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

[lukewarm]

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

You believe Catholics today are encouraged to interpret the Bible themselves outside the Church? I’ll be honest I never heard that one before…

The fact that Catholics are now supposed to be Bible thumpers is a very new concept. Even as recent as 40 years ago it was essentially unheard of for Catholics to bother with Bible study except for the religious. I guess we can add that change to the long list of things the Catholic Church is copying from the Protestants, heck Protestans wrote your current liturgy they can’t be all that bad right?

 

[brotherhrolf]

The fascinating thing about this thread is that statements are made left, right, and sideways about the availability of the Bible during the Middle Ages. Do any of you have any idea how long it would take to write out the Bible by hand? Do any of you have any idea about just how labor intensive this endeavor was? I do. The reason why Bibles were chained is precisely because that they were written by hand and represented a significant investment of time and money. If the Bibles were illuminated, they were even more valuable.

Gutenberg did not print his Bible until 1452. Bibles did not become generally available until 1500. Wycliffe’s translation around 1382 came before the invention of moveable type. How much impact did Wycliffe think his Bible was going to make if it had to be copied by hand? How much of Wycliffe’s Bible would be understandable to a speaker of English in 1450? Have we forgotten that English itself underwent a great transition in the 1400s?

The other 600 pound gorilla in this scenario is literacy. Who exactly was literate in the Middle Ages? Most of the clergy. Some of the nobility. Some of the nascent middle class of merchants. Serfs and peasants? Piers Plowman in East Anglia?
And which dialect of those same serfs and peasants would be used? Has it been forgotten that Latin was the universal language during the Middle Ages?

And as far as Bible and people burnings, there is more than enough guilt to be handed out to both Protestant and Catholic. Let not the pot call the kettle black here. The history of Europe in the late 1500s and early 1600s is filled with atrocities on both sides.

Let’s look at the situation through the lens of history not emotion.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s look at the situation through the lens of history not emotion.

Thank you brother–

and may I add, through the lens of ‘fact’ and not ‘fantasy’.

In this ‘wiki’ little world, anybody with a computer can not only ‘search’ for something on the web and find it (whether it is true or false)–he or she can also ‘make’ it. Wiki is notorious for its ‘editors’ posting their own belief and either not authenticating or providing FALSE, INCOMPLETE, or ALTERED ‘credentials’.

And the web sites from which some ‘scholars’ persist in finding their ‘cut-and-paste’ quotes from Boettner (whose work has been discredited by academians, Catholic AND Protestant alike) and his ilk are other examples of ‘trash’ history.

If a ‘normal’ person (like most of us) try to validate a text, or a quote, or a source, and the text, quotes, and sources don’t MATCH what is claimed, or are found ONLY in a ‘web site’, or the ‘originals’ read in context don’t say what the people using the texts etc. say they said. . .

Then we are quite within our rights to ask for ‘more’ than a text (usually presented baldly as ‘so and so said this’), for more than a quote (taken out of context), and for more than a listed ‘source’ from a WEB SITE.

And when we have (as we have done) presented findings that the so-called action was never done as claimed; that the so-called text is a** forgery**, that the quotes are taken out of context and misrepresented, and that the claims are not only twisted but often totally FALSE. . .

Then I submit that we have done OUR job and that if the people intend to keep on claiming falsities as truth, KNOWING that we have at the very least an ‘equal’ claim to truth in claiming that what WE say is TRUE. . .

For if a person says A is true, and another says, A is not true, only one person can be correct. Something cannot be both ‘true and not-true’. Truth is not truth to one group, and not to another . . .

Then if they are so blinded by falsity that they will not listen, we must simply (in charity) keep on telling the truth, until they will listen.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You believe Catholics today are encouraged to interpret the Bible themselves outside the Church? I’ll be honest I never heard that one before…

The fact that Catholics are now supposed to be Bible thumpers is a very new concept. Even as recent as 40 years ago it was essentially unheard of for Catholics to bother with Bible study except for the religious. I guess we can add that change to the long list of things the Catholic Church is copying from the Protestants, heck Protestans wrote your current liturgy they can’t be all that bad right?

Protestants didn’t wrote our current liturgy.

 

[Zooey]

The Forty Martyrs of England and Wales (including Saint Edmund Campion and Saint Margaret Clitherow)

:crying: :crying: Along with St Margaret’s:crying: :crying: unborn child!!

“A voice was heard in Rama,
Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning;
Rachel weeping for her children,
Refusing to be comforted
Because:nope: they are no more”.
:crying::byzsoc: :crying:

 

[lukewarm]

Protestants didn’t wrote our current liturgy.

They definitely helped Fr. Bugnini, I think six Protestant advisers helped Fr. Bugnini write the Novus Ordo Mass… If you can’t smell the Protestant influence on the Novus Ordo I don’t know what to say… It’s off topic anyway…

 

[Mannyfit75]

They definitely helped Fr. Bugnini, I think six Protestant advisers helped Fr. Bugnini write the Novus Ordo Mass… If you can’t smell the Protestant influence on the Novus Ordo I don’t know what to say… It’s off topic anyway…

Please cite your source.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

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…

Then there is me and my fellow priests who were tortured and murdered under Elizabeth I’s reign. Ah, and what the Cecils did to Catholic families and their properties!

How many died on BOTH sides? And aren’t we joyous that Christians do not do THAT to each other with each change of political administration?

Robert Southwell

 

[Zooey]

Let me quote some sources:
**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… 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…

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

I am with Manny here. Good Christian parents will not give their children ‘a scorpion instead of an egg’…(A very very smart :bowdown2: Man said that, about 2000 years ago…)

 

[ChristianRoots]

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.

They were burnt alive for translating an incorrect English version of Scripture. The Church was afraid of the incorrect Bible version corrupting the people’s faith and teaching them false doctrine.

 

[lukewarm]

They were burnt alive for translating an incorrect English version of Scripture. The Church was afraid of the incorrect Bible version corrupting the people’s faith and teaching them false doctrine.

Ohhhh O.K. then burning a man alive is O.K., let’s all hope some Christian sect doesn’t come into power and believe your Catholic Bible is a “corrupt version” and tie you to a post put kindling at your feet and roast you alive…

Like I said spin it how you want, people were burnt alive for translating the Bible into English. Whatever rationalization you need to use to convince you it was O.K. and necessary for “Christ’s Church” to continue is your busniess and not mine.

 

[elvisman]

Ohhhh O.K. then burning a man alive is O.K., let’s all hope some Christian sect doesn’t come into power and believe your Catholic Bible is a “corrupt version” and tie you to a post put kindling at your feet and roast you alive…

Like I said spin it how you want, people were burnt alive for translating the Bible into English. Whatever rationalization you need to use to convince you it was O.K. and necessary for “Christ’s Church” to continue is your busniess and not mine.

Ananias and his wife Sapphira were struck dead for not sharing. (Acts 5:1-10)
If you ask me, not sharing your wealth seems like small potatoes compared to corrupting the Word of God.

---

 

[lukewarm]

**Ananias **and his wife Sapphira were struck dead for not sharing. (Acts 5:1-10)
**If you ask me, not sharing your wealth seems like small potatoes compared to corrupting **the Word of God.

---

Hmmm and who did the striking dead?

Yeah thought so…

 

[heisenburg]

I think a lot of people are missing the point…

No one was burnt alive simple because they translated a bible into someones native tongue…

What was the issue was that the translated version in English was chalked full of errors. changes, and modifications to support HIS understanding. I don’t agree with anyone being burned alive, but that being said, the issue was NOT because someone translated, but because it was an intentional falsity…

The New World Translation by the JW is an example today of an extremely modified version. No Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, whatever would dream of letting their children read that version unless it is to refute it.

Does this mean that Baptists Catholics, Methodists, etc are “banning” the bible?

Of Course not, so why is it what there is a version so skewed in the mid 13 hundreds, banned by the Catholic Church, it gets taking to a fanatical extreme to “prove” the Catholic church hates the bible…

Anyway…

Look at the context of the reasoning… as mentioned, I don’t think anyone should be burned at the stake, but fact to the matter, the reason for it is true… He created a version of the bible FULL of errors

In Christ

 

[ricko]

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.

OK Mr. Scholar, here is your proof, taken at random, that most were illiterate in the Middle Ages. By the way, this agrees with the history I learned in Junior High and College and I’m sure that many others in this thread learned in their school also.

In the Middle Ages most people were illiterate….

Home - Local Histories

The Churches were for centuries the patrons of art, music, and architecture as towering Romanesque churches announced the centrality of an all-powerful God and the Old and New testament could be taught to a predominately illiterate population
molloy.edu/sophia/med_ren/med_text.htm

The buildings were covered with sculptures and frescoes for the edification of illiterate pilgrims.
beyondbooks.com/art11/2e.asp

With the fall of the western Roman Empire, however, Europe had become largely illiterate and this produced a major obstacle to the spread of Christian culture.
wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/FRENCH.HTM

Although women in the Middle Ages were as illiterate as their husbands and fathers, YESNet | Yukon Education Student Network

It is highly possible that even the nobles were illiterate.
library.thinkquest.org/27927/Medieval_Main.html

and her instructions for creating a craftsman’s sign help to show how people communicated in an essentially illiterate society.
renaissancemagazine.com/books/hands.html

(the majority of Rome’s population were always illiterate)
articles.gourt.com/en/Middle%20Ages

Most of the literature from the
period in question reflects the work of the literate “elite”, and may or may not reflect the culture of the
largely illiterate “average person”
stonge.intheway.org/documents/Popular%20Culture%20Medieval%20and%20Present.pdf

The Illiterate Anglo-Saxon: And Other Essays on Education, Medieval and Modern (1946,
britannica.com/eb/article-47749/education

We do know that from the Lombards in northern Italy to the Franks, Saxons and Scandinavians in the north of Europe, the majority of the populace was illiterate.
medievalwriting.50megs.com/literacy/reading.htm

the Church was virtually the only institution of what we would call “higher education,” keeping alive the knowledge of Latin and of classical literature.
camden.rutgers.edu/dept-pages/german/medglossary2a.html

 

[brotherhrolf]

They were burnt alive for translating an incorrect English version of Scripture. The Church was afraid of the incorrect Bible version corrupting the people’s faith and teaching them false doctrine.

Oh, for Pete’s sake! From what website have you dredged that up from. Ignore the rhetoric and go back and look at the history!

 

[brotherhrolf]

I only want to point out one thing here. I’m Irish. When the Anglo-Saxons were nothing more than raiders in long ships, we continued the traditions and scripture which was handed down to us from St. Patrick. It was Irish missionaries who reintroduced Christianity back to the Continent in the Dark Ages.

READ YOUR HISTORY FOLKS! READ THE HISTORY! Sorry for the shouting but it really annoys me how everyone just relies upon propaganda.

 

[Zooey]

Just a couple of points I want to add:

1. 
   *]The Catholic Church permitted some people to be burned at the stake; they were not burned by the Catholic Church. They were burned by the governments that existed at the time…The English monarchs were particularly fond of executing people for “non-conformity”.
   *]Burning was not generally performed on the living; most were strangled [or otherwise killed] & their remains were burned after death.
   *]Burning at the stake was not thought to be nearly as bad a death as we realize that it is, today. Neither was strangling, for that matter. Both were considered fast & comparatively painless by the people of the time. Today we know better, but the science of the day was, after all, quite primitive.
   *]All kinds of people were executed for all kinds of crimes in the Middle Ages. That was the way life was. We must always consider context, both of time & of place.
   *]No one religious group had a corner on either good or bad behaviour. There was more than enough blame to go around.
   *]In regard to Tyndale in particular: I have said this before, and I will now say it again: Considering how much of a problem he was to his own country–both rulers & common folks like us-- Considering that,I say, his execution seems to me to have been justifiable. He was guilty as charged, not of simply translating a Bible (much less reading it); he was guilty of fomenting revolution against the English crown. Now, there have been more than a few such folks in my own family tree. [There is a reason we are on this side of the Atlantic]. But that was what he was doing, it was illegal, and he died for it…How we can lay that at the door of the Catholic Church is:shrug: beyond my comprehension.
   (I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread).

 

[teadough]

Sorry for the shouting but it really annoys me how everyone just relies upon propaganda

Everyone wants so desperately to find the ultimate “loophole” against the Catholic Church no matter how many times it has been proven wrong. Most of the people on this site who want to prove Catholics wrong have a hard time admitting they’re wrong as well as having a problem with authority. I think that they have this crazy notion that when they get to heaven there is going to be a democracy set up where they get to pick and choose what is right for Heaven.

 

[brotherhrolf]

My favorite Methodist who knows her history!

I hope everyone realizes that there is a great deal of “up-time” rhetoric being used when such would not be found within the historical period. Protestants over emphasize the impact of Wycliffe when I have pointed out that a) sure he translated the Bible into Middle English [errors and all]; b) what possible impact did he hope to obtain in late 14th century England given that Bibles had to written out by hand and most of the populace couldn’t read; c) even if he had managed to translate the Bible into authentic Middle English, which dialect would he have adopted as “standard”; and d) even if he did find some common ground would the English he translated in 1380 be understood by an Englishman in 1460?.

Boys and girls - Will Shakespeare introduced a whole buncha Latin words into English - in case you didn’t know.,