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

[Tantum_ergo]

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?

 

[geezerbob]

We all know, of course, that there was 100% literacy in the middle ages. I guess someone didn’t even consider that the statues and stained glass windows were there as visual aids for the priest to use when explaining the Bible to the peasants who didn’t really need them because they were all literate.

 

[Deacon110]

We all know, of course, that there was 100% literacy in the middle ages. I guess someone didn’t even consider that the statues and stained glass windows were there as visual aids for the priest to use when explaining the Bible to the peasants who didn’t really need them because they were all literate.

Yes exactly my point. It wasn’t meant to be a snooty remark and actually was not in my final post. I had edited it out so as to not cause confusion or derail the thread. A poster responded literally within seconds of me hitting the submit post mistakingly instead of preview.

With regard to the Bible being of limits we were always told in Catholic school growing up in the 60’s-70’s that it was off limits with respect to reading in the middle ages. Reasons offered were the inability to comprehend it due to the lack of education not to mention language barriers.

With regard to strict history in 1408 the third synod of Oxford, England, banned unauthorized English translations of the Bible.

Also:

Memorandum of a proclamation made at Paul’s Cross on the first Sunday in Advent, 1531, against the buying, selling or reading of the following books:

The disputation between father and the son.
The supplication of beggars.
The revelation of AntiChrist.
Liber qui de veteri et novicio Deo inscribitur.
Precaciones.
Economica christiana.
The burying of the mass, in English rhyme.
An exposition into the VII chapter of the Corinthians.
The matrimony of Tyndal.
A B C against the clergy.
Ortulus animae, in English.
A book against Saint Thomas of Canterbury.
A book made by Friar Reye against the seven sacraments.
An answer of Tyndal to Sir Thomas More’s dialogue, in English.
A disputation of purgatory, made by John Frythe.
The first book of Moses, called Genesis.
A prologue in the second book of Moses, called Exodus.
A prologue in the third book of Moses, called Leviticus.
A prologue in the fourth book of Moses, called Numeri.
A prologue in the fifth book of Moses, called Deuteronomy.
The practice of prelates.
The New Testament in English, with an introduction to the epistle to the Romans.
The parable of the wicked Mammon.
The obedience of a Christian man.
The book of Thorpe or of John Oldecastell.
The sum of scripture.
The primer in English.
The psalter in English.
A dialogue between the gentlemen and the plowman.
Jonas in English.

Take a look at all the books of the Bible.

PEACE

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

In the Middle Ages, people had lots of money. And bibles were cheap. It was easily affordable to have a reliable copy of the bible. You know, those folk from the Middle Ages were pretty snazzy when it came to mass media and photo copiers and the internet and the like. The church was rather redundant because everybody had access to the bible.



I think people in the Middle Ages had better access to the bible than most students today in public schools - and dare I say - which are run by Protestant governments. Ok… may be that last bit was cheap shot.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Apologies if I took your post intention wrongly, Deacon.

The major ‘charge’ against the Catholic Church is usually "laity forbidden to read the Bible’ and the usual ‘snip’ from the Boettner crowd is from the 13th century (and was as I said directly to the Albigensians). However, as you note, there were other specific times where specific individual bishops or priests (not in a synod, IOW) spoke about other imperfect translations; notably the Wycliff bible (in the 13th/14th centuries) as well as the Tyndale bible (1531), these being widely viewed (even by the early English Protestants in the latter case) as flawed or heretical translations in the vernacular.

 

[Deacon110]

In the Middle Ages, people had lots of money. And bibles were cheap. It was easily affordable to have a reliable copy of the bible. You know, those folk from the Middle Ages were pretty snazzy when it came to mass media and photo copiers and the internet and the like. The church was rather redundant because everybody had access to the bible.



I think people in the Middle Ages had better access to the bible than most students today in public schools - and dare I say - which are run by Protestant governments. Ok… may be that last bit was cheap shot.

That’s OK I don’t consider myself a Protestant and actually it’s not a cheap shot. The truth is infallible

First school prayer, now what? As I understand it the same movement that banned school prayer is also moving to squash sunday Christian radio programs.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

Apologies if I took your post intention wrongly, Deacon.

The major ‘charge’ against the Catholic Church is usually "laity forbidden to read the Bible’ and the usual ‘snip’ from the Boettner crowd is from the 13th century (and was as I said directly to the Albigensians). However, as you note, there were other specific times where specific individual bishops or priests (not in a synod, IOW) spoke about other imperfect translations; notably the Wycliff bible (in the 13th/14th centuries) as well as the Tyndale bible (1531), these being widely viewed (even by the early English Protestants in the latter case) as flawed or heretical translations in the vernacular.

No need to apologize but please know you are absolutely forgiven. I was actually shocked when someone replied so fast to my post before editing that comment out. The result of course was what I expected.

PEACE

 

[guanophore]

Memorandum of a proclamation made at Paul’s Cross on the first Sunday in Advent, 1531, against the buying, selling or reading of the following books:

The disputation between father and the son.
The supplication of beggars.
The revelation of AntiChrist.
Liber qui de veteri et novicio Deo inscribitur.
Precaciones.
Economica christiana.
The burying of the mass, in English rhyme.
An exposition into the VII chapter of the Corinthians.
The matrimony of Tyndal.
A B C against the clergy.
Ortulus animae, in English.
A book against Saint Thomas of Canterbury.
A book made by Friar Reye against the seven sacraments.
An answer of Tyndal to Sir Thomas More’s dialogue, in English.
A disputation of purgatory, made by John Frythe.
The first book of Moses, called Genesis.
A prologue in the second book of Moses, called Exodus.
A prologue in the third book of Moses, called Leviticus.
A prologue in the fourth book of Moses, called Numeri.
A prologue in the fifth book of Moses, called Deuteronomy.
The practice of prelates.
The New Testament in English, with an introduction to the epistle to the Romans.
The parable of the wicked Mammon.
The obedience of a Christian man.
The book of Thorpe or of John Oldecastell.
The sum of scripture.
The primer in English.
The psalter in English.
A dialogue between the gentlemen and the plowman.
Jonas in English.

Take a look at all the books of the Bible.

PEACE

There are no books of the bible here. thes are all extra biblical texts. The prologues are heretical commentaries on the books of the Bible.

 

[Spirithound]

There are no books of the bible here. thes are all extra biblical texts. The prologues are heretical commentaries on the books of the Bible.

The first book of Moses, called Genesis.
A prologue in the second book of Moses, called Exodus.
A prologue in the third book of Moses, called Leviticus.
A prologue in the fourth book of Moses, called Numeri.
A prologue in the fifth book of Moses, called Deuteronomy.
The practice of prelates.
The New Testament in English, with an introduction to the epistle to the Romans.
The parable of the wicked Mammon.
The obedience of a Christian man.
The book of Thorpe or of John Oldecastell.
The sum of scripture. (??)
The primer in English.
The psalter in English.
A dialogue between the gentlemen and the plowman.
Jonas in English.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Here are a few of the RCC’s declarations that the Bible is not to be read by individuals and to even possess one may mean death. There are more as well but these I already had on file.
**
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.

**Link

 

[Old_Scholar]

Continued…

**17. You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,[16] it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil![17]

1. To prevent this evil, Our predecessors published many constitutions. Most recently Pius VII wrote two briefs, one to Ignatius, Archbishop of Gniezno, the other to Stanislaus, Archbishop of Mohileu, quoting carefully and wisely many passages from the sacred writings and from the tradition to show how harmful to faith and morals this wretched undertaking is.
2. In virtue of Our apostolic office, We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures. Do everything possible to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language, wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.

From the encyclical INTER PRAECIPUAS (On Biblical Societies) by Pope Gregory XVI, May 8, 1844:

1. Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that We now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels. Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided. Therefore it is just as Jerome complained in his day: they make the art of understanding the Scriptures without a teacher" common to babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists," and to anyone who can read, no matter what his status. Indeed, what is even more absurd and almost unheard of, they do not exclude the common people of the infidels from sharing this kind of a knowledge.
2. Moreover, regarding the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, even many centuries ago bishops in various places have at times had to exercise greater vigilance when they became aware that such translations were being read in secret gatherings or were being distributed by heretics. Innocent III issued warnings concerning the secret gatherings of laymen and women, under the pretext of piety, for the reading of Scripture in the diocese of Metz.[12] There was also a special prohibition of Scripture translations promulgated either in Gaul a little later[13] or in Spain before the sixteenth century.[14]

POPE LEO XIII PROHIBITS NON-CATHOLIC BIBLES

From Leo XIII, Apostolic Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum, Jan. 25, 1897, art. 1., “Of the Prohibition of Books,” chaps. 2,3, trans. in the Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (New York: Benziger, 1903):
[p. 412]

CHAPTER II.

Of Editions of the Original Text of Holy Scripture and of Versions not in the Vernacular.

1. Editions of the original text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in theological and biblical studies, provided also that the dogmas of Catholic faith are not impugned in the prolegomena or annotations.
2. In the same manner, and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible, whether in Latin or in any other dead language, published by non-Catholics, are permitted.
   CHAPTER III.

Of Vernacular Versions of Holy Scripture.

1. As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the Holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm that utility is thereby [p. 413] caused, owing to human temerity: all versions in the vernacular, even by Catholics, are altogether prohibited, unless approved by the Holy See, or published, under the vigilant care of the bishops, with annotations taken from the Fathers of the Church and learned Catholic writers.
2. All versions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language, made by non-Catholics are prohibited; and especially those published by the Bible societies, which have been more that once condemned by the Roman Pontiffs, because in them the wise laws of the Church concerning the publication of the sacred books are entirely disregarded.
   
   Nevertheless, these versions are permitted to students of theological or biblical science, under the conditions laid down above (No. 5)**

 

[Wolseley]

Hmmm…no links, just cut and paste.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Continued…

It is apparent from your very long post that translations were allowed as long as they were approved by the church. This was not at all unreasonable since protestants used those translations and the footnotes to put forth novel doctrines.*

 

[Old_Scholar]

Hmmm…no links, just cut and paste.

The references are all there and you can find them easily if you really wanted to. I know you don’t want to read them though.

And for Claire, it is obvious from those declarations that it was any English translation of the Bible and not just ones the church approved. The main point is that they forbade anyone from reading them. Why do you suppose that was?

Could it be that after the Gutenberg press was invented and the Bible could be printed quickly and economically so that the average person could read it, the church was afraid that the doctrines they taught may not be there? You know it was about 1450 A.D. that the printing of the Bible started making it so available.

Even today you know, the church still says all its doctrines have to be supported by Scripture.

The Catholic Reformation came about because of people being able to read the Bible themselves.

 

[Zooey]

It is apparent from your very long post that translations were allowed as long as they were approved by the church. This was not at all unreasonable since protestants used those translations and the footnotes to put forth novel doctrines.*

Precisely.

Look, every so often, the occasional Jehovah’s Witness manages to wander into my church, and leave JW materials, including their “Bible” on the library shelves…and, just as often, being a :tiphat: responsible librarian, I gather them up and deposit them in the circular file at my house. (Along with the used cat litter, don’t y’know?)…
Does that mean I am “banning the Bible”? Forbidding it to be read?? :nope: Not hardly!!

I read all the quotes from Old Scholar & Co, and I read it just as Claire does: the Catholic Church (being, may I say, a :tiphat: responsible librarian, too) clears the Albigensian trash off the shelves.**

(**Mind you, the pope didn’t put it it with the cat litter; cat litter wasn’t invented until the 20th century).

 

[Wolseley]

The references are all there and you can find them easily if you really wanted to. I know you don’t want to read them though.

And for Claire, it is obvious from those declarations that it was any English translation of the Bible and not just ones the church approved. The main point is that they forbade anyone from reading them. Why do you suppose that was?

Could it be that after the Gutenberg press was invented and the Bible could be printed quickly and economically so that the average person could read it, the church was afraid that the doctrines they taught may not be there? You know it was about 1450 A.D. that the printing of the Bible started making it so available.

Even today you know, the church still says all its doctrines have to be supported by Scripture.

The Catholic Reformation came about because of people being able to read the Bible themselves.

…

 

[Zooey]

Old Scholar:

And for Claire, it is obvious from those declarations that it was any English translation of the Bible and not just ones the church approved. The main point is that they forbade anyone from reading them. Why do you suppose that was?

[SIGN1]
Piffle.
Pshaw.
Pfui!!
[/SIGN1]

That whole story is a farrago of nonsense.
(Well, its actually worse than that, but CAF has standards for what I can say here…I was thinking in terms of calling it what often appears along the trail of the north end of a southbound bovine…
http://bestsmileys.com/toliot/7.gif:rolleyes

 

[Old_Scholar]

[SIGN1]
Piffle.
Pshaw.
Pfui!!
[/SIGN1]

That whole story is a farrago of nonsense.
(Well, its actually worse than that, but CAF has standards for what I can say here…I was thinking in terms of calling it what often appears along the trail of the north end of a southbound bovine…
http://bestsmileys.com/toliot/7.gif:rolleyes

Well wonder why everyone fled when the truth came out??? Typical…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Nobody ‘fled from here’, Old Scholar.

We’re all here, praying for you and others like you, to be drawn to truth.

The fact is, Old Scholar, that your ‘cut-and-paste’ quotes contain so much ‘wrong’ information’ that it would take days (and countless posts) to correct that wrong information. And you would then need to at least check out what we have said rather than simply dismissing it out of hand. And to speak to you personally (and I hope charitably), I have noted that in the time frames etc. in which you have ‘replied’ to posts on other threads in which posters attempt to help you by giving information on Catholic teaching, it does not appear that you follow their links to sources, or ‘read’ information given you. Speaking for myself, if I have been given sufficient indication that I am not going to be ‘heard’ by someone, then I move from speaking the truth in ‘words’ (or electronic messages) and focus more on preaching the truth of Catholicism through prayer to the Holy Spirit. May He intercede for you and guide you to truth.

In fact, on other threads others have attempted to address your ‘scattershot’ attacks piece by piece. But you have ignored them and continue to cut-and-paste the same-old, same-old. (You have been given information, documentation, and offers dozens of times on other threads and posts, to which you have never responded). Instead, you keep on posting over and over your unsupported (you have been asked dozens of times to provide **factual documentation **to support your cut-and-paste claims but have never done so) allegations.

Now other people here may have more time than I and will be willing to engage you yet again in continuing to give the Catholic truth which refutes the monstrous misinformation you have posted. May God assist them in their endeavor. I will continue to pray for you, and if so be it that as this thread (or those others go on) and the Holy Spirit guides me, I may join in as He guides me.

Perhaps He is attempting to guide you as well but in a different direction than you think He is. Are you so sure of your information (and if so, why? What is the authority and the documentation behind those claims–that is, beyond the website from which you took them) that you would bet your soul that the truth is **not ** in the Catholic Church? Have you thoroughly studied the Catholic perspective and striven to imagine what it might mean if it really is right? Because you know, most if not all of the Catholics who are regularly on this forum and consider themselves to be strong in their faith have done just that–we have studied not just our ‘own’ Church but the Protestant faiths as well, and have found the claims of Catholicism true–not just because it is ‘what we were taught’, but because it is what we have ‘reasoned’ even when given ‘opposing’ information (protestantism).

May Christ and His angels and saints guard and guide you to the fullness of faith.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The references are all there and you can find them easily if you really wanted to. I know you don’t want to read them though.

And for Claire, it is obvious from those declarations that it was any English translation of the Bible and not just ones the church approved. The main point is that they forbade anyone from reading them. Why do you suppose that was?

Could it be that after the Gutenberg press was invented and the Bible could be printed quickly and economically so that the average person could read it, the church was afraid that the doctrines they taught may not be there? You know it was about 1450 A.D. that the printing of the Bible started making it so available.

The advent of the printing press made it available for the Bible to be printed.

According to Wikipedia, the Gutenburg Bible is:

The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible or the Mazarin Bible) is a printed version of the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible that was printed by Johannes Gutenberg, in Mainz, Germany in the fifteenth century. Although it is not, as often thought, the first book to be printed by Gutenberg’s new movable type system, it is his major work, and has iconic status as the start of the “Gutenberg Revolution” and the “Age of the Printed Book”.

Not really. Only the rich can read, and poor who are illiterate could not read either Latin or their native language. Bible in those were expensive. In those those even after the Reformation, all Bible had to be chained to the podium.

The Catholic Reformation was in response to Protestant Reformation. It started off with Martin Luther who came up with new doctrines like Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone. The Fathers of the Reformers followed him:

1. 
   *]Theodore Beza
   *]Martin Bucer
   *]Heinrich Bullinger
   *]John Calvin
   *]Andreas von Carlstadt, later a Radical Reformer
   *]Wolfgang Fabricius Capito
   *]Martin Chemnitz
   *]Thomas Cranmer
   *]William Farel
   *]Matthias Flacius
   *]Caspar Hedio
   *]Justus Jonas
   *]John Knox
   *]Jan Łaski
   *]Martin Luther
   *]Philipp Melanchthon
   *]Johannes Oecolampadius
   *]Peter Martyr
   *]Aonio Paleario
   *]Laurentius Petri
   *]Olaus Petri
   *]William Tyndale
   *]Joachim Vadian
   *]Pierre Viret
   *]Huldrych Zwingli
   
   Oddly though, since God’s Divine Revelation is unchanging. It took an action of one man, Martin Luther, who got it right. It kinda make you wonder what happened to the previous 1,517 yrs of Christianity. Was truth Christian in hiding? As far as I know, if it is new doctrine like those professed by the Protestant Reformers, it is not from God. It is man-made. We see in the Reformers, they added new form of Christian theology.
   
   We know that God’s teaching is unchanging. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Therefore, don’t not carry any strange doctrine. Protestant doctrine does indeed teaches strange doctrine of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidi.
   
   I believe the Catholic Church has remain consistent in all its teaching concerning moral and faith.