuania (1350-1434) who after his marriage became Ladislaus II of Poland. Around the same time Andrew Jassowitz produced a second version.

By command of St Brigitte of Sweden (1302-1373) the Bible was translated into Swedish, and even Iceland, according to the Astronomer Jonas Arnagrimus, a disciple of Tycho Brahe, had its own translation by 1279.

Versions of the Bible in Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopian, Armenian, and many of the Chinese and Indian dialects were produced in Rome around the time Luther was working on his translation.

 

[yinekka]

jloughnan.tripod.com/fun1_1.htm

Did the Catholic Church keep the bible from English Catholics?

English as a written language seems to date from around 1150. Even at this time it had at least three dialects …
Protestantism never appeared on the scene until well over a century later…

Archbishop User, (1581-1656) Protestant Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland dates the first translation of the Bible into English as 1290, 100 years before Wyclif, and at a time when England was still Catholic.

There is no reason to suppose that even before 1290 no translation existed simply because we have nothing extant. In the almost 500 years from 1150-1579 (King Stephen to Elizabeth) we possess fewer than 100 works in English. It would be foolish indeed to assume that what has survived constitutes the total output of those 500 years.

…the whole Bible was translated into Saxon by the Venerable Bede (672-735), and King Alfred (848-899) wrote at least a portion of the Bible… …

At the famous Council of Cloveshoe (or Clyff) held in 747, Canons vi and vii insist on “the reading of sacred scripture,” in the vernacular — something that would be impossible if there were no translation; and further lays down that the Pater Noster, Credo, the words of the Mass, and every-thing necessary for the administration of the Sacraments should be in the vernacular so that the faithful may more easily draw spiritual fruit.

Numerous Anglo-Saxon versions of the Bible were made, and to imply as some critics of the Church do, that these were only for the benefit of the monks who could read them is to ignore the influence of oral teaching and preaching at a time when few could read and printing was unknown.

Gerald, Archdeacon of Brecknock, in a document dated 1175 concludes by beseeching his fellow priests “to pray that God may open to me in his holy scriptures, not only that I may understand them, but also keep them and observe them; and that his Grace may bring me, by this habitual study, to a fuller grasp of his teaching.”

… Thus, in 705 St Aldhelm is reported to have bought a Bible from a ship that entered Dover harbour, and presented it to the Abbey of Malmesbury; King Offa, King of the Mercians, presented a Bible to the Church at Worcester in 780; Paul, Abbot of St Albans, in 1077 presented two Bibles, adorned with gold and silver and precious stones, to the Church there; his successor, Abbot Walter, donated a "golden text of the Gospels. Maitland (p. 200) quotes a letter of one monk to another, written about 1170:…

Many of the Bibles to which Maitland refers would have been in Latin, but the author makes frequent reference to copies in Anglo-Saxon.

It is interesting to recall that the Bible in two volumes in Latin, given by Pope St Gregory the Great (590-604) to St Augustine, the apostle of England, was still in existence up to the time of James I (1566-1625).

…, I should like to quote St Thomas More, (1478-1535), together with Erasmus one of the greatest minds of the Renaissance. To the claim that wyclif’s translation was the first in the English tongue. More replied in his Dialogue Concerning Tyndale:

“Wyclif, whereas the whole Bible was long before his days, 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, took upon him of a malicious purpose to translate it of new.”

More refutes the claim that the Church by a Constitution expressly forbade the making of translations. He paraphrases the decree of Archbishop Arundel at the Council of Oxford in 1408. To help our readers, we quote the actual words of the decree:

“It is dangerous, as St Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scripture out of one idiom into another since it is not easy. In translating, to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things . . . We therefore command and ordain that henceforth noone translate any passages of Holy Scripture into English or any other language, in a book or booklet or tract of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Diocesan Bishop of the place or (if need be) by the Provincial Council.”

St Thomas More’s own comment on this decree of Archbishop Arundel is as follows:

“It neither forbiddeth the translations to be read, that were already done of old before Wyclif’s days, …” (Dialogue, iii, 14) …

St Thomas More says, in essence, that the Church, far from forbidding translations, simply believed that standards of translation should be strict…

 

[tequilamac]

Hi,

My fiancé is learning about Catholicism and recently read that Lay people were not allowed to have their own bibles and not allowed to read it for themselves. And that when Luther began making bibles available to lay people that this was something Catholic priests/leadership were upset about. After hearing this it made him very sad.

I have looked at old posts and found some answers concerning this topic, but I am still looking for more answers if possible, and even some good book suggestions that could explain this?

Thanks!

Wow he is learning about Catholicism? I don’t think so. Sounds like his RCIA director is a Lutheran actually. Luther never invented the printing press.
Lay people were never refused Bibles. But a. they were illiterate and could not read, b. Bibles were very expensive to produce and thy could not afford one.
Luther did not make Bibles available to everyone. The invention of the printing press made Bibles affordable and available to everyone. so more people had Bibles after the invention of the printing press. Luther did not invent the printing press.
If what you posted about what your husband is learning is coming from someone in the Church you need to complain to your parish priest. Either the person is not Catholic or has never taken a world history course, or a course in Western Civilization or even an art history or music history course. For the impact of the printing press on Bible distribution, not Luther, would have been taught in all of these.

 

[ricko]

Yes I am Catholic, and he is well aware that I have and read my own bible. He has also come to mass with me many times and has seen the readings in mass. I don’t think he doubts the use and access to bibles today, but his questions are about the past.

He holds the Catholic Church up to a higher standard than any other Christian denomination, because we claim to be Christ’s Church, the closest to the truth, and to have infallible teaching and so on. So whenever he sees something in history that doesn’t look right, it diminishes his whole view of the Catholic Church. Since the Catholic Church claims to be absolutely correct on its doctrines he thinks that it should not have any error in its actions.

By reading that Luther was the 1st to make bibles available to Lay people, it made him think the church was in error in action and he questions if we have access to bibles today only because of the Protestant Reformation.

So any hard proof I can show him that Luther was not the first to make bibles available, or/and a good explanation of why people were discouraged from reading the bible themselves, would be greatly appreciated.

Sounds like he has already made up his mind about the Church. He should stop reading Anti-Catholic material. Satan is always trying to destroy Gods’ Church by lies. Everytime we show that one of his stories is a lie he fires another shot. There are so many false accusations against the Church that to answer every one of them completely would take years. If he thinks so highly of the Catholic Church then why does he believe all those lies??

Oh, by the way, the Holocaust didn’t happen either.

 

[Catherine_W]

Oh, by the way, the Holocaust didn’t happen either.

I dont understand?