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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tantum_ergo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Thank you for your prayers—I appreciate them.

However, like the others who claim they have provided documentation, you don’t provide any but give your suppositions instead. You say I am wrong in these quotes, yet give no proof of that. If they are wrong, why don’t you list the correct version of the councils and the pope’s declarations—I have given the chapter numbers and all so it should be easy for you to present the correct chapter quotation???

Again, thank you for your concern and prayers. I assure you my intention is to learn why you guys believe as you do…
 
The advent of the printing press made it available for the Bible to be printed.

According to Wikipedia, the Gutenburg Bible is:

It is supported in Scripture not explicitly but it is implied much like the word Trinity, incarnation and others.
**I am glad you agree that those beliefs are not “explicity” stated in Scripture. I believe they are not even “hinted” at in some cases. Is it just me or does anyone else notice that many claims are made about refutations but nothing documented eve comes???

People were not illiterate in those days, no more so than today. It was the printing press that made the Bibles affordable for the common man and that is what turned so many around to the truth.**
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

  1. 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.
    Consistency is not a virture of the RCC. Look at the many changes through the years. However I agree with your statement that God’s word does not change.
 
**I am glad you agree that those beliefs are not “explicity” stated in Scripture. I believe they are not even “hinted” at in some cases. Is it just me or does anyone else notice that many claims are made about refutations but nothing documented eve comes???

People were not illiterate in those days, no more so than today. It was the printing press that made the Bibles affordable for the common man and that is what turned so many around to the truth.**
It was. Look up history of Europe in those days. People in the Western Europe in those days could not read.

In today’s society, much of the poor countries in the third world cannot read. In the Middle Ages, Europe was a poor continent. Many of the peasants are poor. They could not read period. Only the the wealthy can read.
Consistency is not a virture of the RCC. Look at the many changes through the years. However I agree with your statement that God’s word does not change.
The belief which are part of the doctrine of the faith (which the Church professes), whose source comes from God cannot changed.

I have to confess, OS. You’r credibility for claiming to know something about history seemed to be lacking. You better back up your statement.
 
A quick check on the Council of Toulouse and it is not listed as one of the 21 Ecumenical Councils. Was this some local council set up to deal with a local heresy? If it was then that means this would only fall under the jurisdiction of that region. (my understanding, like a Bishops Conference) In order to combat a heresy I think this might be appropriate.

I am not a skilled internet debater, I’m just pointing that out to anyone who perused this thread.
 
POPE LEO XIII PROHIBITS NON-CATHOLIC BIBLES
  1. **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.
There are only 7 books that are different from the catholic bible and a non-catholic bible. With few exceptions, the remaining books are identical. How in the world can any single mortal man, condemn the printed Word of God from being published and distributed to non-catholics? Granted, the RCC has claimed the original manuscripts over the ages of the books of the bible, but just how many of us have seen with our own two eyes, these originals? I understand that there were books that didn’t make the cut by the RCC because they didn’t advance the cause of the RCC in its proper light. I’m referring mainly to the books that discuss the boyhood life of Jesus both good and bad as well as other books that are on the market now. :tiphat:
 
Originally Posted by Old Scholar
I am glad you agree that those beliefs are not “explicity” stated in Scripture. I believe they are not even “hinted” at in some cases. Is it just me or does anyone else notice that many claims are made about refutations but nothing documented eve comes???

People were not illiterate in those days, no more so than today. It was the printing press that made the Bibles affordable for the common man and that is what turned so many around to the truth.

Most of us already knew that most people back then were illiterate. The following is for those who didn’t know:
In the Middle Ages most people were illiterate but not all. Upper class children were educated when they were pages. Among the poor the better educated priests might teach some children to read and write - a little. In many towns there were grammar schools where middle class boys were educated. (They got their name because they taught Latin grammar). Boys worked long hours in the grammar schools and discipline was severe.
Localhistories.org
 
For you, Deacon, a separate thread as requested.

And the answer:

(excerpt)

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?
…but not to burn them alive en masse. The Catholic Church ruthlessly exterminated the ‘heretics’ in the south of France, not by burning their Bibles, but burning *them *as well.
 
…but not to burn them alive en masse. The Catholic Church ruthlessly exterminated the ‘heretics’ in the south of France, not by burning their Bibles, but burning *them *as well.
That also goes with Protestants who persecuted English Catholics. I’m sure you probably heard of those.
Here are the rest:

They include:
  • Saint John Fisher, an English bishop and cardinal
  • Saint Thomas More, the patron of lawyers and statesmen
  • The Forty Martyrs of England and Wales (including Saint Edmund Campion and Saint Margaret Clitherow)
  • The Eighty-five martyrs of England and Wales, beatified on 22 November 1987
  • The Carthusian Martyrs
  • Thomas Abel, an English priest martyred by King Henry VIII
  • Robert Dalby (Blessed) , an English priest
  • James Duckett (Blessed), an English layman
  • John Duckett (Blessed), an English priest
  • John Forrest (friar), an English friar
  • George Gervase, an English priest
  • Edward James (Blessed), an English priest
  • Robert Johnson (Catholic martyr), an English priest
  • Blessed John Nelson
  • Blessed Thomas Pickering
  • Maurus Scott, also known as William Scott
  • Thomas Sherwood, a layman
  • Thomas Thwing (Blessed), an English priest
  • Robert Wilcox (saint)
  • Peter Wright (Blessed), an English priest
 
POPE LEO XIII PROHIBITS NON-CATHOLIC BIBLES
  1. **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.
There are only 7 books that are different from the catholic bible and a non-catholic bible. With few exceptions, the remaining books are identical. How in the world can any single mortal man, condemn the printed Word of God from being published and distributed to non-catholics? Granted, the RCC has claimed the original manuscripts over the ages of the books of the bible, but just how many of us have seen with our own two eyes, these originals? I understand that there were books that didn’t make the cut by the RCC because they didn’t advance the cause of the RCC in its proper light. I’m referring mainly to the books that discuss the boyhood life of Jesus both good and bad as well as other books that are on the market now. :tiphat:
Those books were probited because these books contains error. The Church want the public to received the correct Bible translations. Get your history straight before you distort them.
 
Hmmm…no links, just cut and paste.
I think Old Scholar quotes his sources at the end of his first post and in the body of his second post.

Here they are:

The Council of Toulouse text:

Die Indices Librorum Prohibitorum des sechzehnten
Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1886), page 246f.

Source: The Reformation, by Hans J. Hillerbrand, copyright 1964 by SCM Press Ltd and Harper and Row, Inc., Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-15480, pages 474, 475.

The first quotation from Leo XII:

From the Encyclical UBI PRIMUM of POPE LEO XII, MAY 5, 1824:
**
The second quotation from Leo XII:**

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]

Pretty impressive sources. I couldn’t find the Toulouse text of this document on a Google search.

But even if Scholar hadn’t quoted his sources, he has clearly quoted the texts verbatim, and their sense is clear and can’t be explained away.
 
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.
This is referring to a commentary called “the First Book of MOses, called Genesis”. I am sure it contains a great many references to the book of Genesis, but the forbidden text is actually a commentry. The rest of these references scripture are all unauthorized translations. The Catholic Church holds the copyright on the NT, and was the only source that could authorize translations. There was a procedure to be followed for those that wished to publish translations. These authors did not follow the procedures, and were out of order.
 
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.
It is required that you post your sources here. Is your heart so full of rebellion that you think the rules do not apply to you?
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?

Because the church had already published an approved English version, and did not want the people misled by unapproved versions that would lead people astray.
Old Scholar;3331328:
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.
No, because Gutenberg was a Catholic, and the very first book he mass printed was a Catholic Bible (with permission). The Church knew that only chaos would result if the Sacred Text was ever separated from the sacred tradition from whence it sprang.
Even today you know, the church still says all its doctrines have to be supported by Scripture.
👍 But they are not based in scripture. They are based in the teachings of Jesus, which preceeded the Holy Writings, and from which the HOly writings were derived. It was not the writings that were claimed to be complete (on the contrary, they testify otherwise),but the Teachings because "but privately to his own disciples he explained everything. " Mark 4:34
The Catholic Reformation came about because of people being able to read the Bible themselves.
It seems that a number of elements co-incided. The Catholic Reformation came about because the HS wanted to ensure that sinners did not damage the True Faith.
 
Manny, get a grip! I gave a point of view. You don’t have to be so obnoxious! This is a forum for you catholics to learn about other faiths. You are so full of yourself. If you can’t respond without putting down everyone who doesn’t agree or think like you, don’t respond at all!!! :mad:
 
In the Middle Ages the Church didn’t allow the laity to read or interpret the Bible. Today the Church still doesn’t allow the laity to interpret the Bible. This is simple history, and it wasn’t just due to the price of the Bibles or anything else, men were burnt alive for the crime of translating the Bible into English, this did happen.
 
Manny, get a grip! I gave a point of view. You don’t have to be so obnoxious! This is a forum for you catholics to learn about other faiths. You are so full of yourself. If you can’t respond without putting down everyone who doesn’t agree or think like you, don’t respond at all!!! :mad:
What in the blazes are you talking about? I responded with charity in this thread.

This is what I wrote:
Those books were probited because these books contains error. The Church want the public to received the correct Bible translations. Get your history straight before you distort them. Of course, I’m not surprise, many of you Protestants like to distort history as it is. It is part of your nature.
For one it is apparent, that you Protestants just love to distort the truth.

and I am not full of myself. Stop attacking me!
 
In the Middle Ages the Church didn’t allow the laity to read or interpret the Bible. Today the Church still doesn’t allow the laity to interpret the Bible. This is simple history, and it wasn’t just due to the price of the Bibles or anything else, men were burnt alive for the crime of translating the Bible into English, this did happen.
The crime of translating the Bible into English? Absolutely not.

Numerous vernacular (including English and French) translations of all or part of the Bible existed well prior to and apart from the Albigensians, Wycliffe, Tyndale and those whose particular translations WERE prohibited.

The mere fact of translating was never the crime at all, rather the problem was always either with the nature of the individual translation, or else other heretical beliefs held by those who followed the translators.

Really, we’re forbidden to interpret the Bible? No more so than those who Peter admonishes in his Epistle about twisting the meaning of the scripture by wrong interpretation.

No more so than the Ethiopian reading Isaiah was forbidden to interpret what he was reading by Phillip. Rather, the Ethiopian humbly recognised his own ignorance and Philip’s authority and sought his aid in understanding.
 
In the Middle Ages the Church didn’t allow the laity to read or interpret the Bible. Today the Church still doesn’t allow the laity to interpret the Bible. This is simple history.
actually, this is a “simple” misunderstanding of what you think the Catholic Church teaches. Let me get this straight. You want to take the end of John 6 and interpret what Jesus says as meaning “symbolic” but at the same time you will fight to your death that you can prove the universe was created in 6 24hr days because Genesis says so? Does the Catholic Church have a 100% stance on Genesis? No. Do most protestants? Yes.

John 6 leaves the believer with a fork in the road at the end of the chapter. Jesus tell us that there are narrow and wide gates. which road are you going to take and what gate are you going to enter?

May God guide you :signofcross:
 
What in the blazes are you talking about? I responded with charity in this thread.

This is what I wrote:

For one it is apparent, that you Protestants just love to distort the truth.

and I am not full of myself. Stop attacking me!
er…it sounds as if you’re attacking Protestants…
 
That also goes with Protestants who persecuted English Catholics. I’m sure you probably heard of those.
Here are the rest:

They include:
  • Saint John Fisher, an English bishop and cardinal
  • Saint Thomas More, the patron of lawyers and statesmen
  • The Forty Martyrs of England and Wales (including Saint Edmund Campion and Saint Margaret Clitherow)
  • The Eighty-five martyrs of England and Wales, beatified on 22 November 1987
  • The Carthusian Martyrs
  • Thomas Abel, an English priest martyred by King Henry VIII
  • Robert Dalby (Blessed) , an English priest
  • James Duckett (Blessed), an English layman
  • John Duckett (Blessed), an English priest
  • John Forrest (friar), an English friar
  • George Gervase, an English priest
  • Edward James (Blessed), an English priest
  • Robert Johnson (Catholic martyr), an English priest
  • Blessed John Nelson
  • Blessed Thomas Pickering
  • Maurus Scott, also known as William Scott
  • Thomas Sherwood, a layman
  • Thomas Thwing (Blessed), an English priest
  • Robert Wilcox (saint)
  • Peter Wright (Blessed), an English priest
The Inquisition in the south of France burned *200 Cathars *in one great big auto-da-fe, and killed thousands of others.

Mary I (“Bloody Mary”) burned over 350 English Protestants, one by one, during her 9 year reign.

Protestants and Jews don’t canonize their martyrs; if they did otherwise, there would be a very long list…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top