Was the Bible forbidden in the Middle Ages, as some have claimed?

[Madaglan]

Ask them if they recite the Apostles Creed in church…

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

*The word “catholic” refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the way it is printed, and recited, in our Lutheran Church. Ask them also if they don’t use the Book of Concord as the basis for their belief.

Don’t confessional Lutherans recite the Nicene Creed during the divine service?

 

[Zooey]

[SIGN1]
OT but its been driving me crazy for 2 days now: Old Scholar,'s siggy has a Douay Rheims Bible (Baronius Press edition), a crucifix, candles, and a picture of St Anthony of Padua in it.
[/SIGN1]

Yes, yes,I know, apropos of nothing…Just one of those wee things that are like a hair across your face: It’s tiny, and you can’t even see it, but it riles you 24/7. I just have to wonder why?
It’s an Irish thing. Or Welsh. Or something.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

[SIGN1]
OT but its been driving me crazy for 2 days now: Old Scholar,'s siggy has a Douay Rheims Bible (Baronius Press edition), a crucifix, candles, and a picture of St Anthony of Padua in it.
[/SIGN1]

Yes, yes,I know, apropos of nothing…Just one of those wee things that are like a hair across your face: It’s tiny, and you can’t even see it, but it riles you 24/7. I just have to wonder why?
It’s an Irish thing. Or Welsh. Or something.

Go Irish! And, er, Welsh, too, as we’re, sorta, uh, cousins, though more like siblings with, how would say, a really big and thick door between them with posters on it saying, “Death awaits he who turns my doorknob too far!!”

Go raibh maith agat, agus, diolch yn fawr.

 

[Lampo]

Ask them if they recite the Apostles Creed in church…

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

*The word “catholic” refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the way it is printed, and recited, in our Lutheran Church. Ask them also if they don’t use the Book of Concord as the basis for their belief.

No need to ask them. I’ve been to their services often. They have replaced the word “catholic” with “christian.”

 

[Pier]

Ask them if they recite the Apostles Creed in church…

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

*The word “catholic” refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Are you referring to the Roman Catholic Church, wherein the tomb of St. Peter can be found? The place where Christ said (in the Bible the Catholic Church compiled and many have since woefully condensed) His Church on earth would be built?

This is the way it is printed, and recited, in our Lutheran Church. Ask them also if they don’t use the Book of Concord as the basis for their belief.

Is Luther’s tomb to be found at the church of the religion Luther founded?

I don’t remember reading that in the Bible. I do, however, remember reading about false prophets attempting to lead the elect astray with half truths.

Was that part cut out of your bible as well?

 

[Lilyflower]

This in no way says that the Catholic Church banned the Bible. Not at all, it did however make sure that only ACCURATE Bibles be avaliable and to prevent the worshiping of the Bible as many protestants have, committing idolotry.

I don not know where you got that but the list of Banned bookes published by Pope Pius IV that is accepted by all Achademia does not contain even one book from the Bible.

You just proved yourself wrong with a myth.

Again, the Catholic Church did not ban the Bible in any way.

As it should be, the Church showing caution and not allowing bad Bibles on the market but only what can be trusted. This is exactly what I would expect from the true Church which is the Pillar and foundation of the Truth.

Again, no banning of the Bible.

Again, no banning of the Bible. We also need to remember that a Catholic in those days could go to Mass everyday and hear the entire bible preached to them, where as the Protestants were making up all manner of lies.

Again, no banning of the Bible. I may want a Bible written in Klingon but that does not mean the Church has to give me one.

Non Catholic Bibles should be banned, they are not really bibles.

Again we see that the Church has maintained and protected the Bible from the hands of the Protestants.

Well yah, but you are using them to prove that the Church banned the Bible and it just is not true.

This is a false conclusion, since your own records above show that the Catholic Church was then and remains now the only source of the True Bible. The Catholic Church was the one to protect the Bible and it is only by the action of the Catholic Church that that Bible continues to exist to this day, the protestants wanted to do away with it entirely.

Then you must agree that that Catholic Church is the only Church that does in fact follow the guidlines in the Bible and is the Church that did not allow the Bible to be changed by the Reformers.

No we definatly should not because the History of Christianity shows beyond all doubt that the Catholic Church is the One True Church.

The fact that the Bible is so widely available strongly suggests there has not been any hint of a ban.

I think it is reasonable to regulate the reading of those too illiterate to be competently able to understand. Isn’t this what is now happening in craft and trade industries in the western world to prevent poor standards being applied by non-practitioners? Certain publications are now being narrowed and targeted to specific audiences. How much more so is this applicable to matters so serious as to incur risk to or obtaining eternal life.

Books that were once on the ‘banned’ list were those which were doctrinely inaccurate and portrayed the Gospel in an erronious light. TheChurch has a solemn duty to proclaim the Gospel. This necessitates correcting of error. This includes books that are riddled with error. The Authentic Christian Bible is not nor has ever been one of them.

Blessings and pace

 

[upciguy26]

For you, Deacon, a separate thread as requested.

And the answer:

Ahem.
In the “Middle Ages”, due to a particular heresy (the Albigensians), a ‘heretical’ Bible WAS off limits (these people having taken the Bible and altered it to reflect their heretical views).

Let me ask you something, deacon. If somebody came along and took your Bible, cut out several books, changed the words in the remaining ones so that they ‘supported’ one particular point of view, added in words that had never been there before, and then started handing it around to the children in your town and called it “The Holy Bible”–would you let YOUR CHILDREN read THAT BIBLE and would you CALL that book 'The Bible?"

OR. . .would you take away that Bible, and insist that your children read the “real” Bible?

Please let us know. Because that is PRECISELY the situation that the Church faced which led them to call upon that ‘doctored up’ 12th century ‘Bible’ being ‘forbidden.’

So if you think the Church was wrong to do that, I presume that you would be absolutely ‘okay’ with having your children read that ‘Bible’ I spoke of above. . .the one that somebody ‘changed’–instead of the Bible you know is ‘true’.

Right?

Why didn’t the catholic church mass print the Latin vulgate or some of the others they approved in common language instead of waiting until someone entered seminary to teach them the holy scriptures?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why didn’t the catholic church mass print the Latin vulgate or some of the others they approved in common language instead of waiting until someone entered seminary to teach them the holy scriptures?

A. Well, the 12th century was about 300 years before the existence of the printing press. Bibles (and many existed) were hand written–and could take 1-2 years to produce ONE. And there did exist Bibles hand written in vernacular languages.

B. When the printing press came along in the 15th century, the Bible was indeed most widely printed . . .BEFORE Protestants even came into the picture–but ‘widely’ is a relative term. Even though a Bible could be printed more quickly than it could have been hand written, it was still expensive for the times and there is still the matter that most people, even the wealthy, were not literate enough to read a Bible–even one written in their ‘own’ language.

C. The one incident brought up most often is the Church forbidding the reading of “a” Bible–which happened to have been hand written by the Albigensian sect, and was not the ‘true’ Bible, having been distorted to make it look as though what the Albigensians taught–for example, they forbade marriage among themselves but encouraged fornication, practiced infanticide, etc–was what the BIBLE taught. Therefore, the average person, given a copy of this Albigensian ‘bible’ and told it was the REAL Bible, would have read it and gotten quite confused and indeed drawn away from the true faith by thinking the Albigensians, since what they taught was what was in the ‘fake’ bible, were RIGHT and the True Christian faith was wrong. Therefore, in order to keep people from being confused, the Church, quite wisely, for THIS REGION in question and for this TIME in question and for that particular FAKE BIBLE in question, prohibited the people from reading THAT PARTICULAR FAKE BIBLE and required them to check with clergy to be sure they had the TRUE Bible. If they did have a true Bible then they were, as always, encouraged to read it. In fact, for CENTURIES Catholics have been encouraged, if literate, to read the Bible.

 

[Lilyflower]

Why didn’t the catholic church mass print the Latin vulgate or some of the others they approved in common language instead of waiting until someone entered seminary to teach them the holy scriptures?

Because the masses could not read or write.

It is easy to assume that modern standards of literacy and education were always available to the masses. This is a relatively recent phenomena. Only in the last less than 200-years has ‘the joy of reading’ been available to the vast majority of the population. To someone who cannot read, it does not matter whether a Bible is in Latin, Hebrew, Greek or English. It is all gobble-di-gooch.

The English was not even modern English. It was a different langauage to anything we currently understand, It was very dialectical so even if one had a basic grasp of reading, that my not be very helpful if it was not written in the vernacular in which you spoke.

How many Bibles therefore was the Church supposed to produce? In England alone, there would have been a need for at least 22-different English’s. Multiply that throughout the English speaking world and you arrive at a ridiculous figure, which is why it was never embarked upon.

Blessings and peace

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Why didn’t the catholic church mass print the Latin vulgate or some of the others they approved in common language instead of waiting until someone entered seminary to teach them the holy scriptures?

Could it be that it was the Priest’s job, and his helpers, to translate and educate those under his charge who couldn’t read either the latin, or any other written language for that matter?

Why “waste precious energy”, life and “resources” being rather short on the whole, PRINTING material which only a tiny (already educated!) minority could use?

Try to remember to not be so anachronistic about the general environment of those you are talking about.