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

[Steel_Arrow]

Thanks Manny! :extrahappy: This was wonderful information! Have a blessed day!

 

[lukewarm]

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

Well you’re wrong on all accounts about me I’m certainly not a Protestant anything, nor do I give any credence to the absurdity fo the Earth being 6,000 years old and created in 6 24 hour days. Nor do I believe that a piece of bread is body, blood, soul and divinity of almighty God Himself.

And you are incorrect to assume it is a misundertanding, Catholics were not allowed to read or interpret the Bible themselves, and men were burnt alive for translating the Bible out of Latin against the Churches decree. To deny this is to deny that the US won the battle of Iwo Jima.

 

[teadough]

]Well you’re wrong on all accounts about me I’m certainly not a Protestant anything, nor do I give any credence to the absurdity fo the Earth being 6,000 years old and created in 6 24 hour days. Nor do I believe that a piece of bread is body, blood, soul and divinity of almighty God Himself.

My mistake. I guess I should not have looked at your screen name from a christian perspective.I guess “Lukewarm” on a Christian message board can mean many things. Sorry about that. Are you of any sort of religious affiliation?

And you are incorrect to assume it is a misundertanding, Catholics were not allowed to read or interpret the Bible themselves, and men were burnt alive for translating the Bible out of Latin against the Churches decree.

This has been covered in the thread already. I normally read threads from top to bottom or else I get confused too

To deny this is to deny that the US won the battle of Iwo Jima.

Both sides of the fence, myself included at times, always throw out a crazy alternative for one to ponder if someone does not believe in what we post. Sort of like a “well, chew on that for a minute” deal.

Hope you have a good day and remember that this is just a forum to discuss idea and differences. We are both human beings and we are both flawed in one way or another.

 

[lukewarm]

This has been covered in the thread already. I normally read threads from top to bottom or else I get confused too

I’ve read the entire topic top to bottom and it has proven sufficiently that men were burnt alive under orders from the Church for translating the Bible into English. Whether you want to spin it so it doesn’t come off as horrible as it really is is your business, but my very simple initial point remains very true.

 

[Wolseley]

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.

And that’s why they were all teaching in prestigious universities instead of living in peasant shacks on manorial properties, and subsisting on a diet of barley bread and well water.

Oh, wait…

Would you like to see the list of popes who obtained their office by murdering their predessors and other crimes?

And surely you understand that the truth of the Catholic Faith is not dependant on the personal behavior of its adherents—not even the Popes?

Are you aware that there were 3 popes at one time for almost 70 years?

Incorrect. There was one Pope. The others were antipopes, meaning false claimants to the throne. We have several running around right now, in fact—the most notable is a guy named Lucian Pulvermacher who was “elected Pope” in a clapboard shack in Montana in 1998.

**Are you also aware that the seat of the Vatican was moved to France for many, many years? **

Are you aware that the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles in 1957? Or in other words, so what?

 

[elvisman]

You certainly don’t know your history…

Please expand on that, Old “SCholar”.
Explain what you mean.
No more hit and run . . .

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

Good for you but apparently, you have not read enough of it. You come here and resort to attacking the Church by claiming the Church forbid using the Bible.

Like I said before. There were unauthorize translation of the Bible at the time and the Church had to act to ensure that the correct translation of the Bible into the native language was permitted. Second, Bible in those days were expensive and they were indeed chained.

Mistranslation of the Bible such as the Tyndale Bible and the Wyncliff Bible had errors in them. Therefore, they had to be burned.

If you want to Bible to bring the message of the Truth, all translations need to be corrected. You would not have a Bible that have a translation of God as being a female. Wouldn’t you? I surely would not. That would be a complete departure from the truth.

 

[teadough]

I’ve read the entire topic top to bottom and it has proven sufficiently that men were burnt alive under orders from the Church for translating the Bible into English. Whether you want to spin it so it doesn’t come off as horrible as it really is is your business, but my very simple initial point remains very true.

Oh, I am not doubting that some bad things have happened but that does not mean I write off the entire Catholic religion just because some stranger on an internet message board uses one of the typical anti-Catholic cards.

One of the last rebuttals to try and degrade the Catholic Faith normally happens when a person post a partial scenario of a particular horrible event. As I hinted earlier, the person normally has a “ah,ha…I got you now you crazy Catholic” attitude. I have not even been Confirmed in the Catholic Faith and in a very short time I noticed this. I used to pull the same card back in the day. so I understand your point. Hang in there my friend.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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?

If you want to discuss this false claim that the Pope obtain their office by murder make another thread. This topic has nothing to do with the topic.

Are you also aware that the seat of the Vatican was moved to France for many, many years?

Yes it was called the Avignon Captivity and what does this have to do with the topic?

I do notice a pattern. You always derail the topic. You have done this in other thread. It is apparent, you are losing the argument.

 

[lukewarm]

Oh, I am not doubting that some bad things have happened but that does not mean I write off the entire Catholic religion just because some stranger on an internet message board uses one of the typical anti-Catholic cards.

One of the last rebuttals to try and degrade the Catholic Faith normally happens when a person post a partial scenario of a particular horrible event. As I hinted earlier, the person normally has a “ah,ha…I got you now you crazy Catholic” attitude. I have not even been Confirmed in the Catholic Faith and in a very short time I noticed this. I used to pull the same card back in the day. so I understand your point. Hang in there my friend.

I don’t care if you’re a Catholic, I don’t expect you to drop your Church, you’re reading into things the way you want to not how they are. The topic was pretty simple I gave a very simple reply which is accurate. You want to spin things and read nonsense into my three sentence reply go ahead. I was simply stating that yes the Catholic Church did not allow the laity to read or interpret the Bible and men were burnt alive for translating the Bible into English. Whatever spin you want to put on it to placate yourself and make you think “yeah they did it for a good reason, it wasn’t really that bad” is your business and yours alone.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t care if you’re a Catholic, I don’t expect you to drop your Church, you’re reading into things the way you want to not how they are. The topic was pretty simple I gave a very simple reply which is accurate. You want to spin things and read nonsense into my three sentence reply go ahead. I was simply stating that yes the Catholic Church did not allow the laity to read or interpret the Bible and men were burnt alive for translating the Bible into English. Whatever spin you want to put on it to placate yourself and make you think “yeah they did it for a good reason, it wasn’t really that bad” is your business and yours alone.

The claim that the Catholic Church forbid the laity from reading the Bible is false. Men who were burn at Tyndale have a mistranslation of the Bible. There were numerous errors in his Bible. He was also anti-clerical. He deserve what he got. How would you like someone translate the Bible and put it out of context, or translate the Bible that wrote that God is Mother instead of Father.

Let me quote some sources:

**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.

**

Source: users.binary.net/polycarp/burning.html

 

[teadough]

Whatever spin you want to put on it to placate yourself and make you think “yeah they did it for a good reason, it wasn’t really that bad” is your business and yours alone.

please, spare me with the guilt trip game.

 

[lukewarm]

The claim that the Catholic Church forbid the laity from reading the Bible is false. Men who were burn at Tyndale have a mistranslation of the Bible. There were numerous errors in his Bible. He was also anti-clerical. He deserve what he got. How would you like someone translate the Bible and put it out of context, or translate the Bible that wrote that God is Mother instead of Father.

1. No it isn’t, the Catholic Church definitely did not allow the laity to read the Bible themselves. They allowed for a psalter for prayer but not to read the Bible themselves, this was left to the educated.
2. You admit men were burnt alive for translating the Bible into English? Thanks you that was my point.

Whatever spin you want to put on it like “they got what they deserved” or anything else is your business. Mine is simply stating “Christ’s Church” was complicit in burning and torturing men alive for the “sin” of translating the Bible into a language people could actually read and understand. “Christ’s Church” is complicit in a lot of terrible things, but I’m sure you have a nice spin for those too so I won’t bother.

 

[lukewarm]

please, spare me with the guilt trip game.

I’m not sparing you anything, simply reply to what I write instead of what you imagine I wrote and I won’t have to dumb down my replays and patronize you.

 

[teadough]

I’m not sparing you anything, simply reply to what I write instead of what you imagine I wrote and I won’t have to dumb down my replays and patronize you.

I bet you are the type of person that has to have the last word in on anything,right?

 

[Mannyfit75]

1. No it isn’t, the Catholic Church definitely did not allow the laity to read the Bible themselves. They allowed for a psalter for prayer but not to read the Bible themselves, this was left to the educated.

1. You admit men were burnt alive for translating the Bible into English? Thanks you that was my point.

Only one not many men as your think. His name was William Tyndale. Not many men as you presumed.

Whatever spin you want to put on it like “they got what they deserved” or anything else is your business. Mine is simply stating “Christ’s Church” was complicit in burning and torturing men alive for the “sin” of translating the Bible into a language people could actually read and understand. “Christ’s Church” is complicit in a lot of terrible things, but I’m sure you have a nice spin for those too so I won’t bother.

So you think a man with a Bible proclaiming God as Mother-Goddess is a could thing? Or a Bible translation that Jesus was just a man? William Tyndale Bible, an English Bible had mistranslation in them. His translation has many errors on it. Good look it up and Google it. Type “Errors of Tyndale Bible.”

You’ll find resources to show that his Bible is erroneous.

 

[guanophore]

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

The Bible is a Catholic book. It was written, preserved, and compiled by Catholics, for Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

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.

You know what happens when people make assumptions!

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.

The edict clearly states that persons who want a copy for devotional purposes should have one, and be encouraged to use it. All unauthorized versions were forbidden, English or not.

What makes you think Gutenberg was a Catholic? It wouldn’t be too unlikely because everyone was at that time, that was religious.

Ok, just for a minute, consider why he would want to mass print the Bible as his first book, and why the Church encouraged this (because it was an authorized translation).

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?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the Teaching of the Church is not derived from scripture. It comes from Jesus Christ HImself. Although it is accurately reflected in scripture the Church existed before the Scripture, and the Scriptures are the representation of what the Apostles taught.

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.

My intensive study of Luther’s life and theology have shown me that he had many more motives than just that. However, the motive that you cite above is a good one. He just went about it in the wrong way. Rebellion against authority appointed by God is never a good route.

 

[mschrank]

Isn’t it kind of a non-issue?

I mean, the clergy knew how to read the Bible in Latin. Lay people do not come up with doctrine anyway.

So the idea that the Bible really teaches Sola Scriptura, but nobody really knew that, does not make a shred of sense.

 

[guanophore]

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 a baseless accusation. The Church encourages laity to read, study, interpret, meditate upon and memorize the Scripture.