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

[Steel_Arrow]

Poor Manny, :crying: I hope your feelings were not too hurt. I too know a little about church history. I seem to recall that the RCC burned a lot of Bibles at one time. I also understand that the Bible (the Catholic Version, I assume) was on the forbidden book list. Isn’t it just possible that the RCC didn’t want the masses to know the truth in the Bible? Why else would they forbid it? Again, I’m just looking for intelligent conversation…not a war of words. There is no need to put down another person because of their faith. :tiphat:

 

[Mannyfit75]

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…

There were more Catholics killed during Queen Elizabeth I reign.

Mary Stuart returned to Scotland in 1561 after the death of her husband, Francis, king of France. In 1568 she was compelled to flee across the English border to ask Elizabeth’s help. Elizabeth kept her a prisoner for 19 years. Finally Mary was accused of having a part in the so-called Babington plot to assassinate Elizabeth. Parliament demanded her execution. Elizabeth signed the warrant; and Mary Stuart was beheaded in 1587. In the last years of Elizabeth’s reign, Catholics were cruelly persecuted and many were put to death.

 

[guanophore]

…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.

They were just being biblical…

1 Cor 5:4-5
5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, I can’t accept that. OS has posted too much calumny and twisted history. I cannot depend upon him to post his sources verbatim. He has lost my trust by promulgating the contents of chick tracts.

 

[elvisman]

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.

And her sister Elizabeth I had far, FAR more Catholics killed than that.
The difference is that the Protestants killed weren’t killed by the Catholic church. BUT the Catholics killed were INDEED killed by the Protestant Church of England.

As for the Spanish Inquisition - DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
That was never sanctioned by or condoned by Rome.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Poor Manny, :crying: I hope your feelings were not too hurt. I too know a little about church history. I seem to recall that the RCC burned a lot of Bibles at one time.

Here are some factoid for you: Yes, the Catholic Church burn Bibles that had mistranslations. There were some early translations of the Bible.

Consider the following:

When examining these charges against the Church, we must consider several points. First if the Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, why did her monks work diligently through the centuries making copies of it? Before the printing press (before 1450), copies of the Bible were hand written with beauty and painstaking accuracy. One reason for Bibles being chained to the walls of churches is because each copy was precious both spiritually and materially. It took a monk about a year to hand copy the entire Bible, so Bibles were scarce. The chain kept it safe from loss or theft, so all the people of the church community (parish) could better benefit from it.

Secondly concerning the vernacular, we must remember that in the 5th century when St. Jerome translated the Bible from the original languages into Latin, Latin was the language of the people. This Bible is commonly called the Vulgate, the common version. Even after a thousand years, Latin still remained the universal language in Europe.

Translating the Bible into the vernacular languages during the Middle Ages was simply impractical. Most vernacular languages at that time did not have an alphabet, so they could not be put into written form. Also only a few people could read. The few educated persons, who could read, could also read Latin. This situation did not create a great demand for a vernacular Bible nor promote a popular devotion to personal Bible reading.

Even though impractical, there are examples of the Church promoting the vernacular. One example is the mission of Sts. Cyril and Methodius to the Slavic people in Moravia during the 9th century. They are both famous for introducing the Slavonic liturgy. In their work St. Cyril had to develop an alphabet for the Old Slavonic language. (It became the precursor of the Russian “cyrillic” alphabet.) In 885 St. Methodius translated the entire Bible into this language. Despite strong political opposition from the Germans, Pope Hadrian II after careful investigation confirmed St. Methodius as archbishop of Moravia and endorsed their Slavonic liturgy. (St. Cyril had already died.) Several later popes continued to uphold their work against attacks; however, Pope Stephen VI recalled the liturgy after being deceived by the German opposition

In 7th century Britain, before English was even a language, Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, paraphrased most of the Bible into the common tongue. During the early 8th century, St. Bede the Venerable also translated parts of the Bible into the language of the common British people. On his death bed in 735, he translated the Gospel of St. John. Also in this period, Bishop Eadhelm, Guthlac and Bishop Egbert worked on Saxon Bibles. During the 9th and 10th centuries, King Alfred the Great and Archbishop Aelfric worked on Anglo-Saxon (Old English) translations. After the Norman conquest of 1066, a need for an Anglo-Norman Bible arose, so the Church produced several translations, e.g. Salus Animae (1250). In 1408 the provincial council of Oxford made it clear that vernacular translations could receive approval from the Church. In 1582 the famous Douay-Rheims New Testament translation was completed, while the Old Testament was finished in 1609. Ironically the Douay-Rheims New Testament influenced the King James Bible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

After the 14th century when English finally became the popular language of England, vernacular Bibles were used as vehicles for heretical propaganda. John Wycliffe, a dissentient priest, translated the Bible into English. Unfortunately his secretary, John Purvey, included a heretical prologue, as noted by St. Thomas More. Later William Tyndale translated the Bible into English complete with prologue and footnotes condemning Church doctrines and teachings. [2] St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry’s advisors: “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects.” [4] As food for thought, if the Wycliffe or Tyndale Bibles were so good, why do Protestants today not use them as they do the King James Bible?

One action that Catholic Christians pursued to stop this propaganda was to burn these books. Does this action make the Church anti-Bible? No. If it did, then the Protestants of this period were also anti-Bible. John Calvin, the main Protestant Reformer, in 1522, had as many copies as could be found of the Servetus Bible burned, since Calvin did not approve of it. Later Calvin had Michael Servetus himself burned at the stake for being a Unitarian. [5] In those days it was common practice on both sides to burn unapproved books. Finally it is one matter to destroy the real thing and another to destroy a counterfeit.

The Church did not oppose faithful vernacular translations but heretical additions and distortions to the Bible. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ’s Gospel. As St. Peter in his Epistle (in the Bible) warns us, the ignorant and unstable can distort the Scriptures to their own destruction [2 Peter 3:16; see front panel].

Should good Christian parents allow their children to read a Bible with anti-Christian propaganda or profanity in the footnotes? I certainly would not. Finally if the Catholic Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, she had ample opportunity to do so for 1500 years.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible

If you translate the Bible, it should be translated properly and it should not contain errors. That is why the Catholic Church burned them.

Thomas More accused Tyndale of evil purpose in corrupting and changing the words and sense of scripture. Specifically, he charged Tyndale with mischief in changing three key words throughout the whole of his Testament, such that “priest”, “church”, and “charity” of customary Roman Catholic usage became in Tyndale’s translation “elder”, “congregation” and “love”. The Catholic Church also objected to Wycliffe’s and Tyndale’s translations because they included notes and commentaries promoting antagonism to the Catholic Church. Tyndale’s notes were based on those in Luther’s Bible. A choice example occurs at Num. 23:8, for the text: “How shall I curse whom God curseth not and how shall I defy whom the Lorde defieth not?” Tyndale’s comment was: “The Pope can tell how.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

I also understand that the Bible (the Catholic Version, I assume) was on the forbidden book list.

Not true. That is a false statement.

Isn’t it just possible that the RCC didn’t want the masses to know the truth in the Bible?

The Catholic Church does why else do the priest preached the Gospel at the podium before the congregation. How else do you think the people heard about Jesus Christ and the stories of the OT. They were preached at Mass.

Why else would they forbid it? Again, I’m just looking for intelligent conversation…not a war of words. There is no need to put down another person because of their faith. :tiphat:

Based on your remarks, do you know very little about the facts, Arrow. I put you down because modern Protestants like yourself are ignorant of Christian history.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Poor Manny, :crying: I hope your feelings were not too hurt. I too know a little about church history. I seem to recall that the RCC burned a lot of Bibles at one time. I also understand that the Bible (the Catholic Version, I assume) was on the forbidden book list. Isn’t it just possible that the RCC didn’t want the masses to know the truth in the Bible? Why else would they forbid it? Again, I’m just looking for intelligent conversation…not a war of words. There is no need to put down another person because of their faith. :tiphat:

One last note, resorting to personal attacks is not very charitable. Don’t be a hypocrite.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

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.

It is your burden to make the proof that people were illiterate in those days. Everything I have read in history says they were, on the whle, very well educated.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

There is no copyright on the Bible. Where did you get that ridiculous statement?

 

[Old_Scholar]

guanophore:
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?

I posted all the references required on the original post. All you have to do is use them. I notice no one has posted the same chapters, etc. because they have checked and found that my quotes were accurate.

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.

So you are saying that only the approved books were allowed? Isn’t that forbidding the reading? The declarations don’t specify what you are claiming, they say all English translations and the New Testament. You are simply dodging that.

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.

What makes you think Gutenberg was a Catholic? It wouldn’t be too unlikely because everyone was at that time, that was religious. But what do you base your opinion on?

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

So now you are saying that the Catholic Church does not insist that its dogmas and doctrines be supported by Scripture? Would you like for me to show you where that belief is untrue?

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.

Actually Martin Luther simply wanted the sale of indulgences stopped because they were being used improperly and there was no basis for them. That’s all he intended when he wrote his 95 thesis…It was not his intention to start a movement at all. I fyou rmembered your history classes in college, you would know that.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

And it wasn’t simply for translating the Bible, it was for “reading” the Bible.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

I have posted the RCCs statements on that and if you can refute them, please do so…if not, then admit you are wrong. They DID prohibit the reading of the Bible…

 

[Old_Scholar]

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

Can you show me the post where I said I believed the earth was created in six 24 hour days???

 

[Old_Scholar]

There were more Catholics killed during Queen Elizabeth I reign.

Mary Stuart returned to Scotland in 1561 after the death of her husband, Francis, king of France. In 1568 she was compelled to flee across the English border to ask Elizabeth’s help. Elizabeth kept her a prisoner for 19 years. Finally Mary was accused of having a part in the so-called Babington plot to assassinate Elizabeth. Parliament demanded her execution. Elizabeth signed the warrant; and Mary Stuart was beheaded in 1587. In the last years of Elizabeth’s reign, Catholics were cruelly persecuted and many were put to death.

**Would you like to see the list of popes who obtained their office by murdering their predessors and other crimes? Are you aware that there were 3 popes at one time for almost 70 years? Are you also aware that the seat of the Vatican was moved to France for many, many years? **

 

[Old_Scholar]

No, I can’t accept that. OS has posted too much calumny and twisted history. I cannot depend upon him to post his sources verbatim. He has lost my trust by promulgating the contents of chick tracts.

Then why don’t you post what the references I posted actually say rather than skipping them as you do? If they don’t say what I posted they say then it should be very easy for you to post them and prove I am wrong in stead of simply saying I am wrong…

Prove it!

 

[Old_Scholar]

And her sister Elizabeth I had far, FAR more Catholics killed than that.
**The difference is that the Protestants killed weren’t killed by the Catholic church. BUT **the Catholics killed were INDEED killed by the Protestant Church of England.

As for the Spanish Inquisition - DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
That was never sanctioned by or condoned by Rome.

You certainly don’t know your history…

 

[Old_Scholar]

If you really are serious about knowing which books were banned, go to this site:

beaconforfreedom.org/

The list over **55,000 **books banned by the RCC. You will find most Bibles in that list.

 

[teadough]

Can you show me the post where I said I believed the earth was created in six 24 hour days???

I wasn’t quoting you my friend.

Old Scholar, I hate to tell you this but you are about 3-5 years away from converting to Catholicism. I can see it happening and I pray that it does. And when this takes place you will truly light the way for someone through Catholic Apologetics.