Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[Duane1966]

Take note that Martin Luther’s original intention is to reform the Catholic Church, not to break away from it and to start a new church. It only serves to highlight how the Reformation could have been avoided and was started unnecessarily as it started with corrupt practices by church officials rather than for purely doctrinal and theological reasons.

This is highly debatable. If you read Luther’s writings from before and after his excommunication, the clear picture is that Luther would have been happy to stay Catholic, if the Catholic Church changed her doctrine to his on justification, priesthood, prayer to saints… But if She did that, wouldn’t that make us Lutherans? Just reading his writings from before his excommunication, it is easy to see that he had rejected much of Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, the Mass, confession…

.

The following is taken from this link: shamelesspopery.com/did-luther-want-to-start-his-own-church/

Bear in mind, it’s not just modern historians who deny the whole narrative that Luther was a devout Catholic who got pushed out of the Church by the pope for asking too many questions or trying to clean things up. Luther’s own account explains his schism was due to his rejection of both the teaching authority and the teachings of the Catholic Church:

The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God’s Word, boast of the Church’s authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church.

By his own account, then, Luther left the Church because the Church has a pope, and the pope isn’t a Lutheran.
And of course it’s true that Luther’s ideal was that the entire Catholic Church disband Her core structures, abandon Her core beliefs, and start practicing and believing as Lutherans. Who wouldn’t go in for that kind of a deal? I’d gladly be a Jehovah’s Witness, if by Jehovah’s Witness, you mean Catholic. Luther would gladly be a Catholic, as long as you really mean Lutheran. But if that’s the case, what does it mean to say that Luther didn’t want to leave the Church? That’s a bit of a meaningless statement, isn’t it? I’ll stay in your religion if you replace your religious teachings with my own?
I mean, has there ever been a schismatic or heretic who wouldn’t say as much? Surely, Nestorius would have loved to stay in the Church, if the Church would only become Nestorian. Joseph Smith would have been happy to remain a Methodist if all of the Methodists agreed to accept the Book of Mormon and make him the head of their religion. You get the idea.
Plus, given that the Church has always viewed Her doctrines as irreformable (in the sense that She can’t declare X to be true one year and false the next),** Luther’s obedience to the Church was premised off of Her doing the impossible. So the claim that Luther didn’t want to leave the Church is either false or meaningless.**

No one can really say what Luther’s intentions really were, as he changed so often. In letters to Pope Leo X, he said he would abide by Leo’s decision, whether Leo agreed with him or not. We all know how that turned out.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Interesting [but not a fully accurate position IMO].

I AM,a d I have known MANY Catholics is the past 3 years who are actively engaged i sharing our Catholic Faith. And then their is the Ministry of CAF it self:thumbsup:

God Bless you, and WELCOME HOME!

Patick [PJM] on CAF

I’ve met more and more of those Catholics you speak of lately.

Very refreshing!

 

[GodsGrace154]

This is highly debatable. If you read Luther’s writings from before and after his excommunication, the clear picture is that Luther would have been happy to stay Catholic, if the Catholic Church changed her doctrine to his on justification, priesthood, prayer to saints… But if She did that, wouldn’t that make us Lutherans? Just reading his writings from before his excommunication, it is easy to see that he had rejected much of Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, the Mass, confession…

.

The following is taken from this link: shamelesspopery.com/did-luther-want-to-start-his-own-church/
No one can really say what Luther’s intentions really were, as he changed so often. In letters to Pope Leo X, he said he would abide by Leo’s decision, whether Leo agreed with him or not. We all know how that turned out.

Until his dying day, Luther believed in the Real Presence, just another word for Eucharist.
He didn’t leave the church - he tried to change it. He was dismissed, he didn’t leave.

GG

 

[Duane1966]

Until his dying day, Luther believed in the Real Presence, just another word for Eucharist.

He rejected what Catholics believe about the Real Presence. (transubstantiation) Dave Armstrong’s website lists 50 ways in which Luther, in writing, rejected Catholic doctrine before his excommunication.

He didn’t leave the church - he tried to change it. He was dismissed, he didn’t leave.

GG

Excommunication is not dismissal. From the same site I linked to earlier :

The late historian Eugene F. Rice, Jr., in his book The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559, explained why the Reformation was never really a reform movement, at heart:*

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation, too, were sensitive to ecclesiastical abuses and wished to reform them. **Yet the reform of abuses was not their fundamental concern. *The attempt to reform an institution, after all, suggests that its abuses are temporary blemishes on a body fundamentally sound and beautiful.***

Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not believe this. They attacked the corruption of the Renaissance papacy, but their aim was not merely to reform it; they identified the pope with Antichrist and wished to abolish the papacy altogether. They did not limit their attack on the sacrament of penance to the abuse of indulgences. They plucked out the sacrament itself root and branch because they believed it to have no scriptural foundation. They did not wish simply to reform monasticism; they saw the institution itself as a perversion. The Reformation was a passionate debate on the proper conditions of salvation. It concerned the very foundations of faith and doctrine.** Protestants reproached the clergy not so much for living badly as for believing badly,** for teaching false and dangerous things. Luther attacked not the corruption of institutions but what he believed to be the corruption of faith itself. The Protestant Reformation was not strictly a “reformation” at all. In the intention of its leaders it was a restoration of biblical Christianity. In practice it was a revolution, a full-scale attack on the traditional doctrines and sacramental structure of the Roman Church. It could say with Christ, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” In its relation to the Church as it existed in the second decade of the sixteenth century, it came not to reform but to destroy.

If the core issue was simply that many Catholic clerics weren’t living according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, Luther could have been a reformer. There were countless who had gone before him who worked to clean up the Church, and several of these men were canonized.

But that wasn’t what the Reformation was about:** Luther wasn’t trying to get Catholics to live up to Catholic teachings as much as he was denying Catholic teachings**, and the foundations upon which they were built. Put simply, the Reformation was primarily about faith, not works.

 

[susanlo]

Rome has never banned the reading of the bible. She has banned the reading of bibles that were dubiously translated. I can post official papal documents, and bishop’s diocesan letters through the centuries exhorting Catholics to read Catholic bibles.

You, at best, can only post documents warning the Catholic faithful from reading unauthorized versions of the bible.

Holy Mother Church takes her duty seriously to guard Christ’s sheep from reading versions of the sacred scriptures mistranslated purposely to fit one’s novum theology.

I posted on this thread earlier (page 2, #19) some quotes taken from the Council of Toulouse and the Council of Trent. I just have excerpts off of a website and not the whole document. There the church is clearly forbidding the laity from having the Bible in any translation. I understand that many people didn’t understand Latin and that was the only language that the Bible was read to them in. Is this information wrong? When was the first Bible in the English language created?

 

[Duane1966]

These are sources given by those who state the Bible was forbidden to the laity. I can’t find the originals of these councils online.

‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives 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.’ (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)

The Council of Toulouse took place in 1229 and was a LOCAL council, not an ECUMENICAL council. The Council of Toulouse met to deal with the Albigensian Heresy, and had no complaint about mere translations of the Bible; vernacular versions having been appearing for centuries. But the Albigensians were twisting the Bible to support an immoral moral system. So the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the Heresy was ended… Their action was a local one, and when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France."

Think about it. If we didn’t want the laity to know the bible, why has since the beginning of the Church, there been readings from the scriptures, at every Mass? Back then, if you could read, you read Latin. The stained glass windows were there to bring the stories of the bible to life for the illiterate. Since there were no writings from the Apostles for at least 20 years after Christ’s death, did this mean that they did not want the laity to have it either?

 

[susanlo]

The Council of Toulouse took place in 1229 and was a LOCAL council, not an ECUMENICAL council. The Council of Toulouse met to deal with the Albigensian Heresy, and had no complaint about mere translations of the Bible; vernacular versions having been appearing for centuries. But the Albigensians were twisting the Bible to support an immoral moral system. So the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the Heresy was ended… Their action was a local one, and when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France."

Think about it. If we didn’t want the laity to know the bible, why has since the beginning of the Church, there been readings from the scriptures, at every Mass? Back then, if you could read, you read Latin. The stained glass windows were there to bring the stories of the bible to life for the illiterate. Since there were no writings from the Apostles for at least 20 years after Christ’s death, did this mean that they did not want the laity to have it either?

How long after the Council of Trent did Roman Catholics need written permission to own Scripture?

 

[Duane1966]

I posted on this thread earlier (page 2, #19) some quotes taken from the Council of Toulouse and the Council of Trent. I just have excerpts off of a website and not the whole document. There the church is clearly forbidding the laity from having the Bible in any translation. I understand that many people didn’t understand Latin and that was the only language that the Bible was read to them in. Is this information wrong? When was the first Bible in the English language created?

I have highlighted the key part of that Trent quote:

‘Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.’ (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564).

Without discrimination here means unauthorized translations of the bible into the vernacular. Why would this be? Almost every time the Church had ran into unauthorized translations, She found blatant mistranslations that distorted the gospel message. But further on, Trent says as long as it is a Catholic translation, if the priest feels that the layperson will not come to harm, they are free to read.

The Church has no problem with people reading accurate translations of scripture under guidance by Her. Unfortunately, Catholics see firsthand the problems of unguided reading of the scriptures, let alone bad translations, or purposeful mistranslations of scripture.

Now think about this. Almost every historian agrees that the only reason you have a bible is because Catholic monks painstakingly copied it word for word on scrolls. Why would the Catholic Church do this if She did not care about the Word of God?

 

[Duane1966]

How long after the Council of Trent did Roman Catholics need written permission to own Scripture?

Not sure. But here is why you needed written permission. If you had written permission, it was known that you had an accurate and authorized translation of the Bible.

You might find this article interesting. shamelesspopery.com/reading-scripture/

 

[GKC]

The Council of Toulouse took place in 1229 and was a LOCAL council, not an ECUMENICAL council. The Council of Toulouse met to deal with the Albigensian Heresy, and had no complaint about mere translations of the Bible; vernacular versions having been appearing for centuries. But the Albigensians were twisting the Bible to support an immoral moral system. So the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the Heresy was ended… Their action was a local one, and when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France."

Think about it. If we didn’t want the laity to know the bible, why has since the beginning of the Church, there been readings from the scriptures, at every Mass? Back then, if you could read, you read Latin. The stained glass windows were there to bring the stories of the bible to life for the illiterate. Since there were no writings from the Apostles for at least 20 years after Christ’s death, did this mean that they did not want the laity to have it either?

Yep. I’ve pointed this out myself, re: Toulouse.

 

[GodsGrace154]

He rejected what Catholics believe about the Real Presence. (transubstantiation) Dave Armstrong’s website lists 50 ways in which Luther, in writing, rejected Catholic doctrine before his excommunication.
Excommunication is not dismissal. From the same site I linked to earlier :

Yes. Of course he was denying Catholic teachings!
Rome was selling indulgences. They were making people PAY to get their loved ones out of purgatory. First the population was taught about this fearful place, and then told they would end up there and then had to pay to get people out, including family members, and, hopefully, one day someone would pay to get them out.

So, as you can see, the church was teaching that one was saved by works. It taught that works saved under all conditions - which is not true and which the CC does include in its statement of faith today.

Thus, the famous Ephesians 2:8 which says that we are saved through faith, by grace and that it is a free gift from God. This would be what started everything and ended up the way it did.

I know what ex-communication is. Luther suffered both. Ex-communication and dismissal from the church.

GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

Rome has never banned the reading of the bible. She has banned the reading of bibles that were dubiously translated. I can post official papal documents, and bishop’s diocesan letters through the centuries exhorting Catholics to read Catholic bibles.

You, at best, can only post documents warning the Catholic faithful from reading unauthorized versions of the bible.

Holy Mother Church takes her duty seriously to guard Christ’s sheep from reading versions of the sacred scriptures mistranslated purposely to fit one’s novum theology.

Duane,

I hate to sound harsh - You could post all the official papal documents that exhort Catholics to read Catholic bibles.

I, at best, am posting nothing since I didn’t bring up unauthorized versions YOU did.

I live in Europe, and I don’t need any post. People here were NOT ALLOWED to read the bible! Definitely not in the 1950’s and 60’s. I cannot remember when persons were allowed to read it, but it was pretty recently.

Maybe YOU would like to look this up and confirm what I’m telling you.

I DON’T NEED to confirm real life.

GG

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Duane,

I hate to sound harsh - You could post all the official papal documents that exhort Catholics to read Catholic bibles.

I, at best, am posting nothing since I didn’t bring up unauthorized versions YOU did.

I live in Europe, and I don’t need any post. People here were NOT ALLOWED to reaad the bible! Definitely also in the 1950’s and 60’s. I cannot remember when persons were allowed to read it, but it was pretty recently.

Maybe YOU would like to look this up and confirm what I’m telling you.

I DON’T NEED to confirm real life.

GG

I think you do need to confirm that people were not allowed to read the Bible in the 1800s and 1900s. Whether that be a popular position among lay people that lay people don’t read the Bible or an imposition by Pope’s or Bishops. That’s a big claim.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I think you do need to confirm that people were not allowed to read the Bible in the 1800s and 1900s. Whether that be a popular position among lay people that lay people don’t read the Bible or an imposition by Pope’s or Bishops. That’s a big claim.

Interestingly, there were many protestants freely reading the bible in the 1800-1900’s and that’s when most of the strange cults started forming, the one’s that taught you to drink poison and handle snakes.

 

[Abu]

Susanlo #84
I understand that many people didn’t understand Latin and that was the only language that the Bible was read to them in. Is this information wrong? When was the first Bible in the English language created?

See: catholicbridge.com/catholic/d…le_reading.php
This section was researched by Art Sippo, Fr. Terry Donahue, CC and Mark Bonocore.
“The Bible was on scrolls and parchments during the early centuries of Christianity. No one had a “Bible”. Even into the Middle Ages, each Bible was written by hand. Most people were, at best, only functionally literate. That is partially why they used stained glass windows and art to tell the Bible story. The printing press was not invented until 1436 by Johann Gutenberg. Note: The Gutenberg Bible, like every Bible before it, contained the Deuterocanonical books - the “extra” books as they are called in Evangelical circles.

“So prior to 1436, the idea of everybody having a Bible was out of the question, even if they could read. Yeah, I know it’s hard to imagine a world without photocopiers, printing presses, email and websites…

**“After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther’s Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. **The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes (vernacular means native to a region or country).

“The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610." [My emphases].

 

[7_Sorrows]

I think you do need to confirm that people were not allowed to read the Bible in the 1800s and 1900s. Whether that be a popular position among lay people that lay people don’t read the Bible or an imposition by Pope’s or Bishops. That’s a big claim.

I agree. Especially the 1950’s and 1960’s.

 

[Duane1966]

Yes. Of course he was denying Catholic teachings!
Rome was selling indulgences. They were making people PAY to get their loved ones out of purgatory. First the population was taught about this fearful place, and then told they would end up there and then had to pay to get people out, including family members, and, hopefully, one day someone would pay to get them out.

Why would Purgatory be fearful?

So, as you can see, the church was teaching that one was saved by works. It taught that works saved under all conditions - which is not true and which the CC does include in its statement of faith today.

Can you show me where Catholic teaching said back then that works saved under all conditions? Actually the Church has always taught that one is justified by faith and works.

Thus, the famous Ephesians 2:8 which says that we are saved through faith, by grace and that it is a free gift from God. This would be what started everything and ended up the way it did.

Way to rip it out of context. From Matt1618 blog:

When it says, it is not of works, lest anyone should boast, it says we do not work to earn salvation. It is God’s gift to us that ontologically transforms us, **not us transforming ourselves. If we did it by ourselves, then we could boast. If we approach God through our own boasting and self-reliance, we are condemned (v. 9). When Paul condemns work salvation schemes, he condemns those who approach God through boasting (Rom. 2:17, 23, 3:27, Rom. 4:2). However, Paul never condemns works when done through God’s grace as achieving salvation. In fact, *elsewhere he says that grace empowered works are necessary to achieve salvation (Rom. 2:4-13, Gal. 6:8-9, 1 Tim. 6:18-19, etc). ***Nevertheless, the point here by Paul is that we must approach God humbly and be utterly reliant upon His mercy and grace, before we can approach Him for salvation. We are saved through His power alone. We do not boast about ourselves. But God raises us up to be sons called to holiness.

In v. 10, Paul continues this outlook on salvation. He writes that we are His workmanship. Our work in his grace is His work in our lives. In v. 10 here, Paul does not write, OK, now I move on to sanctification, and thus, now we do good works to prove that we are already saved, or something to that effect. Verse 10 is not some new category from which Paul digresses from the whole section on salvation. Instead, he now states the kind of works which do profit unto salvation, as opposed to that which does not. We are God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, according to Paul. Now in His grace and under His mercy, and in His power, we shall now walk in Him. This is what profits unto salvation. It is by grace that we are saved. It is not by works done under our own power. The gift of God which profits to salvation is thus not only faith as mentioned in v. 8, but works empowered by grace as well.

I know what ex-communication is. Luther suffered both. Ex-communication and dismissal from the church.

GG

Well you can read the bull of his excommunication easily, but can you post his official dismissal?

 

[guanophore]

I hate to sound harsh - You could post all the official papal documents that exhort Catholics to read Catholic bibles.

I don’t think that is harsh at all. Anyone who makes a claim on an Apologetics site should be ready, willing, and able to back it up with evidence.

I live in Europe, and I don’t need any post. People here were NOT ALLOWED to read the bible! Definitely not in the 1950’s and 60’s. I cannot remember when persons were allowed to read it, but it was pretty recently.

Maybe YOU would like to look this up and confirm what I’m telling you.

I DON’T NEED to confirm real life.

GG

This is very sad, GG, and contrary to what the Church teaches.

How can anyone prevent you from reading the bible? I mean, what would happen to you if you read it?

I began to get interested in my faith right around the time a lot of BS filtered into the parishes by way of the Spirit of Vatican 2. I was given a bible at my confirmation by my Methodist grandmother. It was a KJV and was the first bible I owned.

As a child I remember having a children’s bible with great illustrations and major events stories, and there was a family bible no one was allowed to touch. We did not read, study, pray or do any of the things encouraged by the Church.

I did not learn how to do these things until I left the Church and sojourned among my separated brethren.

I never had the sense that it was not “allowed”, just not encouraged or practiced by traditional Catholic families.

Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.

Here are some other links that might be of interest.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/ForbidBibleReading.pdf

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=300068&language=en

 

[guanophore]

Yes. Of course he was denying Catholic teachings!

Rome was selling indulgences.

Actually, it is a practical impossibility to “sell an indulgence”. It was an abuse of a practice of almsgiving, based on the concept that good deeds cover sins.

“Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.” I Peter 4:8

These sins were already forgiven in Christ, and all that remained is the temporal consequences.

It is a form of reparation, to made amends for wrongs committed, similar to paying for the neighbors window if you break it with a ball or a rock thrown out of the mower.

The abuse of it was so grievous that the Council of Trent decreed that there would no longer be any almsgiving accepted for such reparations, so that even the appearance of “selling” an indulgence could be avoided.

They were making people PAY to get their loved ones out of purgatory. First the population was taught about this fearful place, and then told they would end up there and then had to pay to get people out, including family members, and, hopefully, one day someone would pay to get them out.

It resulted from corrupt clergy, and misinformed Catholics. When the sheep are ignorant and afraid, the wolves can easily enter the flock and wreak havoc.

 So, as you can see, the church was teaching that one was saved by works.

No, the Church has never taught this. There have been poorly trained clerics that taught some wrong doctrine, and there have been corrupted clerics that taught wrong things on purpose to take advantage of the populace, but it was never Church teaching.

This is why Luther was so hurt when he wrote to the Bishop if Mainz. He thought the Bishop did not know what was going on, and he would stop it as soon as he found out. Instead, he just learned that the Bishop was also on the take.

Luther was very respectful and appropriate in this letter. If he had been able to maintain this attitude of charity, things might have gone very differently. He would have become a reformer of the church, rather than creating a schism.

It taught that works saved under all conditions - which is not true and which the CC does include in its statement of faith today.

The Church never taught this. But I do agree, it was a widespread misunderstanding that resulted from the lack of proper catechesis. I remember believing it when I was young, so I think it is a misunderstanding that has persisted for many centuries.

 Thus, the famous Ephesians 2:8 which says that we are saved through faith, by grace and that it is a free gift from God.  This would be what started everything and ended up the way it did.

Not sure what you mean by this. Catholics don’t stop at v. 9 and include v. 10, which puts the works in the proper light.

  I know what ex-communication is.  Luther suffered both.  Ex-communication and dismissal from the church.

GG

Yes, but he developed heretical ideas a long time before either of those happened. There is nothing in the Letter to the Bishop of Mainz that contains any heresy, just a shepherd concerned for his flock, a shepherd appalled by the fleecing of the flock, and the abuse of Church teaching.

 

[Duane1966]

Official Catholic teaching on reading the bible through the years:

Pope* St.* Gregory* I** (died 604 AD)“The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage—and yet you neglect to read them eagerly. Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator.* Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys.”***[Letters,* 5, 46.* (EnchBibl* 31)]The Lindisfarne Gospelsdigitally restored

The publisher of the Catholic Koberger Vulgate Bible(1477 AD)“The Holy Scriptures excel all the learning of the world . . . All believers should watch zealously and exert themselves unremittingly to understand the contents of these most useful and exalted writings, and to retain them in the memory. Holy Scripture is that beautiful garden of Paradise in which the leaves of the commandments grow green, the branches of evangelical counsel sprout . . .”

The publisher of the Catholic Cologne [German] Bible(1480 AD)*writes:**“All Christians should read the Bible with piety and reverence, praying the Holy Ghost, who is the inspirer of the Scriptures, to enable them to understand . . . The learned should make use of the Latin translation of St. Jerome; but the unlearned and simple folk, whether laymen or clergy . . . should read the German translations now supplied, and thus arm themselves against the enemy of our salvation.”**See :Catholic German Language Bibles Before Martin Luther

Decree of the Council of Trent*** April 8, 1546.“ The holy synod] following the examples of the orthodox fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament-seeing that one God is the Author of both…”[Session 4, April 8, 1546.]

Pope Benedict XIV****( 1740-1758* AD)Pope Benedict instructed the bishops of the Papal States that"In ecclesiastical chant care must be taken to insure that the words are perfectly and easily understood…"He quoted the* Synod of Cambrai from the year 1565:"What is sung in choir is destined to instruct the faithful…"and quoting the Council of Cologne from 1536 :"the most important part is made up precisely of the recital of the words of the prophets, the apostles, the Epistle, the Creed, the Preface or the act of thanksgiving, and the Our Father. On account of their importance these texts like all the others must be sung clearly and intelligibly."*—*Pope Benedict XIV, “Annus qui” 19 February AD 1749)

Pope Pius 6th* (April 1st 1778 AD)“BELOVED SON : Health and apostolic benediction. At a time that a vast number of bad books, which most grossly attack the Catholic religion, are circulated even among the unlearned, to the great destruction of souls, you judge exceedingly well, **that the faithful should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures : for these are the most abundant sources which ought to be left open to every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are widely disseminated in these corrupt times : this you have seasonably effected, as you declare, by publishing the sacred writings in the language of your country, suitable to every one’s capacity **…Given at Rome, on the calends of April, 1778, the fourth year of our pontificate.”(Letter to the Most Rev. Anthony Martini, Archbishop Of Florence, on his Italian translation of the Bible which is printed in Haydock’s Bible, revised by the Very Reverend Dr. Husenbeth, 1884 AD. SeePhotograph)

Pope Pius VII* (1742 –1823)in a rescript, April 18, 1820, addressed to the English Bishops, he expressed his wish“to encourage their people to read the Holy Scriptures; for nothing can be more useful, more consoling, and more animating, inasmuch as they serve to confirm the faith, support the hope, and influence the charity of the true Christian.”Catholic Bishops in* AD* 1826“

Q. Do not Catholic Bishops and Popes discourage the reading of the Scriptures?***
A. No; the Catholic clergy are bound to read the Scripture for nearly an hour every day; the Catholic Bishops of Great Britain publicly declared, in 1826, that the circulation of authentic copies of Scripture was never discouraged by the Church”(A Doctrinal Catechism published in AD 1846)*

Third Council of Baltimore** (7 December AD 1884)*“It can hardly be necessary for us to remind you, beloved brethren,** that the most highly valued treasure of every family library, and the most frequently and lovingly made use of, should be the Holy Scriptures… We hope that no family can be found amongst us without a correct version of the Holy Scriptures.”****The Holy Bible, Holy Trinity Edition (Chicago: Catholic Press,1951) p.xxi.

See Pictures of1884 Catholic Biblein America with endorsements from all the Bishops in USA in the opening pages encouraged the laity to read it.**

To be continued…