The Church put the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books?

[distracted]

The Church put the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books??

I was rummaging around in some of my more or less “stored” stuff last night, in a desperate attempt to find some lost object (…can’t even remember what… Hmmm:whacky, & serendipitously stumbled upon a book I had read many years ago called Catholicism & Fundamentalism (Karl Keating). Since I prefer reading, especially good Catholic books, over such boring & aggravating tasks as searching (seemingly fruitlessly) through mountains of haphazardly (un)arranged items… of things that should have been thrown out or given away a long time ago anyhow (before they became obsolete), I immediately got distracted away from my original goal of finding the elusive “needed” object… which I probably wouldn’t have found anyhow without ripping the whole place apart (Ok [sigh]… so I’m a slob). I decided I would re-read the book, since I was no longer too familiar with its contents… my brain being about as organized as my living conditions :hypno:

So anyhow, I started re-reading the book. On page 44, the author describes an “Item” (one of a fairly long list of items) addressing issues he found in an anti-Catholic book written by Loraine Boettner (a dude, by the way) called Roman Catholicism
I thought it was interesting, so thought I would share it [Italics & comments in brackets are mine]:

Item: “Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia… 1229” [claims Professional Anti-Catholic Boettner] This looks damaging, but the first thing to note is that there are several errors here [Understatement]. The first is that the Index was established in 1543 !], so a council held in 1229 hardly could have listed a book on it. Second, there apparently never has been a Church council held in Valencia, Spain. Even if there had been, it could not have been held in 1229 because the city was then controlled by the Moors [LOL]. It is inconceivable that Moslems, who were at war with Spanish Christians and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their chief cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later… So Valencia is out [LOL]. But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council (but not an ecumenical council) was indeed held in 1229. And yes, that council dealt with the Bible , yet here again Boettner errs. He says the Bible was forbidden to laymen; the implication is that no laymen anywhere was permitted from that point on to read any Bible…
The council held in Toulouse dealt with the Albigensian heresy… [which maintained] that marriage is evil because the flesh is evil… that fornicating could be no sin because what happens to flesh is of no importance [Gee, there’s some unassailable logic for ya]… In order to promulgate their views, the Albigensians used vernacular versions of the Bible to “substantiate” their theories. The church had no complaint about mere translations of the Bible ; vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But the Albigensians were twisting the Bible to support [their erroneously-held tenets]. So the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the heresy was ended. They were trying to stop the heresy’s spread [in part] because it was the cause of civil unrest and considerable suffering. Their action was a local one, and when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France… hardly the across-the-board prohibition of the Bible that Boettner… would like to see but never existed.

The book goes on to discredit this awful (badly researched) book that so many anti-Catholics rely on to trash the Catholic Church. It’s funny how reading a book twice is often called for… The 2nd time I read Catholicism & Fundamentalism, unlike the first, I was struck by the boldness of the author’s statements, which I greatly appreciated—meaning he doesn’t indulge in what I call “Ecumenism” ad naseum…

 

[PJM]

=distracted;7310369]The Church put the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books??

I was rummaging around in some of my more or less “stored” stuff last night, in a desperate attempt to find some lost object (…can’t even remember what… Hmmm:whacky, & serendipitously stumbled upon a book I had read many years ago called Catholicism & Fundamentalism (Karl Keating). Since I prefer reading, especially good Catholic books, over such boring & aggravating tasks as searching (seemingly fruitlessly) through mountains of haphazardly (un)arranged items… of things that should have been thrown out or given away a long time ago anyhow (before they became obsolete), I immediately got distracted away from my original goal of finding the elusive “needed” object… which I probably wouldn’t have found anyhow without ripping the whole place apart (Ok [sigh]… so I’m a slob). I decided I would re-read the book, since I was no longer too familiar with its contents… my brain being about as organized as my living conditions :hypno:

So anyhow, I started re-reading the book. On page 44, the author describes an “Item” (one of a fairly long list of items) addressing issues he found in an anti-Catholic book written by Loraine Boettner (a dude, by the way) called Roman Catholicism
I thought it was interesting, so thought I would share it [Italics & comments in brackets are mine]:

Item: “Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia… 1229” [claims Professional Anti-Catholic Boettner] This looks damaging, but the first thing to note is that there are several errors here [Understatement]. The first is that the Index was established in 1543 !], so a council held in 1229 hardly could have listed a book on it. Second, there apparently never has been a Church council held in Valencia, Spain. Even if there had been, it could not have been held in 1229 because the city was then controlled by the Moors [LOL]. It is inconceivable that Moslems, who were at war with Spanish Christians and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their chief cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later… So Valencia is out [LOL]. But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council (but not an ecumenical council) was indeed held in 1229. And yes, that council dealt with the Bible , yet here again Boettner errs. He says the Bible was forbidden to laymen; the implication is that no laymen anywhere was permitted from that point on to read any Bible…
The council held in Toulouse dealt with the Albigensian heresy… [which maintained] that marriage is evil because the flesh is evil… that fornicating could be no sin because what happens to flesh is of no importance [Gee, there’s some unassailable logic for ya]… In order to promulgate their views, the Albigensians used vernacular versions of the Bible to “substantiate” their theories. The church had no complaint about mere translations of the Bible ; vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But the Albigensians were twisting the Bible to support [their erroneously-held tenets]. So the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the heresy was ended. They were trying to stop the heresy’s spread [in part] because it was the cause of civil unrest and considerable suffering. Their action was a local one, and when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France… hardly the across-the-board prohibition of the Bible that Boettner… would like to see but never existed.

The book goes on to discredit this awful (badly researched) book that so many anti-Catholics rely on to trash the Catholic Church. It’s funny how reading a book twice is often called for… The 2nd time I read Catholicism & Fundamentalism, unlike the first, I was struck by the boldness of the author’s statements, which I greatly appreciated—meaning he doesn’t indulge in what I call “Ecumenism” ad naseum…

***In hind-sight the CC hs been proven correct in this Holy Spirit guided action. WHY?

When this was Chruch Law [file under practices that can be changed]; Literacy was still an issue. The Church Fathers concerned about exactly what has taken place in the Protestant communions [MANY THOUSANDS of different bible views and understanding caused by a lack of FAITH and the gifts that come with TRUE Faith: Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding.]***

2nd. Peter Chapter One verse 20-21 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. “

2 Pet.3: 16 “peaking of this as he [PAUL] in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. “

Taking there lead from the Bible itself, they acted both wisely and Prudently.

Love and prayes,
Pat

 

[distracted]

***In hind-sight the CC hs been proven correct in this Holy Spirit guided action. WHY?

When this was Chruch Law [file under practices that can be changed]; Literacy was still an issue. The Church Fathers concerned about exactly what has taken place in the Protestant communions [MANY THOUSANDS of different bible views and understanding caused by a lack of FAITH and the gifts that come with TRUE Faith: Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding.]***

2nd. Peter Chapter One verse 20-21 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. “

2 Pet.3: 16 “peaking of this as he [PAUL] in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. “

Taking there lead from the Bible itself, they acted both wisely and Prudently.

Love and prayes,
Pat

yes, those are interesting passages that most protestants seem to miss… yet they claim to go by the bible (alone)… Also, they don’t see how nonCatholics also go by things not in the Bible… this “accept Jesus as personal savior” stuff… the OSAS belief… Whoever came up with OSAS from reading the Bible… needs a Reading Comprehension Course ASAP!!! :banghead::hypno:

anyway, i liked that book because Keating doesn’t walk on eggshells w/ those who get Catholic teaching wrong…

I’m still re-reading it… not sure how long it will take me to finish since i often read 4 or 5 books @ one time… i may have Attention Deficicit or something…

mostly its just this:

So many books, so little time…

 

[distracted]

the main point i wanted to make, basically, is that the antiCatholics will go to some serious extremes to try to discount Catholicsm… Some have honest motives … they really think Catholics are lost & going to Hell… (Fundamentalists do, generally) but they rely on books written by disingenuous authors like Boettner…

i mean, Geeze, if he got that date wrong … (meaning: the Index of Forbidden Books didn’t come along until 1543!!!) how can he be trusted on anything else he says???

amazing how ppl will LIE to attack the Catholic faith…

doesn’t the Word say something about how all liars will be cast into the Lake of Fire…?

makes you wonder if antiCatholics are even Christian as they claim…

 

[NHInsider]

Boettner wasn’t just a bad researcher, he was a liar. Lots of footnotes in his book reference non-existent sources that he made up to suit his purposes.

 

[distracted]

Boettner wasn’t just a bad researcher, he was a liar. Lots of footnotes in his book reference non-existent sources that he made up to suit his purposes.

i never heard that one… but after reading a few things about him not only in KEating’s book but others… i already knew he was a liar… just d idn’t realize he would go to the extent of citing false sources…

geeze…

well, we know he wasn’t a Christian cuz Christians generally don’t believe in lying… & again, many Christians know about that psg in the Word that says all liars will be cast into the lake of fire…

But if he wasn’t a Christian… hmm… this opens an unknown (to me) topic… cuz i had thought only Christians were … well, i knew they weren’t the only ones against the RCC but…

I’m thinking about all this… get back with you later…

i guess i just figured that most antiCatholics were trying to save Catholics from sure damnation… God knows what Boettner’s motive was… Do you have any idea? How do you know about him?

 

[NHInsider]

well, we know he wasn’t a Christian cuz Christians generally don’t believe in lying… & again, many Christians know about that psg in the Word that says all liars will be cast into the lake of fire…

i guess i just figured that most antiCatholics were trying to save Catholics from sure damnation… God knows what Boettner’s motive was… Do you have any idea? How do you know about him?

Oh, I think he did think he was a Christian, and he thought the ends justified the means - that the Catholic Church was so dangerous that anything that discredited it would be regarded by God as a good thing.

One of my dearest uncles had Boettner’s book in his library. When he died and the books were offered to the family I snagged it, mostly to make sure no one else got it who might have thought it was true. It doesn’t take too much time chasing down his “sources” to determine that many of them just don’t exist.

 

[distracted]

Oh, I think he did think he was a Christian, and he thought the ends justified the means - that the Catholic Church was so dangerous that anything that discredited it would be regarded by God as a good thing.

One of my dearest uncles had Boettner’s book in his library. When he died and the books were offered to the family I snagged it, mostly to make sure no one else got it who might have thought it was true. It doesn’t take too much time chasing down his “sources” to determine that many of them just don’t exist.

good move… Did you read the whole thing… (without LOL’ing too much )

i hope he repented b4 death… probably got 10,000 yrs in Purgatory, but… better than forever in Hell…

Isn’t it great to know we have THOSE kind of ppl in opposition to us??

i mean… its telling…

 

[hrwilliams]

yes, those are interesting passages that most protestants seem to miss… yet they claim to go by the bible (alone)… Also, they don’t see how nonCatholics also go by things not in the Bible… this “accept Jesus as personal savior” stuff… the OSAS belief… Whoever came up with OSAS from reading the Bible… needs a Reading Comprehension Course ASAP!!!

As a Protestant, I tend to agree with you. However, I wouldn’t say that most of us believe in once-saved, always saved. Just too many of us.

Thanks for sharing these quotes! Very interesting, very helpful.

A friend of mine from the Czech Republic told me his grandmother asked her priest about some Bible verses her son-in-law had brought to her. Her priest responded, “Only priests can understand the Bible. Never talk to your son-in-law again.” She obeyed him.

By contrast, the American priest in my home town is very passionate about helping his flock to understand Scripture. This was an important illustration for me in realizing that not all Catholics are the same.

 

[TimothyH]

The Church put the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books??

… stumbled upon a book I had read many years ago called Catholicism & Fundamentalism (Karl Keating).

On page 44, the author describes an “Item” (one of a fairly long list of items) addressing issues he found in an anti-Catholic book written by Loraine Boettner called Roman Catholicism

Yes, it is true. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but Bibles were banned more than once. And burned too. I’m remembering this from a while back so forgive me if I am not 100% accurate…

The banning of Bibles was a result of specific translations and versions with errors so egregious that in certain cases, it caused civil unrest, great hardship, even murder! At other times, specific Bible verses were taken out of context by people with agendas which were anything but Christian. In one case during the middle ages somewhere in France, someone was teaching something from the Bible which was wildly out of context and the result was riots so severe that the Churches in the area had to ban the Bible for a short time until everything calmed down.

In all cases the bans were local and temporary and were infact, acts of mercy.

One example was the “Baby killer Bible” wherin Mark 7:27 was mistranslated or typo’d. He said to her, “Let the children be filled first. For it is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” was mistranslated or miswritten as Let the children be killed first. I don’t know if it is true but I heard that some killed children or starved them because of it. These were gathered up and burned but by Protestants, not Catholics. Either way, it was right to burn them.

Non-Catholic Christians use incidents like this to assert that the Catholic Church does not want the laity to read scripture and is trying to hide the truth in order to protect wealth, power, etc.

• "The Catholic Church banned the bible" - when it was translated so poorly that people werre rioting and killing kids!
• "The Catholic Church burned Bibles" - Again, poor translations. Protestants burned Bibles too for the same reason.
• "The Catholic Church chained Bibles to the table" - Yup, we did, just like the post office chains pens to the table, so they don’t get stolen and the next guy can use it.
• "The Catholic Church printed the Bible in Latin so that no one could read it" - even though the most widely written and read (as opposed to spoken) language in Europe for 13 centuries years was Latin.

Here is a funny site which lists bibles such as the “Wife beater” Bible and my favorite, the “Vexing wives” Bible

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

-Tim-

 

[LemonAndLime]

*]“The Catholic Church printed the Bible in Latin so that no one could read it” - even though the most widely written and read (as opposed to spoken) language in Europe for 13 centuries years was Latin.

-Tim-

The flaw in that argument however is that while yes, Latin was the most widely written and read language in Europe - it certainly wasn’t for the majority of the European peoples. Latin was the language of educated people. The Catholic Church may have used it because it was widely understood, but there is little to no justification for continuing to use it when the majority of the population could not understand it other than tradition. That is why Protestants pick up on that - not because they’re stupid, but because its something which has yet to be justified as something which doesn’t limit people’s knowledge of the Bible/accessability to it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The flaw in that argument however is that while yes, Latin was the most widely written and read language in Europe - it certainly wasn’t for the majority of the European peoples. Latin was the language of educated people. The Catholic Church may have used it because it was widely understood, but there is little to no justification for continuing to use it when the majority of the population could not understand it other than tradition. That is why Protestants pick up on that - not because they’re stupid, but because its something which has yet to be justified as something which doesn’t limit people’s knowledge of the Bible/accessability to it.

Did you know that ‘vernacular’ Bibles were written (and approved by the Church) well before the Protestants came? True, some vernacular Bibles were not approved (and for good reason) but vernacular Bibles existed.

Did you know that while literacy as we know it today was lacking among the majority of people, that people also had a fair ‘hearing literacy’ of not just their own language, but of other languages, notably Latin, but also at least 2-3 others depending on their location?

In Wales you would know Welsh. . .and Latin. . and probably French, and a smattering of Gaelic, and probably enough Danish (from the Irish base), and possibly if you went to sea some Spanish or Italian.

In England, you’d know English, French, Scots (more a ‘dialect’ then as opposed to Scots Gaelic in the highlands), Latin, some Welsh, and English itself had very distinct dialects; you might also know some Flemish, or some German, depending on your trade. You might not be able to read but your spoken or ‘hearing’ of the above would be reasonably fluent.

Before Guttenberg, Bibles (vernacular or Latin) were expensive. Very expensive.

Even after, while Bibles became more affordable, still, the vast majority of the population would not have possessed the ability to read even a ‘vernacular’ Bible.

Further, just as with any reasonably demanding work of literature (let’s take one of Shakespeare’s plays, like Hamlet, for example), simply READING the word doesn’t ensure you understand it in context and correctly.

For example, Hamlet speaks of sending Ophelia to a nunnery. Well, that seems straightforward enough. . . that rather than marry her, she should retire to a convent.

EXCEPT Shakespeare was using the word in the ‘modern’ (for him) slang of a BAWDY HOUSE. Rather than Hamlet telling Ophelia to ‘retire to a convent’, he was telling her she should go parade herself as a whore!

Wow! The meaning is now completely DIFFERENT, isn’t it??? but just reading ‘nunnery’ without knowing that the word was used in a different sense by Shakespeare, one would have a totally different understanding. So one can’t just ‘read a word’ and assume it means what one ‘thinks it means’ today.

One needs to have an authority (whether it’s a reliable Shakespearean expert, book, teacher, etc.) to know exactly what Shakespeare is saying.

And one needs to have an authority to know what the Bible is saying. Just picture say a farmer of AD 1560 suddenly being handed a Bible. Even if the farmer can read (let’s say he can, or he can be taught), and even if it’s a nice vernacular Bible, is that farmer going to be able to understand every single word in that Bible and how that word was used? Without having ANYBODY to explain what it means, for example, when Jesus speaks in John 6 of “his flesh is real flesh, and we must eat that flesh’? And why SOME of the pastors in his country are saying, “See, the bread becomes the body sort of” (Lutherans), others 'the bread becomes the body” (Catholics), others "the bread only SYMBOLIZES the Body’ (Cranmer Anglicans)? Poor guy is bound to be confused. . .which pastor (all of whom cite John 6 as the authority for their teaching on the Eucharist) is the farmer to believe?

 

[LemonAndLime]

Did you know that ‘vernacular’ Bibles were written (and approved by the Church) well before the Protestants came? True, some vernacular Bibles were not approved (and for good reason) but vernacular Bibles existed.

Did you know that while literacy as we know it today was lacking among the majority of people, that people also had a fair ‘hearing literacy’ of not just their own language, but of other languages, notably Latin, but also at least 2-3 others depending on their location?

In Wales you would know Welsh. . .and Latin. . and probably French, and a smattering of Gaelic, and probably enough Danish (from the Irish base), and possibly if you went to sea some Spanish or Italian.

In England, you’d know English, French, Scots (more a ‘dialect’ then as opposed to Scots Gaelic in the highlands), Latin, some Welsh, and English itself had very distinct dialects; you might also know some Flemish, or some German, depending on your trade. You might not be able to read but your spoken or ‘hearing’ of the above would be reasonably fluent.

Before Guttenberg, Bibles (vernacular or Latin) were expensive. Very expensive.

Even after, while Bibles became more affordable, still, the vast majority of the population would not have possessed the ability to read even a ‘vernacular’ Bible.

Further, just as with any reasonably demanding work of literature (let’s take one of Shakespeare’s plays, like Hamlet, for example), simply READING the word doesn’t ensure you understand it in context and correctly.

For example, Hamlet speaks of sending Ophelia to a nunnery. Well, that seems straightforward enough. . . that rather than marry her, she should retire to a convent.

EXCEPT Shakespeare was using the word in the ‘modern’ (for him) slang of a BAWDY HOUSE. Rather than Hamlet telling Ophelia to ‘retire to a convent’, he was telling her she should go parade herself as a whore!

Wow! The meaning is now completely DIFFERENT, isn’t it??? but just reading ‘nunnery’ without knowing that the word was used in a different sense by Shakespeare, one would have a totally different understanding. So one can’t just ‘read a word’ and assume it means what one ‘thinks it means’ today.

One needs to have an authority (whether it’s a reliable Shakespearean expert, book, teacher, etc.) to know exactly what Shakespeare is saying.

And one needs to have an authority to know what the Bible is saying. Just picture say a farmer of AD 1560 suddenly being handed a Bible. Even if the farmer can read (let’s say he can, or he can be taught), and even if it’s a nice vernacular Bible, is that farmer going to be able to understand every single word in that Bible and how that word was used? Without having ANYBODY to explain what it means, for example, when Jesus speaks in John 6 of “his flesh is real flesh, and we must eat that flesh’? And why SOME of the pastors in his country are saying, “See, the bread becomes the body sort of” (Lutherans), others 'the bread becomes the body” (Catholics), others "the bread only SYMBOLIZES the Body’ (Cranmer Anglicans)? Poor guy is bound to be confused. . .which pastor (all of whom cite John 6 as the authority for their teaching on the Eucharist) is the farmer to believe?

I don’t quite understand what point you’re trying to make here. You say at first that the Church did not stand in the way of lay people reading the Bible, then you finish by saying that lay people do not have the capacity to understand the Bible anyway. Are you saying that people now have the ability to when before they didn’t? Based on what? Are you admitting that the Church did stand in the way, but that the people couldn’t understand anyway?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t quite understand what point you’re trying to make here. You say at first that the Church did not stand in the way of lay people reading the Bible, then you finish by saying that lay people do not have the capacity to understand the Bible anyway. Are you saying that people now have the ability to when before they didn’t? Based on what? Are you admitting that the Church did stand in the way, but that the people couldn’t understand anyway?

No, the Church does not stand in the way of lay people reading the Bible. (Never has). In fact, one gets ‘graces’ from reading it.

HOWEVER. . .one also can’t just sit down with a Bible and expect to ‘understand every word’ (anymore than even a college graduate adult could just ‘sit down’ with Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” and expect to understand every word.) While there is much (in either work) that can be ‘easily’ understood, there is also much (in either work) that is nuanced, layered, needs to be understood in context, refers to ‘other works’, etc. etc.

So I am not saying that lay people ‘can’t understand the bible’. But they can’t understand it FULLY unless they make sure to use a competent authority of some kind. Right? You yourself wouldn’t have just sat down with the Bible --and NOTHING ELSE-- at the age of say 20, having NO knowledge whatsoever of the history of Christianity, of the history of the Jewish people, of the ‘commentaries’ by scholars, early Church fathers, and above all the teachings of your own Christian heritage, and expected that you totally understood what was meant by ‘casting your bread upon the waters’, what the 'lilies of the field were (hint: They weren’t actual lillies), or why your faith heritage insisted that the Eucharist was either symbolic or literal based on Scripture interpretation. . .

So no, the Church didn’t ‘keep things’ from people. . .but people have (and had) a responsibility to work with competent authority in order to understand Scripture, and not to think that they need nothing but ‘the book’ in order to understand it. The Bible is not ‘self-interpreting’.

 

[LemonAndLime]

No, the Church does not stand in the way of lay people reading the Bible. (Never has). In fact, one gets ‘graces’ from reading it.

HOWEVER. . .one also can’t just sit down with a Bible and expect to ‘understand every word’ (anymore than even a college graduate adult could just ‘sit down’ with Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” and expect to understand every word.) While there is much (in either work) that can be ‘easily’ understood, there is also much (in either work) that is nuanced, layered, needs to be understood in context, refers to ‘other works’, etc. etc.

So I am not saying that lay people ‘can’t understand the bible’. But they can’t understand it FULLY unless they make sure to use a competent authority of some kind. Right? You yourself wouldn’t have just sat down with the Bible --and NOTHING ELSE-- at the age of say 20, having NO knowledge whatsoever of the history of Christianity, of the history of the Jewish people, of the ‘commentaries’ by scholars, early Church fathers, and above all the teachings of your own Christian heritage, and expected that you totally understood what was meant by ‘casting your bread upon the waters’, what the 'lilies of the field were (hint: They weren’t actual lillies), or why your faith heritage insisted that the Eucharist was either symbolic or literal based on Scripture interpretation. . .

So no, the Church didn’t ‘keep things’ from people. . .but people have (and had) a responsibility to work with competent authority in order to understand Scripture, and not to think that they need nothing but ‘the book’ in order to understand it. The Bible is not ‘self-interpreting’.

Okay, I get that, but how does that support the Church only publishing the Bible in latin and carrying out services in latin? “The people wouldn’t understand if they read the Bible without authority” - since when I am arguing against that? I’m not, quote me. But you’re saying that in response to me saying the Church didn’t do much several hundred years ago to make it accessible while it was only available in latin/the services were only in latin. In reply to that you say the people won’t understand without guidance… how is that a reply to what I said? How was the Church giving them guidence by only publishing the complete Bible in latin and carrying out the services in latin?

I shall try and simplify this. Try and answer this question for me.

How can people say that the Church has always been accessible when the Bible was only available in latin for a time (a language which lay people could not read and barely speak), and the services used to always be in latin?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Okay, I get that, but how does that support the Church only publishing the Bible in latin and carrying out services in latin? “The people wouldn’t understand if they read the Bible without authority” - since when I am arguing against that? I’m not, quote me. But you’re saying that in response to me saying the Church didn’t do much several hundred years ago to make it accessible while it was only available in latin/the services were only in latin. In reply to that you say the people won’t understand without guidance… how is that a reply to what I said? How was the Church giving them guidence by only publishing the complete Bible in latin and carrying out the services in latin?

I shall try and simplify this. Try and answer this question for me.

How can people say that the Church has always been accessible when the Bible was only available in latin for a time (a language which lay people could not read and barely speak), and the services used to always be in latin?

Actually, the Bible was available in the vernacular in the early ages and to an extent in the Middle Ages but you will have to understand that English, for example, did not EXIST as a language in and of itself during much OF the Middle Ages. How could you have a Bible in English when English itself wasn’t ‘there?’ Or French, for example, in which you had the langue d’oc and the langue d’oil --which would be considered ‘vernacular French?’ How would you reach the inhabitants of France instead of just ‘one’ group?

Furthermore, those same ‘lay people’ **in the majority could not read their OWN vernacular. **

And Latin is not that hard to grasp. Since most Romance languages --that would be French, Italian, Spanish, and to an extent English–derived from Latin, a congregation in London (which consisted of English, French, Flemish, Spanish, etc.) would ALL be able to understand the ONE Latin language.

**Let’s look at it this way, sugar. Suppose you were working in a library and it was in a big city. With a large Spanish-speaking population. **

YOU would probably have to learn several Spanish phrases. You wouldn’t have to learn the whole Spanish language, of course, but what you learned would be adequate to address the basic needs.

You would not have to know any Spanish grammar. But your memorization of the Spanish phrases would be sufficient that you would understand the person saying the phrases, and you would ‘understand’ the meaning behind the phrases that you would say to them in return.

Voila! (to change a language) you now know enough that you could comprehend a Latin Mass. Not only that, you and the Spanish speakers, and the French speakers, and the Vietnamese speakers, etc. would ALL be able to understand that Latin Mass, even if you didn’t know a word of the other person’s language (French, Spanish, Vietnamese, etc.)

Imagine all those people in Europe whose own ‘vernacular’ was JUST DEVELOPING, and who were wandering around so that they weren’t just all clumped in ONE country --every ONE of them could COMPREHEND A LATIN MASS.

And, if literate, a Latin Bible. Higher education demanded Latin (so that scholars COULD, for example, go from one country to another and not have to know every little dialect or language.)

 

[NHInsider]

There are copies of vernacular translations of the Bible that date back to the 600s in “AEnglisce” (not a language you would recognize, but the predecessor of English) and other European tribal languages although that is outside my area of knowledge. These translations were done precisely to share the Bible with the common people, because ALL literate people could read Latin.

The whole notion of handing people Bibles was meaningless until after Gutenberg, since no one could afford them and almost no one could read them. Moveable-print type led to relatively cheap printing and that in turn led to a rapid increase in literacy, and the question of both quality-control in translations and the possibilities of wide-ranging personal interpretations of the text.

After Gutenberg, hundreds of thousands of Bibles, of varying quality, were printed and sold across Europe. Suddenly, translating and publishing Bibles became a very profitable and attractive business! As has already been noted here, there was a not-unpredictable lack of consistency in those editions.

The Tyndale (Protestant) English translations came out in the 1560s. The D-R (Catholic) English translation was done in in France the 1580s (at a time when it was illegal to practice Catholicism in England). Catholics risked their lives smuggling those Bibles into England. It’s just not true to say that the Church tried to prevent people from reading the Bible.

As for “services” being in Latin - yes, the prayers of the Mass were in Latin. But people knew what was going on. The liturgy was familiar, and very visual, besides. Teaching wasn’t done in Latin, it was done in the vernacular. Prayers were said in Latin. People learned them in Latin, they joined together to pray them in Latin. You did it from childhood, it wasn’t foreign, it was familiar. Today in Greek Orthodox churches the prayers are in Greek. I went to a friend’s Greek Orthodox wedding - I was completely lost. But all around me, people were participating - teenagers, little kids, Americans, not Greeks - why? Because they’d grown up in it. It was familiar.

The notion that the Church “hid” the truths of the faith from the people by using Latin is revisionist hogwash. Anyone who has read Luther at all knows that it was not one of his complaints - and he had plenty of complaints!

 

[LemonAndLime]

But what about what happened to John Wycliffe?
Wikipedia:

Wycliffe was also an early advocate for translation of the Bible into the common tongue. He completed his translation directly from the Vulgate into vernacular English in the year 1382, now known as Wyclif’s Bible.[3] It is probable that he personally translated the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and it is possible he translated the entire New Testament, while his associates translated the Old Testament.[4] Wyclif’s Bible appears to have been completed by 1384,[4] with additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe’s assistant John Purvey and others in 1388 and 1395.[5]

I watched a BBC documentary on John Wycliffe and the fight to get the Bible printed in the common tongue. Their certainly was opposition during his time from the Church. I can’t find any other articles because I was about 12 when I saw the program and I can’t remember any names etc; but I know that Wycliffe’s remains were exhumed to be defiled under the direction of the Church. There was a time when the Bible was handed out in the common language which was not Latin, and then confisgated again.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But what about what happened to John Wycliffe?

I watched a BBC documentary on John Wycliffe and the fight to get the Bible printed in the common tongue. Their certainly was opposition during his time from the Church. I can’t find any other articles because I was about 12 when I saw the program and I can’t remember any names etc; but I know that Wycliffe’s remains were exhumed to be defiled under the direction of the Church. There was a time when the Bible was handed out in the common language which was not Latin, and then confisgated again.

Wycliffe was promulgating a corrupt text.
While it was not so blatant as say adding on “The Book of Mormon” and presenting it to the people as “hey, the BOM is part of the Bible”, it was still corrupt.

No, the Bible was NOT 'handed out in the common language, then ‘confiscated’ again. People were not literate as we are today, and until the late 1400s there was no such thing as a printing press anyway to get out cheap enough copies for people to afford.

Honestly, you are going on a program you SAW on the BBC (yes, great station, loved the tour I had back in the 70s) when you were 12 to make an argument? What about researching Wycliffe now --using more than Wikipedia or old memories? And remember, you have to understand the CONTEXT of the time. Today with 500 years of growing literacy and widespread availability of the Bible, the idea that there could be a problem with a text seems ‘silly’ --I mean, WE can just ‘look up’ a correction or go over to Wally world and pick up a new ‘version’ of the Bible. For people then, there wasn’t an ‘easy’ or available ‘stock’ of different versions and the good old internet available to explain if some version had a typo or two. . .

Just try imagining that you are a bishop of an area of maybe 100,000 people in an area of hundreds of square miles, no roads per se, no ‘media’, it takes days or WEEKS for people to receive a letter or an ‘oral’ message from somebody and even so, all the people are pretty much scattered in different places and you are going on foot or maybe horse, trying to reach ALL of them and explain to them that the Bible that had been handed to you with so much ceremony and joy by some local scholar was ‘corrupt’. Imagine that you have to try to explain what was wrong. . .that instead of these people displaying their ‘book’ with love and joy, they will have to destroy it and maybe (since it takes time to get out new books and distribute) they will have to WAIT a while until they get a proper one. And imagine that all this time, the ‘well loved’ local scholars are holding secret little meetings trying to cut YOU down, claiming that THEIR translation is ‘better’, that YOU are trying to ‘pull the wool’ over the poor peoples’ eyes, that YOU are the bad guy. . .etc.

Not pretty, huh? This is what bishops had to face when every Tom, Dick or Wycliffe wanted to bypass the ‘rules’ and get out their own ‘puffed with pride’, I totally know Scripture better than my priest, bishop or Pope’ gospel. . .

 

[jeansroses]

The Church put the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books??

Well, I checked up on this, cuz I wanted to know what Boettner’s sources actually were.
I found this entry that speaks to the question of whether or not that Toulouse council took place and cites the sources of that, which I am assuming must have been the source that boettner used.
I think that these statements refute this poster’s contention that bible reading was prohibited for just a temporary time, especially if you combine that with the quote from Pope Innocent III, which I include at the end:
COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.
The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition (Lat. inquisitio, an inquiry), to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the forty-five articles decreed by the Council dealt with heretics and heresy. It ruled in part:
Canon 1. We appoint, therefore, that the archbishops and bishops shall swear in one priest, and two or three laymen of good report, or more if they think fit, in every parish, both in and out of cities, who shall diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out the heretics in those parishes, by searching all houses and subterranean chambers which lie under suspicion. And looking out for appendages or outbuildings, in the roofs themselves, or any other kind of hiding places, all which we direct to be destroyed.
Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.
Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.
Additional Sources:
Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, Pierre Allix, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213 [Canon 14].
Additional Sources:
Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, Pierre Allix, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213 [Canon 14].
The History of Protestantism, by J. A. Wiley, chapter 10 cites:
• Concilium Tolosanum, cap. 1, p. 428. Sismondi, 220.
• Labbe, Concil. Tolosan., tom. 11, p. 427. Fleury, Hist. Eccles., lib. 79, n. 58.
Some Catholics may doubt that there even was a Church Council in Toulouse France in 1229. The following quotes are offered as corroborating evidence:
After the death of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: “prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere” (Hefele, “Concilgesch”, Freiburg, 1863, V, 875).
Source: The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Scripture.
and here’s the quote from pope innocent III :
Pope Innocent III stated in 1199:
… to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)
Source: Bridging the Gap - Lectio Divina, Religious Education, and the Have-not’s by Father John Belmonte, S.J.
I always took this for granted, as I don’t remember ever being encouraged to read the bible by the priests or nuns or anyone else. I got the sense that the church felt that the people couldn’t be trusted to understand what they were reading, and that only priests, etc. were “qualified” to understand it.
But now I know that it isn’t maturity, training, education, or any kind of knowledge that helps us understand what God’s Word is saying; it is the help of The Holy Spirit, who makes the word become alive for us, and gives us the meaning, at the same time causing the word to bring about conversion and change.