The Church Really Did Forbid the Bible from LayPeople

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sacramentalist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DeFide:

I know what the Index, or rather, was.

Follow me here. Read slowly:
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.
Click to expand...
According to this, it was decided in 1564 that Catholic laymen may only read the vernacular Old Testament with the permission of their bishop. The New Testment was only allowed to be read by laymen if, after approval from their pastor/confessor, they received permission from their bishop.

Clear enough? Can we move on to the next point?
 
40.png
Sacramentalist:
DeFide:

I know what the Index, or rather, was.

Follow me here. Read slowly:

According to this, it was decided in 1564 that Catholic laymen may only read the vernacular Old Testament with the permission of their bishop. The New Testment was only allowed to be read by laymen if, after approval from their pastor/confessor, they received permission from their bishop.

Clear enough? Can we move on to the next point?
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Not only does this not prohibit reading of (approved) vernacular translations, in the context of the the Index, it allows reading of banned or unauthorized vernacular translations. Part of the Church function with regard to the Index was granting permission for folks to read books on the Index if needed.
 
40.png
DeFide:
Wrong.

Not only does this not prohibit reading of (approved) vernacular translations, in the context of the the Index, it allows reading of banned or unauthorized vernacular translations. Part of the Church function with regard to the Index was granting permission for folks to read books on the Index if needed.
Click to expand...
What does"the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular according to the judgment of the bishop" mean to you?

What about “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”?

Please, dissect these sentences and tell me their meaning in the English language.
 
40.png
Scalia:
I think your premise is wrong. For the first 300 years after
Christ’s death - THERE WAS NO BIBLE. In even asking this question, especially in this ticked off manner, you are elevating the Bible over the Church. Do you think the Bible is greater than the Church?
Click to expand...
Hello??!! There was no Bible’ in Christ’s time? :eek: Then what do we have here?
" Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures." [Lk24:27].

Or, at the start of his ministry:
"He went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. [Lk 4:16-17] (all quotes from NRSV Catholic Edition)

At the time of Christ there were two versions of what we Christians now call the Old Testament but which for the Jews is the only Testament. There was the Greek language ‘Septuagint’, which contain the Deuterocanonical books omitted from Protestant Bibles later, and there was the Hebrew language Bible. The quotes from the OT that we get in the Gospels and elsewhere (Epistles of St. Paul) we know, fairly certainly, come from the Septuagint, implying that the Apostles and those who wrote down the Gospels, were familiar with the Greek version.The word ‘Bible’ merely means, in Greek, Library or collection of books. The Septuagint version was the one used by St. Jerome to compile the first Latin bible - the so called ‘Vulgate’ which was circa 370 AD.

There was no written account of the Christ for about 60 years after his death. There was the Kerygma, the preaching stories of the Apostles and disciples. But thereafter there was an explosion of written materials and the material for the NT was pretty well together by the middle of the second century AD, which is the time we also get the Gnostic and other non-canonical writings. Thereafter there was a little debate or two about the Canon but that was pretty fixed when St. Jerome got down to his translating.

Sorry to be a pedant! :tiphat:
 
40.png
Sacramentalist:
What does"the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular according to the judgment of the bishop" mean to you?

What about “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”?

Please, dissect these sentences and tell me their meaning in the English language.
Click to expand...
I have an idea. Follow me here, if you will.

If I say I read something, and say “I understood it according to the Bible”, how would you interpret that statement? What if I used a slightly different use of one word, and said “I understood it in accordance with the Bible”? Does the meaning really change?

I believe that, at the time these things were written, it is very possible that “to read” didn’t just mean what we consider “reading”. I think it also entailed how it was read, or specifically, how the reading is understood. If you interpret “according to the judgement of the bishop” to mean “in harmony with the bishop’s judgement (understanding) of the text”, then the assumed problem instantly evaporates.

I think what the writers were saying is that the vernacular translations of Scripture should be read in accordance with the teaching of the clergy, foremost among those the bishop, as it is his solemn duty to truthfully promulgate the Gospel. What they wanted to avoid was people applying their own interpretations to what may be very difficult for some to read.

Peace,
javelin
 
Sacramentalist:

It seems that you are correct, that at certain times, the reading of Scriptures was discouraged. However, we have plenty of evidence on this thread that this was not the case at all times in all places. We have, even, directives from Roman Pontiffs encouraging the reading of the Scriptures. Remember that the Faithful were never deprived of learning the Faith. Private study may have been discouraged in some contextes, but you must realize that the Church, as a caring mother, was simply attempting to safeguard the uneducated from the perils of heresy spawned from misinterpretation. They felt that the faithful, lacking the education of the clergy and intellectuals, may be tossed to and fro by every wayward teaching…or create their own, through no fault of their own, but simply a lack of understanding. Recall the words of the first Bishop of Rome, St. Peter:
*And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own stedfastness. * 2 Peter 3:15-17

In Christ,
Tyler
 
40.png
Sacramentalist:
What does"the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular according to the judgment of the bishop" mean to you?

What about “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”?

Please, dissect these sentences and tell me their meaning in the English language.
Click to expand...
In the context of INDEX OF FORBIDDEN BOOKS RULES:

“the [banned and bad translations on the Index of the] Old Testament may be read in the vernacular according to the judgment of the bishop [if needed]”

“in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the [banned and bad translations on the Index 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 [if needed]”.

Simple.
 
40.png
DeFide:
In the context of INDEX OF FORBIDDEN BOOKS RULES:

“the [banned and bad translations on the Index of the] Old Testament may be read in the vernacular according to the judgment of the bishop [if needed]”

“in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the [banned and bad translations on the Index 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 [if needed]”.

Simple.
Click to expand...
Here’s more:
myfortress.org/CouncilofTrent.html
 
40.png
DeFide:
In the context of INDEX OF FORBIDDEN BOOKS RULES:

“the [banned and bad translations on the Index of the] Old Testament may be read in the vernacular according to the judgment of the bishop [if needed]”

“in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the [banned and bad translations on the Index 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 [if needed]”.

Simple.
Click to expand...
More info on rules concerning prohibited (or unauthorized) books:
ourcatholicfaith.org/docs/trent/trentbks.htm

Read carefully, these rules for the old Index form a consistent whole of preventing harm and promoting good.
 
I love the bible and I haven´t listened anybody telling me, not to read the bible! anyone!
 
DeFide:

Look at what you posted.
Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.
Click to expand...
According to Trent, it is forbidden to read any vernacular Bible unoless one had dispensation from his bishop.
 
40.png
Sacramentalist:
DeFide:

Look at what you posted.

According to Trent, it is forbidden to read any vernacular Bible unoless one had dispensation from his bishop.
Click to expand...
Not true. Remember what you’re reading. The title is a dead giveaway:

Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books
Here are two ways a Scripture translation could be prohibited or unauthoritized:
  1. The translator was a heretic.
  2. The translator was an unauthorized, unqualified Catholic.
The rule you cited addresses the second type of unapproved Scripture.

Notice that the exception of allowed reading of unauthorized vernacular scriptures here is not allowed for NT translations into the venacular made by heretics as stated in the rule III:

…Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list [condemned writers, heretics] shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal…

Context is very important here.
 
I just look at the price of a decent Bible now, anywhere from $30 on up. Could you imagine what it would cost for a copy back then befroe mass production. It would have probably cost the equivalent of a house back then.
 
40.png
Sacramentalist:
DeFide:

Look at what you posted.

According to Trent, it is forbidden to read any vernacular Bible unoless one had dispensation from his bishop.
Click to expand...
This is called an Imprimatur. Books that were faithful to Catholic doctrine had as an introduction a Bishop’s imprimatur. Look this up and you will see you have misinterpreted the above quote.
 
40.png
DeFide:
Not true. Remember what you’re reading. The title is a dead giveaway:

Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books
Here are two ways a Scripture translation could be prohibited or unauthoritized:
  1. The translator was a heretic.
  2. The translator was an unauthorized, unqualified Catholic.
The rule you cited addresses the second type of unapproved Scripture.

Notice that the exception of allowed reading of unauthorized vernacular scriptures here is not allowed for NT translations into the venacular made by heretics as stated in the rule III:

…Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list [condemned writers, heretics] shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal…

Context is very important here.
Click to expand...
And since there were many approved vernacular translations at that time, anyone could read them because they has already been approved.
 
The Index is no longer in existence. But it was in existence as recently as when I started my first year at a Catholic college. (Good heavens, how old does that make me. I don’t even want to think about it.)

But it turned out that some of the books on our reading list for English Lit were actually on the Index. All it took was a call to the chancery to get a dispensation.

The Index died a natural death. What’s the point of putting books on the Index which can be considered harmful to your faith, when there was a ton of porn available at the corner bookstore–none of which was on the Index because what Church official has the time or the inclination to look through all that??
 
LayPeople.

What a concept.

Let’s categorize God’s people…God’s Children.
Let’s make a statement to the world that some are just plain unworthy and unprepared to be in communion with God.

Let’s say that we have a mythical understanding of God - who is easily understood and is simple in comprehension.
Those that we deem “simple-minded” just wouldn’t understand because we believe so.

The church is an institution, not a government. Jesus didn’t come to bring a church, he came to bring a government.

Anyone can understand the purpose of a government.
How come its so hard to understand the purpose of a church?
 
Let’s not forget the fact that the written aspect of the Armenian language was actually developed specifically to allow the Scriptures to be translated into the native language. Armenians have an alphabet because the Church wanted them to be able to read the Bible. This came before the Council of Chalcedon that led the Armenians to split with the Church.

So, not only did the Church not forbid the reading of Scripture, ENTIRE WRITTEN LANGUAGES were developed so that it could be translated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top