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

[Wolseley]

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.

Just one thing I’d like to point out here, in the case of William Tyndale: Tyndale was not burned at the stake by the Catholic Church. Tyndale was arrested in Antwerp by agents of the English king, Henry VIII, and was executed on the orders of the same. Additionally, Tyndale was strangled before his body was burned—he was not burned alive.

Just to clarify.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the ‘government’ was involved in the execution of heretics. Too many people seem to think that ‘The Catholic Church’ (squads of sinister looking priests marching in goose step formation, no doubt) came swooping into peoples’ homes, hauled out people, and then put them to the stake (for NOTHING, too) while the squads forcibly restrained not just the ‘regular’ people but the agents of the law, and even the kings, by menacing them with all their HUGE weaponry–the canons, the bows and arrows, the maces and cleavers–that were part of the priestly ‘garb’ back then.

 

[Wolseley]

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the ‘government’ was involved in the execution of heretics. Too many people seem to think that ‘The Catholic Church’ (squads of sinister looking priests marching in goose step formation, no doubt) came swooping into peoples’ homes, hauled out people, and then put them to the stake (for NOTHING, too) while the squads forcibly restrained not just the ‘regular’ people but the agents of the law, and even the kings, by menacing them with all their HUGE weaponry–the canons, the bows and arrows, the maces and cleavers–that were part of the priestly ‘garb’ back then.

Actually, I think that was Calvin’s Geneva.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

Actually you have explained what the problem wa—tho not intentional I suspect. It was after the Bible was made so that most people could read it that they started seeing how they had been mislead by the RCC and that is when all the trouble started. People understood that many of the doctrines and dogmas they had been taught were not Biblical. That’s what started Martin Luther and the others on their path. You only have to read the Bible to see the falsehoods taught by the RCC.

 

[guanophore]

nor do I give any credence to the absurdity fo the Earth being 6,000 years old and created in 6 24 hour days.

Does this mean that you value science?

Nor do I believe that a piece of bread is body, blood, soul and divinity of almighty God Himself.

well, thank God for that! Neither do Catholics.

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.

You have a bit of a bent view of history. Catholics have always been encouraged to read and interpret Scripture for themselves. People were sanctioned for stealing the copyright of the Bible, and twisting the translation to support non-Apostolic Teaching.

 

[Thing]

Actually you have explained what the problem wa—tho not intentional I suspect. It was after the Bible was made so that most people could read it that they started seeing how they had been mislead by the RCC and that is when all the trouble started. People understood that many of the doctrines and dogmas they had been taught were not Biblical. That’s what started Martin Luther and the others on their path. You only have to read the Bible to see the falsehoods taught by the RCC.

Did not Dr. Martin alter the text of the Scriptures - and his reason - [para] I’ll do it if I want, and if anyone askes why tell them Dr. Martin wanted it so - and thats reason enough’

 

[Thing]

Zooey:

1. 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 beyond my comprehension.

Just as it is now ‘officially’ illegal for an EU citizen to criticize the EU.
In medieval times the normal sanction for that and for most things, (stealing bread, or, “I may as well be hanged for a sheep as a goat”), was death, the normal sanction is prison now - but it would be death back then.

 

[JPatton]

We all know the middle ages were a crazy time. Peolpe burned alive, bibles burned and people killed. For whatever reasons burning people at the stake or any type of murder is bad. It happend on both sides and that is true history. If the people in the Church commited such crimes does that make the Church or the people bad? The people not the Church. The people responsible for burning men for translating the bible with error and slander apperently handled it wrong. We can all agree that burning or murdering anyone is wrong. The sentences handed down to these men might have seemed right during these times - these were the middle ages - but surely were not good. This doesn’t excuse the fact that promoting scripture full of error is totally wrong.

The Church has been around for over 2000 years so can we honestly think that with our human sinfull nature the Church would have a happy and unblemished history. I would say no. The truth and love of Christ has not changed but men have corrupted it and shown bad examples of it, Catholic and Protestant. Apperently now adays we are having a hard time agreeing with what that history was. I have and continue to study history and the truth is out there. Look at it with open un-biased eyes and you will see. If you disagee with what history has shown us then so be it. God calls us to be respectful and charitable to each other. Whatever tradition you were born into or follow is yours to believe and live. The truth is that Christian history has been tainted and as a result we now have alot of different “types of Christianity”. This is the reality so let’s deal with it with love and kindness. I’ll tell who ever asks me what I believe but be ready for my answers, though they will be kind and respectful. No matter what you believe Christ did pray for us to be of one faith, one baptism - one body.

I am thankful that we have learned our lessons from the past and live in a more tolerent world, though we do need to work harder. I can now happily attend Mass early on Sunday and then a “non-denom” service with my wife afterwards in peace. I know some of the “non-denoms” might think my beliefs are confused or wrong (including my wife) but I still worship with them and love them. Get rid of our differences and there alone stands Christ. I keep that in focus. But I am ready to defend my beliefs when asked. No crooked priest or clergy or any crazy time in history will keep me from believing what God has revieled to me. Our Government has been corrupt and parts probably still are but I am still an American and still sware to defend her from enemies foriegn and domestic.

Let’s focus more on respect, love and tolerence and even if we can’t agree on certain issues we can still have a Christ centered peaceful dialog.

 

[Wolseley]

Actually you have explained what the problem wa—tho not intentional I suspect. It was after the Bible was made so that most people could read it that they started seeing how they had been mislead by the RCC and that is when all the trouble started. People understood that many of the doctrines and dogmas they had been taught were not Biblical. That’s what started Martin Luther and the others on their path. You only have to read the Bible to see the falsehoods taught by the RCC.

Meanwhile, of course, if you step away from The Alternative Fundamentalist Universe…

And I’ll say again: there is not a single teaching of the Catholic Church that contradicts the Bible.

They may contradict the Protestant interpretation of the Bible—but then, that’s not the same thing, is it?

 

[elvisman]

Hmmm and who did the striking dead?

Yeah thought so…

Well, if I believed as a Protestant does in the Bible alone, I’d have to say, “Peter”, because Scripture doesn’t tell us that anybody eles did. He was the one interrogating them.
The bottom line is that Jesus Himself gave the Church the Authority to do his will on earth. If you don’t agree with that, you believe that Jesus was a liar and that Scripture is wrong. (Matt. 16:17-19, John 16:13-15)
The fact is that they were put to death - whether you think that Peter did it or the Holy Spirit. The Church has the authority of Jesus - FROM Jesus.
Game. Set. Match.

 

[lukewarm]

Well, if I believed as a Protestant does in the Bible alone, I’d have to say, “Peter”, because Scripture doesn’t tell us that anybody eles did. He was the one interrogating them.
The bottom line is that Jesus Himself gave the Church the Authority to do his will on earth. If you don’t agree with that, you believe that Jesus was a liar and that Scripture is wrong. (Matt. 16:17-19, John 16:13-15)
The fact is that they were put to death - whether you think that Peter did it or the Holy Spirit. The Church has the authority of Jesus - FROM Jesus.
Game. Set. Match.

First off I’m not a Protestant, and God clearly struck down the couple in Act 5. Not sure how you can see it any other way.

So are you in favor of murdering people who teach against the Churches teaching then? If you say no you have completely undermined the rubbish you just spewed above. If you say yes you’re not much of a Christian IMO.

Again I can only hope no one decides your Bible is wrong and sets you on fire, that would be a shame such an enlightened person like you met such an untimely end. Let’s pray a return to those days doesn’t happen…

 

[Old_Scholar]

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….
Localhistories.org

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

Thanks for the references. I will read them all and am now on the first one you listed.

Of course I must point out the one I am reading is merely an essay written by one man and he gives no references for his thoughts. I cannot say it is documented in any way but merely his opinion.

While it speaks of many of the people being illiterate, it also says the clergy was illiterate and that they tried to teach by telling stories. Sounds really Biblical…

It does tell of the time when there were two popes, one in France and the other in Rome and then there was a third one elected and the other two supplanted. That took place over a period of 70 years by the way according to history.

It also speaks of the way the pope started wars, speaks of Augustine agreeing with Martin Luther about being saved by Grace alone and not works as the RCC teaches.

It also speaks of the paganism in the church and I have addressed the point several times already about that being started by Constantine who first declared Christianity the official religion of Rome but kept many pagan rituals in place in order to keep the public happy. He was most responsible for introducing them and the RCC has kept them in place for all these centuries. The one most daring is the majesty of Mary as taught by the church—pure paganism.

I will gladly read them all but must recognize that they are the work of individuals, most of them being Roman Catholics.

Thanks for them…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Just as it is now ‘officially’ illegal for an EU citizen to criticize the EU.
In medieval times the normal sanction for that and for most things, (stealing bread, or, “I may as well be hanged for a sheep as a goat”), was death, the normal sanction is prison now - but it would be death back then.

From the Encyclopedia, this is about Tyndale:

Soon afterwards, he had already determined to translate the Bible into English: he was convinced that the way to God was through His word and that scripture should be available even to common people. Foxe describes an argument with a “learned” but “blasphemous” clergyman, who had asserted to Tyndale that, **“We had better be without God’s laws than the Pope’s.” In a swelling of emotion, Tyndale made his prophetic response: “I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, I will cause the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope himself!” **

Seems he should have been given kudos instead of being murdered. He only wanted common man to be able to read the Bible. He spoke against the pope and that was why he was executed.

 

[elvisman]

First off I’m not a Protestant, and God clearly struck down the couple in Act 5. Not sure how you can see it any other way.

So are you in favor of murdering people who teach against the Churches teaching then? If you say no you have completely undermined the rubbish you just spewed above. If you say yes you’re not much of a Christian IMO.

Again I can only hope no one decides your Bible is wrong and sets you on fire, that would be a shame such an enlightened person like you met such an untimely end. Let’s pray a return to those days doesn’t happen…

**I agree. we should ALWAYS pray for a day when people leave their spiritual pride behind and accept the truth of Jesus’ pilgrim Church - the ONLY Church established by Him - The Catholic Church. **
As for how anybody could see the text in Acts 5 being anybody else other than God striking down the couple - I agree. Unfortunately, the tragedy of Protestantism and its effects have made this sort of misinterpretation commonplace.
That being said - The Church has the authority of Jesus - FROM Jesus to do HIS will.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Meanwhile, of course, if you step away from The Alternative Fundamentalist Universe…

And I’ll say again: there is not a single teaching of the Catholic Church that contradicts the Bible.

They may contradict the Protestant interpretation of the Bible—but then, that’s not the same thing, is it?

I’m sure then you won’t mind showing Scriptures that support the following:

Purgatory
Transubstantiation
Immaculate Conception
Assumption of Mary
Perpetual virginity of Mary
Indulgences
prayers for the dead
Special dress for the Clergy
Praying to Mary and the Saints
Baptism by sprinkling
Holy water
Penance
Celibacy of Priests
Confessions of sin to Priests
No cup for Laity during communion
Tradition of church equal to Bible
Justification by works
Pope’s temporal authority over all civil rulers
Infallibility of the pope
Doctrine of seven sacraments

I’m sure this won’t be a problem for you after your comment…

 

[Wolseley]

I’m sure then you won’t mind showing Scriptures that support the following:

Purgatory
Transubstantiation
Immaculate Conception
Assumption of Mary
Perpetual virginity of Mary
Indulgences
prayers for the dead
Special dress for the Clergy
Praying to Mary and the Saints
Baptism by sprinkling
Holy water
Penance
Celibacy of Priests
Confessions of sin to Priests
No cup for Laity during communion
Tradition of church equal to Bible
Justification by works
Pope’s temporal authority over all civil rulers
Infallibility of the pope
Doctrine of seven sacraments

I’m sure this won’t be a problem for you after your comment…

No problem at all. Here you go:

scripturecatholic.com/

Have fun.

 

[Old_Scholar]

No problem at all. Here you go:

scripturecatholic.com/

Have fun.

That’s just what I thought. That’s a typical RCC dodge. Deflect the question—don’t dare and try to answer it, because you can’t.

That’s a little disingenuous, referring someone to a site like that. You can’t answer the question because you don’t have the answers so you simply deflect it…Great way to do it!

I’ll have to remember that one. When someone asks me a question, I’ll simply give them a site for the Bible…

 

[LilyM]

That’s just what I thought. That’s a typical RCC dodge. Deflect the question—don’t dare and try to answer it, because you can’t.

That’s a little disingenuous, referring someone to a site like that. You can’t answer the question because you don’t have the answers so you simply deflect it…Great way to do it!

I’ll have to remember that one. When someone asks me a question, I’ll simply give them a site for the Bible…

You obviously didn’t bother to even click on the link before writing that screed if you think it’s just a site for the Bible

It’s in fact a Catholic apologetics website, not dissimilar to parts of this one, giving the scripture passages that Catholics use to back up all the points you’ve mentioned and many more besides. Well worth looking at if you’re genuinely interested in why we believe as we do.

 

[wanner47]

Old Scholar, why is it that when YOU provide support for your assertions via “essays written by a man,” it’s perfectly okay, but when Catholics do it, all of a sudden the source isn’t credible?

Why is it that when YOU provide support for your beliefs via a web link to another site, it’s okay, but when a Catholic does it, it’s called “dodging the question”?

Scriptural support for the doctrines you listed IS found at scripturecatholic.com. How is that dodging your questions?

Seems like you have quite the double standard going on.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Actually you have explained what the problem wa—tho not intentional I suspect. It was after the Bible was made so that most people could read it that they started seeing how they had been mislead by the RCC and that is when all the trouble started. People understood that many of the doctrines and dogmas they had been taught were not Biblical. That’s what started Martin Luther and the others on their path. You only have to read the Bible to see the falsehoods taught by the RCC.