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

[Tantum_ergo]

Once again, you have done nothing of the kind (stating that you have ‘proven’ The Bible was forbidden in the Middle Ages.)

Over and over you have been shown that the ‘references’ from ‘the Church’ ‘forbidding’ the reading of the Bible refered specifically to a heretical group/groups which had taken it upon themself to ‘write’ a heretical book and CALL it the Bible.

I can take right from the Scripture the phrase, “There is no God”. Scripture says it. It really does. But if I omit the REST of the scripture, “The fool says in his heart: There is no God” then I am lying by omission. What I ‘claim’ Scripture says is NOT what Scripture says.

What you have done is similar. You have taken quotes (out of context) from Catholic sources and CLAIMED that it referred, not to a specific time and place regarding a false Bible, but rather you claim it referred to the entire Middle Ages and the ‘real’ Bible. You have lied by omission. Worse, you were given the facts and you not only continued to make your claim, when you were asked if you understood what the Cathars and Albigensians taught and whether you agreed, you tried to make it look as though they were ‘equivalent’ to 17th century protestants and that if anything they had as good a claim to ‘following Scripture’ as Catholics did!!!

The TRUE Bible was never ‘forbidden’ to the people.

Further, in attempting to claim the Bible was forbidden, you have also made various charges that the Church ‘kept’ the Bible from the people, that the average person in the Middle Ages was not only literate, but would have somehow ‘found out’ that the "Catholic bible’ was ‘wrong’, that Bibles were cheap and plentiful after the printing press was made, etc. Again, all of these have been refuted with primary sources and reputable documentation, wheras your claims have not.

I am not ‘angry’ at you personally–your actions really have hurt no one but yourself. You have made your choice to cast aside truth and embrace falsehood. It is very obvious to most people who have followed this thread who has truly supported his/her claims, and who has not. Who is the ‘scholar’ and who is not. Since I and others disagree with you, this may hurt your feelings and thus you might THINK we’re angry. . .but we are not. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I wish you well. . .by wishing that you return to the truth of the Catholic Church. Since you have told us you ‘were’ Catholic, you once knew the truth but have chosen to reject it in favor of a man-made truth. I don’t know the reason you did this; you may be less culpable in that you were hoodwinked and sincerely believe the lies (God help you).

 

[Old_Scholar]

Now you are attacking him personally. What reason do you have to suspect that he is not speaking truthfully? You don’t have any reason and yet you challenge what brotherhrolf says he does. You have apparently shifted gears on your Christian charity.

**I don’t know how you can make this a personal attack. He was speaking of doing Calligraphy and Illumination. That isn’t writing with a quill or a pen. I also have a calligraphy pen that I sometimes use but not to simply “write” with. Just documents, etc. **

 

[Old_Scholar]

Never mind. I am still too furious. Old Scholar - watch the videos and tell me you could whip out a gospel as quickly. NOT!

The videos were great and I hope to be able to see the Bible someday.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Your lack of intellectual integrity never ceases to amaze.
Please - show me where a poster referred to anyone writing a Bible with a Bic pen.
Your initial question referred to the Middle Ages; did they have Bibles by then? What about, say 400 AD? Bibles then?

I certainly don’t worry about attacks on my integrity from you.

If you had read all the posts, you would see the references to not having so many Bibles and the difficulty of copying them and then the inference of using Bic pens to copy them with.

The post asked about the Middle Ages but the posts I made about copying the Scriptures referred to the first three centuries as I stated. And yes we did have Bibles in 400 A.D. as you know.

And one more thing, if you had read the entire post, you would see that after I posted the actual references of when the church banned the Bibles from the Laity, people started changing the subject and attacking my credibility instead of trying to prove my posts were wrong. Strange how it always happens that way!

 

[cfrancis]

If you had read all the posts, you would see the references to not having so many Bibles and the difficulty of copying them and then the inference of using Bic pens to copy them with.
Oh…you mean this reference:
brotherhrolf;3361888:

My dear Lady Z - I couldn’t have said it better myself. That 600 pound gorilla is at it again suggesting now that writing with a quill is the same as writing with a Bic.

Now, explain to all of us here how Bro’s comment infers anyone used a Bic pen.
In fact, his comment was directed to you re: your comments.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I had thought that I had calmed down sufficiently to respond charitably to Old Scholar. His recent posts have only added fuel to the fire.

No! I didn’t go to school in New Orleans with a circular hole on the right hand side of my desk. What a measely and pathetic response! We took our Bic pens and played golf on our desk tops!

But thank you, Old Scholar… your erudition has given me much to mull over. “I’m the village idot…I don’t have anything to do with this pathetic little opera, I’m just passing through.” PDQ Bach.

 

[Zooey]

I realize it hurts when you hear the truth but I assure you I have no animosity against Catholicism.

You see, this post asked if the Bible was forbidden in the Middle Ages and I provided Catholic references that show it was, and when it was, and that hurts some people. I know they don’t want to believe that, but it happened and it is a fact. There is no reason to take one’s displeasure with that fact out on me. Any animosity should be directed at those who did that—not me for pointing it out!

[SIGN1]Piffle! Pshaw!! Pfui!!![/SIGN1]
You claimed much.
You showed nothing.
There is a very good reason for this: there is nothing to be shown.
The emperor, once again, has wandered out in his altogether…

And, IMHO, you show animosity for Catholicism every time you post. Shame on you! You are a guest in this house. Try, just try, to behave yourself.:twocents:

 

[Old_Scholar]

Once again, you have done nothing of the kind (stating that you have ‘proven’ The Bible was forbidden in the Middle Ages.)

Over and over you have been shown that the ‘references’ from ‘the Church’ ‘forbidding’ the reading of the Bible refered specifically to a heretical group/groups which had taken it upon themself to ‘write’ a heretical book and CALL it the Bible.

I can take right from the Scripture the phrase, “There is no God”. Scripture says it. It really does. But if I omit the REST of the scripture, “The fool says in his heart: There is no God” then I am lying by omission. What I ‘claim’ Scripture says is NOT what Scripture says.

What you have done is similar. You have taken quotes (out of context) from Catholic sources and CLAIMED that it referred, not to a specific time and place regarding a false Bible, but rather you claim it referred to the entire Middle Ages and the ‘real’ Bible. You have lied by omission. Worse, you were given the facts and you not only continued to make your claim, when you were asked if you understood what the Cathars and Albigensians taught and whether you agreed, you tried to make it look as though they were ‘equivalent’ to 17th century protestants and that if anything they had as good a claim to ‘following Scripture’ as Catholics did!!!

The TRUE Bible was never ‘forbidden’ to the people.

Further, in attempting to claim the Bible was forbidden, you have also made various charges that the Church ‘kept’ the Bible from the people, that the average person in the Middle Ages was not only literate, but would have somehow ‘found out’ that the "Catholic bible’ was ‘wrong’, that Bibles were cheap and plentiful after the printing press was made, etc. Again, all of these have been refuted with primary sources and reputable documentation, wheras your claims have not.

I am not ‘angry’ at you personally–your actions really have hurt no one but yourself. You have made your choice to cast aside truth and embrace falsehood. It is very obvious to most people who have followed this thread who has truly supported his/her claims, and who has not. Who is the ‘scholar’ and who is not. Since I and others disagree with you, this may hurt your feelings and thus you might THINK we’re angry. . .but we are not. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I wish you well. . .by wishing that you return to the truth of the Catholic Church. Since you have told us you ‘were’ Catholic, you once knew the truth but have chosen to reject it in favor of a man-made truth. I don’t know the reason you did this; you may be less culpable in that you were hoodwinked and sincerely believe the lies (God help you).

You must have been reading another post because there has been **no refutation posted with references **to my posts. There have been claims made that say those prohibitions were for specific works, and some of them pertained to specific works, but they also prohibited the reading of all English translations of the Bible and prohibited the reading of the Bible in its entirety without the presence and approval of a priest. There were specific prohibitions of certain heretical copies but you can’t get a reading of it that doesn’t make the claim that the Laity is not to read the Bible at all.

And to make it worse—if you know your church history, you must know that prior to the Middle Ages, the church kept the Laity from having a Bible at all and kept them all to themselves whenever they found out one was in possession of the common man. Don’t you wonder why the church insisted on having the Bible in Latin and not Greek?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Oh…you mean this reference:
Now, explain to all of us here how Bro’s comment infers anyone used a Bic pen.
In fact, his comment was directed to you re: your comments.

Sorry but if you don’t understand that I can’t help you.

 

[Zooey]

And one more thing, if you had read the entire post, you would see that after I posted the actual references of when the church banned the Bibles from the Laity, people started changing the subject and attacking my credibility instead of trying to prove my posts were wrong. Strange how it always happens that way

!

[sign1]Oh,pooh.You have been proved wrong time and again.[/sign1]

And to make it worse—if you know your church history, you must know that prior to the Middle Ages, the church kept the Laity from having a Bible at all and kept them all to themselves whenever they found out one was in possession of the common man

. Trust me, yean; I know history. This never happened, laddie; its all a figment of some wee daftie man’s :whacky: notions.
Ye must needs leave your bluidy Boettner & read a real history of the world, yean.

Don’t you wonder why the church insisted on having the Bible in Latin and not Greek?

Not at all. I **know **why: Latin and Greek were the lingua franca, dear man. They were as universal for those who could read, as English is for computer users today–Nay, they were more so.
My ancestors in Ireland haggled over the price of a fat hen in Latin as late as the 19th Century.
Keeping the Bible available in Latin & Greek guaranteed that it could be read & understood by all the literate; not just a few :hypno: oddballs in some heretical/neo-gnostic sect in the far reaches of the mountains of France.

 

[cfrancis]

And one more thing, if you had read the entire post, you would see that after I posted the actual references of when the church banned the Bibles from the Laity, people started changing the subject and attacking my credibility instead of trying to prove my posts were wrong. Strange how it always happens that way!

As I am familiar with your brand of “scholarship” let’s see what you’ve posted (and from whence you copied your info!):

Post #10

COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.

The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition (Lat. inquisitio, an inquiry), to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the forty-five articles decreed by the Council dealt with heretics and heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 1. We appoint, therefore, that the archbishops and bishops shall swear in one priest, and two or three laymen of good report, or more if they think fit, in every parish, both in and out of cities, who shall diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out the heretics in those parishes, by searching all houses and subterranean chambers which lie under suspicion. And looking out for appendages or outbuildings, in the roofs themselves, or any other kind of hiding places, all which we direct to be destroyed.

Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

From this source - verbatim: Bible Possession Once Banned by the Catholic Church!
Your source specifically states the target of the Council - the Albigensians - yet does not include the fact this was a LOCAL council, its canons applicable to that locale only.
Should there be any doubt as to this, from CCEL, History of the Christian Church, Volume VI: The Middle Ages. A.D. 1294-1517.:

III. Local Synods, 1122–1294.—Some of the local synods of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries are of even more importance than some of the oecumenical councils of the same period. If they were to be characterized for a single subject of legislation, it would be the repression of heresy…
The synod of Toulouse, 1229, presided over by the papal legate, celebrated the close of the Albigensian crusades and perfected the code of the Inquisition. It has an unenviable distinction among the great synods on account of its decree forbidding laymen to have the Bible in their possession.

The answer to your question, then, would be yes, in the Toulouse area, during the Albigensian heresy, the laity was prevented from possessing the Bible as a whole was.
I ask you, why were they prevented from having a Bible as a whole?

 

[cfrancis]

Sorry but if you don’t understand that I can’t help you.

I see - a lack of both intellectual integrity and humility…
Bro did not imply a “Bic” pen was used to copy the Bible; he stated your comments made such an implication.
But you knew that already…

 

[Zooey]

Aha!! Thought so:
aloha.net/~mikesch/

This is the site OS has been referring to, endlessly. Scroll down a wee bit, & we see this :
[***
***](Seventh-day Adventist Links)Seventh-day Adventist Linkshttp://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/SDA-links.htm

I am nae surprised, friends…I am nae surprised. I was, as it were, expecting the like.
I can smell their wee stories & lies a mile off.
Fiction should be, at the least, original…Something the adventists never seem to remember…

 

[LilyM]

**

It wasn’t until the third century that codex was used. That was the first “books.” I thought those of you who seem to be so knowledgeable in history would have know that—or were you just being a little bantering?**

Shows how much history YOU know, Old (non)Scholar. I’m no expert, but I DO know, as even a simple google on wikipedia could’ve told you, that JULIUS CAESAR used the codex format for his documents while on campaign, well and truly BC, as did Martial in the first century AD. So books had been around for hundreds of years by the third century, just that scrolls were the preferred style.

 

[John_Colean]

This is certainly an issue that can be discussed for days or months, with one side claiming and supporting their position with written evidence that the Church leadership did in fact forbid reading of Holy Scripture and the other side claiming that it just never happened. The pure fact is that we could ever reach a definitive conclusion.

Whether the Church did or did not forbid Scripture reading during the Middle Ages does not make me love the Church any more or less nor does it alter my overall opinion of the Church as an instrument of Christ.

I believe that the most important thing to consider is that now and today the Church encourages all to read and study Holy Scripture each day. Therefore, my question to you is "How much time did you spend reading or meditating on Holy Scripture today?

Blessings to all,

John

 

[cfrancis]

May as well continue!
First, thank you to the editor who updated Old “Scholar’s” Post #10 with the link to his source

From that source - and, if memory serves me, what was originally posted:

THE COUNCIL OF TARRAGONA - 1234 A.D.

The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:

“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.”

Another local council addressing another heresy.
Here’s an interesting piece of information, from A History of the Christian Church: Middle Age By Charles Hardwick. Read note 2 on p299.

For a counterpoint what our “Scholar” has presented, I present The Catholic Church has NOT been the enemy of the Bible throughout history!:

The history of English Bible translation (preceded earlier by editions in the earlier common language of Anglo-Saxon) is very long, starting with Caedmon in the 7th century, Aldhelm (c. 700), the Venerable Bede (d. 735), followed by Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert (all in Saxon, the vernacular language of that time in England). King Alfred the Great (849-99) translated the Bible, as did Aelfric (d.c. 1020). Middle English translations included those of Orm (late 12th c.) and Richard Rolle (d. 1349).

Vernacular Bibles in many languages appeared throughout the early and late Middle Ages (after Latin ceased being a common, widespread language). Between 1466 and 1517 fourteen translations of the Bible were published in High German, and five in Low German. Raban Maur had translated the entire Bible into Teutonic, or old German, in the late 8th century. Between 1450 to 1520 there were ten French translations, and also Bibles rendered in Belgian, Bohemian, Spanish, Hungarian, and Russian. 25 Italian versions (with express Church sanction) appeared before 1500, starting at Venice in 1471…

According to Protestant Church historian James Gairdner in his Lollardy and the Reformation in England (Vol. 1 of 4, 1908, 105, 117):

“The truth is, the Church of Rome was not at all opposed to the making of translations of Scripture or to placing them in the hands of the laity under what were deemed proper precautions. It was only judged necessary to see that no unauthorized or corrupt translations got abroad; and even in this matter it would seem that the authorities were not roused to special vigilance till they took alarm at the diffusion of Wycliffite translations in the generation after his death.

. . . To the possession by worthy lay men of licensed translations the Church was never opposed; but to place such a weapon as an English Bible in the hands of men who had no regard for authority, and who would use it without being instructed how to use it properly, was dangerous not only to the souls of those who read, but to the peace and order of the Church.”

 

[Old_Scholar]

As I am familiar with your brand of “scholarship” let’s see what you’ve posted (and from whence you copied your info!):

Post #10

From this source - verbatim: Bible Possession Once Banned by the Catholic Church!
Your source specifically states the target of the Council - the Albigensians - yet does not include the fact this was a LOCAL council, its canons applicable to that locale only.
Should there be any doubt as to this, from CCEL, History of the Christian Church, Volume VI: The Middle Ages. A.D. 1294-1517.:

The answer to your question, then, would be yes, in the Toulouse area, during the Albigensian heresy, the laity was prevented from possessing the Bible as a whole was.
I ask you, why were they prevented from having a Bible as a whole?

This, of course, was expected. That is you claiming that the Council of Toulouse was simply a “local” council. It is normal for the RCC to make the claim that this council was strictly a local one. Even if it was only a local council, it was a Roman Catholic Council decreeing that the Bible was to be kept from the Laity.

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this ban and adds two more synods. There were the synods of Toulouse 1229, Tarragona in 1234, and Oxford in 1408. But in the book, “A History of the Inquistion of the Middle Ages” we learn also of the burning of romance versions of the Scriptures and the commands of the Council of Narbonne, in 1229 which prohibited the possession of any portion of Holy Writ by laymen.

To deal only with one local council does not properly address the problem. The other synods banned the Bible in Spain, England and France—they must have been twisting the Scriptures as well.

If we agree that a general prohibition against the Scriptures was never in existence, only a local one, then we must also agree that a general proclamation of the canonicity of the Apocrypha was never in existence either, at least until the middle 16th century. In supporting the Apocrypha, the RCC always refers to the regional councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage. If we apply a certain standard to one council then we must apply it to the others.

Incidentally my information did not come from that link.

 

[Old_Scholar]

May as well continue!
First, thank you to the editor who updated Old “Scholar’s” Post #10 with the link to his source

From that source - and, if memory serves me, what was originally posted:

Another local council addressing another heresy.
Here’s an interesting piece of information, from A History of the Christian Church: Middle Age By Charles Hardwick. Read note 2 on p299.

For a counterpoint what our “Scholar” has presented, I present The Catholic Church has NOT been the enemy of the Bible throughout history!:

Did you expect the church to say anything else?

 

[Thing]

why: Latin and Greek were the lingua franca, dear man. They were as universal for those who could read, as English is for computer users today–Nay, they were more so.
My ancestors in Ireland haggled over the price of a fat hen in Latin as late as the 19th Century.
Keeping the Bible available in Latin & Greek guaranteed that it could be read & understood by all the literate; not just a few :hypno: oddballs in some heretical/neo-gnostic sect in the far reaches of the mountains of France.

Your ancestors in Ireland, in very, very isolated rural parts of Ireland, during the mid-1900’s also sold their cattle through the language of Greek, of all things!

 

[cfrancis]

Incidentally my information did not come from that link.Right…