The Church Really Did Forbid the Bible from LayPeople

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Sacramentalist:

I know that there are many revisionists out there who want to calim that the Church of the late Middle Ages was fully enthusiastic about Bible-reading for laity, and placed little restrictions in this regard, but I don’t think this is true. I’ve read several books on Christian history and the Reformation, and ***all ***of them refer to the fact that one of the calls of the Reformers was always a demand for vernacular Bibles so the laity could read them, and that this was so controversial.

It simply does not make sense: If it’s true that anybody who could read could read Latin, and so vernacular Bibles did not serve a practical purpose, then why the big demand for these from the Reformers, on the grounds that the laity should be able to read it for themselves? Wouldn’t these literate laity been able to read the Latin Bibles anyway, supposedly?

Please, don’t link me to Dave Armstrong or some other apologist. None of them have addressed this particular question.

If vernacular Bibles were as practically useless, but otherwise fully-blessed, by the Medieval Church, the Reformers would never have complained about otherwise being the case, and would never have demanded the publication of vernacular Bibles on the grounds that this would help the laity to finnaly read Scripture for themselves.

The Catholic Church was beginning to translate the Scriptures into other “new” languages. The concern of the Church was not to allow inaccurate and misleading poor translations from being mass produced, now that printing was available. We see many examples of careless translation where the addition or omission of even a single word or even a single letter changes the meaning of a passage.

 

[Marie]

scm:

I was actually talking about something related to this to my mother recently. She is 72 years old. She says that when she was a child they were “not allowed to have their own Bible.” I thought this was pretty odd, but she said that when she was a child she saw that her Protestant friends read the Bible, but she did not even have one. She said she asked her priest about this and he told her that it would be better for her not to read the Bible since she may misunderstand it.

The reason I thought this was odd is that by the time I was a child we were given Bibles to read in Catholic school.

I think it odd too. My great Aunt would be 130 years old and she sold Catholic bibles way back in the 1920’s and until the day she died. Everyone of us had bibles before we could read. I cut my teeth on one I know for sure. I finally started reading it around age 7.

We were however to read and listen to the readings and sermon at Mass so as NOT to be our own interpeter. The fact is every Catholic may not have READ the Bible themselves according to how Protestants understand reading a bible. But even those who did not…received the Bible in full with proper instructions if they attended Mass and listened to the Homily.

It’s not rocket science to know the Catholic Church is where the Bible sprang from.

 

[VociMike]

I notice that you haven’t offered any proof for your statement that the Church forbade the Bible to lay persons.

As to what individual priests may have told people, considering the disaster that was the Protestant Reformation, and considering that the disaster arose out of error-saturated private interpretation of the Bible, it’s not surprising that there was a temporary backlash, now gone, in parts of the Church. That is far different from your claim that the Church forbade the bible to lay persons.

 

[thann]

I’ll add my two cents. I’m 50 and grew up with a family Bible and received my own when I received my First Holy Communion at age seven. Each of us (I am the youngest of six) had our own Bible, and we read them – as a family and privately. We attended Catholic schools where we read the Bible in class.

My father was a cradle Catholic and I have photos of him holding a Bible when he made his First Holy Communion as a child (ca. 1925).

My mother was a convert and I have a photo of her, at age 19, holding a Bible the day she came into the Church (ca. 1937).

I have seen my grandparents’ family Catholic Bible – more than a hundred years old now, and well used.

My in-laws, both in their 80s, are cradle Catholics, and they had Bibles when they were children – both in Polish and English.

And, no, I am not talking about Missals, but about Bibles.

So there are several more stories to refute the original poster’s claims.

'thann

 

[gardenswithkids]

Sacramentalist:

My grandmother (now 75) grew up in Sicily. She taught Catechism, and asked her priest if she culd read the Bible. He told her not to bother; it would be too confusing.

I think the distinction should be made that “The Church” did not forbid you grandmother to read the Bible, but her priest may have. For the kindest interpretaion of the priest’s motive, perhaps he had insight into her general “reading comprehension” abilities. Or perhaps there was some unique situation in the parish at the time with a lay person misleading other Catholics about what the Bible teaches. Or maybe he simply wasn’t a very good Bible scholar and assumed no one else could understand it either. Whatever his motives, if a priest said as a general rule that Lay Catholics shouldn’t read the Bible, that priest wasn’t speaking for the Church.

If you read other threads, I’m sure you could come up with numerous examples to priests today who fail to teach Church teachings. While I’ve never been told not to read the Bible, I’ve certainly heard bad advice that is out of line with the Church on other matters from a priest. If your grandmother or others heard that they should not read the Bible, that is not because the “Church” forbid it, but individual teachers in the Church may have. We must make the distinction that individual priests do not always speak for the Church.

 

[Axion]

The legend that lay people were forbidden the bible at some time in the past comes largely from the peculiar situation in England.

Although there were translations of parts of the bible into Anglo Saxon before 1066. The Norman conquest meant that English became a largely unwritten language for 300 years. The ruling class spoke Norman French. The clergy spoke French and Latin.

Those who could read, were the educated - either clergy or nobles or wealthy merchants. All people who could read in this period therefore either spoke Latin, (taught in schools) or Norman french. So while there were medieval translations into Norman French, and other European languages, there was no translation into modern English. And only the wealthy Norman frenchcould afford a hand-written bible anyway - whose value could be more than that of most people’s houses!

When prosperity grew and English speaking people started to want to read in English around 1360 was just the period when Wycliffe produced his translation - which unfortunately was heretical and had heretical notes. This translation was banned. And only approved translations were allowed. But there was no approved translation into English, and because of Lollardism, the Bishops distrusted one, and delayed producing one. This continued even after the Reformation of 1532, when King Henry banned the heretical Tyndale translation - based on Luther.

Henry changed his mind later, and had an official translation produced - The Bishops Bible. This bible remained in churches when Catholic Queen Mary returned to power - although other versions were banned. The catholic Church produced the Douai Rheims translation in the 1580s, nearly 30 years before the King James version.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Only translations with commentaries approved by the church were permitted for the faithful to read. In practically every bible of the 1950s the very first page spoke of an indulgence granted to anyone who studies the scriptures for a half an hour each day.

 

[metal1633]

Sacramentalist:

I know that there are many revisionists out there who want to calim that the Church of the late Middle Ages was fully enthusiastic about Bible-reading for laity, and placed little restrictions in this regard, but I don’t think this is true. I’ve read several books on Christian history and the Reformation, and ***all *** of them refer to the fact that one of the calls of the Reformers was always a demand for vernacular Bibles so the laity could read them, and that this was so controversial.

It simply does not make sense: If it’s true that anybody who could read could read Latin, and so vernacular Bibles did not serve a practical purpose, then why the big demand for these from the Reformers, on the grounds that the laity should be able to read it for themselves? Wouldn’t these literate laity been able to read the Latin Bibles anyway, supposedly?

Please, don’t link me to Dave Armstrong or some other apologist. None of them have addressed this particular question.

If vernacular Bibles were as practically useless, but otherwise fully-blessed, by the Medieval Church, the Reformers would never have complained about otherwise being the case, and would never have demanded the publication of vernacular Bibles on the grounds that this would help the laity to finnaly read Scripture for themselves.

It is your sources which are revisionist. or did the 192 vernacular editions of the bible published by the Church, in most European Languages, not really exist? Or the dozen German editions BEFORE Luther? Would you like a list??

What the Church forbade, and rightly so, was people making their own translations. This has ALWAYS proved to be a VERY BAD THING as is proven by the numerous heretical translations circulating today.

 

[metal1633]

piety101:

Heavens no. The church alone had some copies of the scriptures in some churches, but even those were rare. The printing press was non existent for some 1200 years, so people recited Psalms,creeds, prayers that were passed down from generation to generation. A great deal of learning came from art work or mosaics. A great many of the common people could not even read. Educational skills were not like it is in our time.

                            Martin Luther was the first to translate the Latin bible into German and he had copies made and distributed to the people. This started the ball rolling. Before this, copies of the scriptures were housed in church buildings. 

                             Martin Luther had good intentions, but after the scriptures became copied by others succeeding him, heretical interpretations came from reading those printed copies and so denominational-ism was born. In other words Martin Luther gave birth to a Frankenstein. It was no longer sola scriptura, but rather sola interpretation by anyone who thought their ideas were right. :(

Martin Luther did was NOT the first to translate the bible into German. The CATHOLIC CHURCH did it. Augsburg Bible, Wenzel Bible are examples. The first printed German bible, using Guttenburg’s invention, is the Mentel Bible (1466) And that was BEFORE Luther was even Born.

 

[Fidelis]

Sacramentalist:

I’ve read several books on Christian history and the Reformation, and ***all *** of them refer to the fact that one of the calls of the Reformers was always a demand for vernacular Bibles so the laity could read them, and that this was so controversial.

It simply does not make sense: If it’s true that anybody who could read could read Latin, and so vernacular Bibles did not serve a practical purpose, then why the big demand for these from the Reformers, on the grounds that the laity should be able to read it for themselves? Wouldn’t these literate laity been able to read the Latin Bibles anyway, supposedly?

If vernacular Bibles were as practically useless, but otherwise fully-blessed, by the Medieval Church, the Reformers would never have complained about otherwise being the case, and would never have demanded the publication of vernacular Bibles on the grounds that this would help the laity to finnaly read Scripture for themselves.

I’ve condensed your OP, but let me address this part:

At the time of the “Reformation” the printing press had been in existence for about a hundred years, but technological production being what it was, was just coming into it’s own. At the same time we were starting to see the dominance of national languages throughout Europe; whereas Latin was still the language of commerce and literature, the vernacular particular to each region had become preferred.

All these factors–the rise of the preference for the vernacular, the “Reformation,” the availablilty ot the printing-press–converged and the “Reformers” seized the moment. They issued their own vernacular versions of the Scriptures complete with erroneous and heretical commentary and footnotes that promoted their own views and were able to produce them in large quantity. The argument could be made that, since vernacular translations already existed, the purpose was not so much to get Bibles into people’s hands, as it was** to expose them to the Reformers novel interpretations found in the footnotes and commentaries.** Similarly, they were able to mass produce heretical and anti-Catholic tracts, that were just horrible and would embarass most modern-day Protestants (Catholic Answers has a good article in one of it’s older back issues about this).

Not that there was an authentic popular demand for these heretical books and material --as one poster noted, the average person was so disinclined to read, rulers with pro-Reformer sympathies had to pass laws to get people to buy them.

If you really are interested in getting the whole fascinating story of this time period, I highly recommend Henry Graham’s Where We Got The Bible, available from Catholic Answers.

 

[Trick]

I am 56 years old and I went to Catholic grade school.
Although extensive private reading of the Bible was never really promoted, it certainly was never forbidden or said that it was bad.
I must say even though I didn’t do alot of private reading of the Bible then, I became very familiar with God’s word thru, the liturgy of the Mass and the readings & homilies.
Also I learned from our discussion of the Bible stories in our religion classes, and I learned alot about scripture preparing for the sacraments.

Trick

 

[JimG]

All during the decades of the 1930’s through mid-century and well into the 1980’s, ordinary people were not allowed to own their own computers or to access the internet. Government and giant corporations kept this knowledge to themselves. Information was available only in libraries, and many large reference books were kept in restricted areas or back in the stacks where it was only available to librarians and academics, not ordinary people. Computers were kept locked up in special rooms.

Sounds like a plot on the part of the Catholic Church or the Illuminati to keep people in the dark. That’s why we call those the Dark Decades.

Or… maybe that’s just what happens when you try to apply the standards of one age to an entirely different age without understanding the historical context.

 

[UnworthySoul]

JimG:

Before Martin Luther was born, there was a German translation of the Vulgate available (a Catholic bible.) It was called the Mentel Bible. It was first published in 1466, using the newly invented printing press. Luther’s translation was published in 1522.

Even before Gutenberg, there were a variety of vernacular translations of various books of the bible.

To add to what you said, Gutenberg’s Bible (Catholic, mind you) was printed on his press more than a decade before Luther went berserk.

 

[Sacramentalist]

Guys, even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the reading of the vernacular Bible, even in an approved translation, was generally forbidden or strongly discouraged until not too long ago. For instance (newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm):

VI. ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH TOWARDS THE READING OF THE BIBLE IN THE VERNACULAR

The attitude of the Church as to the reading of the Bible in the vernacular may be inferred from the Church’s practice and legislation. It has been the practice of the Church to provide newly-converted nations, as soon as possible, with vernacular versions of the Scriptures; hence the early Latin and oriental translations, the versions existing among the Armenians, the Slavonians, the Goths, the Italians, the French, and the partial renderings into English. As to the legislation of the Church on this subject, we may divide its history into three large periods:

(1) During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not promulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the Sacred Books according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenaeus, “Adv. haer.”, III, iv).

(2) The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text (St. Gregory VII, “Epist.”, vii, xi). The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned ("Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, “Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III”, Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.). 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). In 1233 the Synod of Tarragona issued a similar prohibition in its second canon, but both these laws are intended only for the countries subject to the jurisdiction of the respective synods (Hefele, ibid., 918). The Third Synod of Oxford, in 1408, owing to the disorders of the Lollards, who in addition to their crimes of violence and anarchy had introduced virulent interpolations into the vernacular sacred text, issued a law in virtue of which only the versions approved by the local ordinary or the provincial council were allowed to be read by the laity (Hefele, op. cit., VI, 817).

 

[Sacramentalist]

(3) It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, “Dominici gregis”, the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix. Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it. This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible, by the Bull “Unigenitus” issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, “Enchir.”, nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull “Auctorem fidei” issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.

We see that all the way up to the early 1900s it was an open question whether or not laymen were allowed to read the vernacular Bible without the permission of the Pope!

Sad, sad, sad . . .

 

[jimmy]

Sacramentalist:

I know that there are many revisionists out there who want to calim that the Church of the late Middle Ages was fully enthusiastic about Bible-reading for laity, and placed little restrictions in this regard, but I don’t think this is true. I’ve read several books on Christian history and the Reformation, and ***all ***of them refer to the fact that one of the calls of the Reformers was always a demand for vernacular Bibles so the laity could read them, and that this was so controversial.

It simply does not make sense: If it’s true that anybody who could read could read Latin, and so vernacular Bibles did not serve a practical purpose, then why the big demand for these from the Reformers, on the grounds that the laity should be able to read it for themselves? Wouldn’t these literate laity been able to read the Latin Bibles anyway, supposedly?

Please, don’t link me to Dave Armstrong or some other apologist. None of them have addressed this particular question.

If vernacular Bibles were as practically useless, but otherwise fully-blessed, by the Medieval Church, the Reformers would never have complained about otherwise being the case, and would never have demanded the publication of vernacular Bibles on the grounds that this would help the laity to finnaly read Scripture for themselves.

The first bible translated into English was in the 1200’s. That is 300 years before the reformation. There were also several translations into German, Luther’s language before the reformation.

 

[Sacramentalist]

jimmy:

The first bible translated into English was in the 1200’s. That is 300 years before the reformation.

Your referring to the translation made by the heretic John Wycliffe, made in the 1300s. There was no English Bible before him, just certain selections translated.

There were also several translations into German, Luther’s language before the reformation.

I’m not disputing the existence of vernacular Bibles; I’m just nothing that, until very recently, the reading of these by laymen was either forbidden or strongly discouraged.

Also, no one’s answered my question: If it’s true that, back in the day, anyone who could read could read Latin, and so a vernacular Bible was impractical, why was there such a demand forvernacular Bibles on the part of the Reformers? This doesn’t make sense unless there were many people who could read the vernacular, but not Latin.

 

[DeFide]

Sacramentalist:

Guys, even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the reading of the vernacular Bible, even in an approved translation, was generally forbidden or strongly discouraged until not too long ago. For instance (newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm):

You have one example regarding the PUBLICATION of vernacular scripture in one place at one time. That’s not “general”, or “reading”.

I think it’s proper to give Gregory VII the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he didn’t have person sufficiently qualified to translate scripture into the vernacular of Bohemia at that time. Poor translations are counterproductive.

Lastly, if someone asked you if you should thrust Bibles into the hands of 3rd graders and let them arrive at their own conclusions, would you think that’s a good idea? Clergy are there for a purpose.

 

[DeFide]

Sacramentalist:

…
Also, no one’s answered my question: If it’s true that, back in the day, anyone who could read could read Latin, and so a vernacular Bible was impractical, why was there such a demand forvernacular Bibles on the part of the Reformers? This doesn’t make sense unless there were many people who could read the vernacular, but not Latin.

I answered your question earlier in the thread. You either missed it or deliberately ignored it.

 

[Sacramentalist]

DeFide:

Read everything else I quoted.

Lastly, if someone asked you if you should thrust Bibles into the hands of 3rd graders and let them arrive at their own conclusions, would you think that’s a good idea?

The obvious rejoinder to this is that the Church should have made it a top priority to educate people in the Bible. Yes, I would give every Catholic 3rd grader a Bible, and then teach it to them.

I don’t understand wh ywe Catholics find this so difficult. Protestants do it successfully all the time! If they’re able to teach their children the Bible, why can’t we, while at the same time teaching them the correct interpretation?