Was the bible "trapped" in Latin?

[ProVobis]

Did the Church go too far in establishing a control on Scriptures?

Perhaps but wasn’t it the Church who defined/assembled/wrote Scripture in the first place? Why would they then allow Scripture to become corrupted and/or a free-for-all among all iconoclasts?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Two easy things going against “zomg the Catholic Church kept the Bibles away from the people!” :

1. Literacy.
2. Book expense.

How many people afford a Bible, much less read it?

 

[Tous_Logous]

I’ve heard this charge recently from a Protestant acquantince of mine. You all might know how the story goes.

The evil Roman Catholic Church wanted to keep the truth of the word away from people and the best way to keep the Church in charge was to keep the bible trapped in Latin, a language no one understood. Thank God for Martin Luther translating the bible into the common tongue.

I know the Church preserved it in Latin for traditional purposes but is there any teeth to this statement?

The Bible was translated into other languages inside and outside of Europe (Gothic, Ethiopian, Old English, Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, German, etc.).

The Bible wasn’t “trapped” in Latin. Think of how many hours it takes to hand-write the Bible, as well as the calligraphy and art in these medieval codices. Only a small percentage of the population are capable of reading and writing, especially Latin. Books were considered valuable and were often chained (literally) so they were not stolen. Even though Latin is a liturgical language in the Catholic Church, most people can’t fluently speak or read in Latin. The same was true for “back then.”

Also, it helped to use Latin to preserve doctrine and so forth. As we all know, English today is quite a bastardized language and you can see just about every word has multiple, different meanings.

Until the printing press came along, mass production of books was not generally available to the local population.

 

[jcrichton]

it is not possible for the church to “go too far in establishing a control on scriptures” because the bible is the church’s book. Those who reject her authority have no right to complain about how the church handles it’s own book. In rejecting the church and her authority they became heretics. Explain how 16th century heretics had any right to question that which they left behind when they decided to set up on their own by coopting the authority christ gave to his church alone to decide matters of faith and morals? Most modern protestants simply believe what they are told by their leaders and have no clue as to church history that isn’t devoid of denial of church teaching. What else can we expect of them?

Hi, Della!

Please understand that I am not questioning the Church’s Authority–that would be tantamount questioning God’s Determination to Found the Church and send the Holy Spirit to Guide Her.

My statement is addressing the management of things temporal:
ie: I remember, as a child, changes that took place in my local parish… devote Catholics would come to Church to pray novenas and the rosary and other devotionals… all good, right? But they did this even and in spite of the Mass… some would even make a direct-line detour to their favorite saint’s statue ignoring everything else–when the Church stream-lined there were not few Catholics that were left fuming… the intent was excellent: provide Sacramentals (inclusive of stained glass) that would help promote and encourage the Faith of the Believers. However, there came a time when these aides were serving as a great distraction. The Church is still suffering through this issue as Catholics, oldest of Christian Believers, are still not versed in Scriptures.

as to the bolded part of is part of your post, ah no, luther did not “correct” anything. He posted a thesis in which he condemned selling of indulgences, which some were doing without the sanction of the church, but it was the church that corrected this abuse, not luther.

Since Luther was never a Pope he had no grounds in any formal correction. Yet, it was his insistence that placed the sale of indulgences into the magnifying glass–his efforts served as the platform for formal Church action.

it seems you have some of your church history a bit skewed. You may wish to do some research before posting such statements.

You are fully correct, I only do historical/resource research when absolutely necessary!

I am quite a novice about history. But I do not twist issues. I may take liberties with little facts I come across but I hold genuine concern for our Faith.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by jcrichton View Post
…yeah… it takes some getting used to… I am emphasizing that the Church’s job, as the Apostles, has always been to keep the Gospel free of error (this, in my mind, is inclusive of all Sacred Writing). Did the Church go too far in establishing a control on Scriptures? Yes. It is evident in the fact that those who reject her Authority have not understood her and cite “Latin” and “lack of distribution” as Roman control of the Gospel.

Hi, G!

…this statement is referencing non-Catholics who today argue about the Church’s mandatory language (Latin) which in their view was used to keep the people ignorant and dependent on the Church; while “Roman control of the Gospel” is argued as they offer the visions of Bibles not being translated into the world languages and actual Bibles found chained at the Church’s control centers (local parishes?).

…and Luther’s correction of the errors that were rampant (fees for absolution…) were on the money

Actually, it wasn’t fees for absolution that he railed against; it was fees for indulgences, and a misunderstanding of what an indulgence is (and isn’t!).

Blessings,
G.

You may be right. The tidbit I recall is that priests, as in the Old Testament times, were granting absolution to those who could afford it. But it could well be indulgences (though I cannot see how this would dismiss the obligation to confess sins and be seen in the confessional).

If you would like me to check… I can oblige.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Bookcat]

I’ve heard this charge recently from a Protestant acquantince of mine. You all might know how the story goes.

The evil Roman Catholic Church wanted to keep the truth of the word away from people and the best way to keep the Church in charge was to keep the bible trapped in Latin, a language no one understood. Thank God for Martin Luther translating the bible into the common tongue.

I know the Church preserved it in Latin for traditional purposes but is there any teeth to this statement?

Nope.

Those who knew how to read pretty much knew Latin. And no it was not “trapped in Latin” - search the main CA site I am sure you will find various articles.

 

[jcrichton]

Perhaps but wasn’t it the Church who defined/assembled/wrote Scripture in the first place? Why would they then allow Scripture to become corrupted and/or a free-for-all among all iconoclasts?

Hi, ProVobis!

Exactly.

Luther did not liberate the Word but subjected Scripture to personal subjugation as today’s world grabs onto whatever they want (ie: no more damnation for homosexuality or murdering infants, and each man/woman is a pope), claim it as authority divinely inspired and teach others their version of gospel.

While I do not challenge Church Authority, I must recognize that error in practice of the Faith do arise and sometimes roll right through the decades.

St. Francis is an excellent example of the quintessential Catholic who allows God to use him to serve the Mystical Body of Christ without seeking his own personal agenda.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Two easy things going against “zomg the Catholic Church kept the Bibles away from the people!” :

1. Literacy.
2. Book expense.

How many people afford a Bible, much less read it?

Hi, Young TradCath!

Exactly!

It is as though I should blame Christ for not introducing a Bible apt and giving His Disciples a notebook/pad when He sent them out to preach ahead of Him…

It is wonderful to step into history with a full compiled Bible, no major heretic movements to fight, and seek out faults and what “if” constructs…

The Church always err on the side of time… it is why she has not passed a dogmatic decree on who goes to hell–clearly Scripture offer abundant instruction as to how to avoid and what determines the passage to it.

…so what if the Church would have translated the Bible into all the new world’s languages?

…some monks, priests, and nuns might have been able to read them as most nations masses, including their depots, were ignorant of the written language.

Yet, the argument continues to be raised against that simplest of logic.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Della]

Hi, Della!

Please understand that I am not questioning the Church’s Authority–that would be tantamount questioning God’s Determination to Found the Church and send the Holy Spirit to Guide Her.

My statement is addressing the management of things temporal:
ie: I remember, as a child, changes that took place in my local parish… devote Catholics would come to Church to pray novenas and the rosary and other devotionals… all good, right? But they did this even and in spite of the Mass… some would even make a direct-line detour to their favorite saint’s statue ignoring everything else–when the Church stream-lined there were not few Catholics that were left fuming… the intent was excellent: provide Sacramentals (inclusive of stained glass) that would help promote and encourage the Faith of the Believers. However, there came a time when these aides were serving as a great distraction. The Church is still suffering through this issue as Catholics, oldest of Christian Believers, are still not versed in Scriptures.

Generalizations are not arguments, they are statements. Do you really want to leave others with the impression that the Church just stumbles its way along, hoping to get things right and needing to satisfy every misconception no matter how farfetched? People need to know real history not myths and hearsay evidence.

Since Luther was never a Pope he had no grounds in any formal correction. Yet, it was his insistence that placed the sale of indulgences into the magnifying glass–his efforts served as the platform for formal Church action.

But you didn’t state that, dear friend. Luther had a very small part in the Church clamping down on abuses–very small. He wasn’t the main/sole catalyst for anything except rebellion. Many people saw the same problems he did, but instead of leaving the Church and attacking her, they worked from within to correct what needed correction.

You are fully correct, I only do historical/resource research when absolutely necessary!

I am quite a novice about history. But I do not twist issues. I may take liberties with little facts I come across but I hold genuine concern for our Faith.

Maran atha!

Angel

A person can skew an issue unintentionally or by being too simplistic. Others are reading what you are stating–others who don’t know the difference and can be, through no desire of yours, misled. I write this in all charity and goodwill.