• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Catholic Church: “Don’t Read the Bible!”

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
183,860
67,025
Woods
✟6,021,263.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We often hear that the Catholic Church has forbidden the reading of the Bible! Have you heard this? Yeah, me too! But, this is another one of those big myths which has worked its way into the popular dialog but one that has not been proved from Church teaching and documents.

There are two good list of quotes from Church documents and leaders of the Church from the early centuries until today.

The second is a list of Catholic Bibles from ancient times that prove the charge against the Catholic Church false, since the Forewords and Prefaces prove that the Catholic Church PROMOTED the reading of Scripture.

Here is the beginning of a long article which gives a TON of information on this topic and proves the Catholic Church has not forbidden the reading of Scripture — but quite the contrary, it has always promoted the reading and study of Scripture by the faithful.

In three parts:

Continued below.
 

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,921
19,930
Flyoverland
✟1,382,172.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
We often hear that the Catholic Church has forbidden the reading of the Bible! Have you heard this? Yeah, me too! But, this is another one of those big myths which has worked its way into the popular dialog but one that has not been proved from Church teaching and documents.

There are two good list of quotes from Church documents and leaders of the Church from the early centuries until today.

The second is a list of Catholic Bibles from ancient times that prove the charge against the Catholic Church false, since the Forewords and Prefaces prove that the Catholic Church PROMOTED the reading of Scripture.

Here is the beginning of a long article which gives a TON of information on this topic and proves the Catholic Church has not forbidden the reading of Scripture — but quite the contrary, it has always promoted the reading and study of Scripture by the faithful.

In three parts:

Continued below.
It is quite easy to get an indulgence for reading the Bible, even a plenary indulgence. I can't count that high to figure out how many I have obtained by Bible reading. Bible reading IS promoted in the Catholic Church, and it's not just something cooked up a few years ago either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
183,860
67,025
Woods
✟6,021,263.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is quite easy to get an indulgence for reading the Bible, even a plenary indulgence. I can't count that high to figure out how many I have obtained by Bible reading. Bible reading IS promoted in the Catholic Church, and it's not just something cooked up a few years ago either.
True but people seem to love those old canards. Especially when it comes to the Catholic Church.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,921
19,930
Flyoverland
✟1,382,172.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
True but people seem to love those old canards. Especially when it comes to the Catholic Church.
Those 'canards' are very ill-informed and very deep seated articles of their faith.
 
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
19,663
4,258
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟252,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Actually, translations of the Bible into the vernacular were forbidden by the Church right
through the Reformation. In Western Europe, the Church didn't forbid reading the Bible
per se, but it could only be written in Classical Latin and only those trained in Classical Latin
could read it. Even back in 1500s, St Teresa of Avila, not trained in Classical Latin could
not read the Bible, as translating it into anything but Classical Latin was prohibited by the
Bishop in Spain. Of course, Catholic priests were trained in Classical Latin, so they for the
most part were the majority who could read it. When the Reformation came, the first thing
Martin Luther did was to translate the Latin Vulgate into German. Then of course other
translations followed and even the Tyndale's Bible, an English translation came out in 1526.
Before the translations, the populace was kept ignorant of the Bible other than what they were
told by Bishops and priest.

Eventually, the Church allowed the Bible to be translated into the vernaculars, in her attempt
to stop Catholics from leaving the Church and joining protestant denominations. Today, the
Church's position is that only the Church can "interpret" the Bible.

Just as the Muslims don't allow it's members to read the Koran in anything other than
Arabic, keeping the members ignorant is the result unless they learn Arabic. I believe that
this was part of the goal by the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation. Heck, people were
burned the stake by the hierarchy for interpreting the Bible.

So, yes the Church didn't prohibit Catholics from reading the Bible, she just didn't encourage
the practice. The result was that Catholics were generally ignorant about the Sacred Scriptures
until Vatican II, when reading the Bible became recommended.

Still, interpretation is still left to the Church, which it should be, as the Church has the history,
traditions and was there from the beginning.
 
Upvote 0

Erose

Newbie
Jul 2, 2010
9,009
1,471
✟75,992.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually, translations of the Bible into the vernacular were forbidden by the Church right
through the Reformation. In Western Europe, the Church didn't forbid reading the Bible
per se, but it could only be written in Classical Latin and only those trained in Classical Latin
could read it. Even back in 1500s, St Teresa of Avila, not trained in Classical Latin could
not read the Bible, as translating it into anything but Classical Latin was prohibited by the
Bishop in Spain. Of course, Catholic priests were trained in Classical Latin, so they for the
most part were the majority who could read it. When the Reformation came, the first thing
Martin Luther did was to translate the Latin Vulgate into German. Then of course other
translations followed and even the Tyndale's Bible, an English translation came out in 1526.
Before the translations, the populace was kept ignorant of the Bible other than what they were
told by Bishops and priest.

Eventually, the Church allowed the Bible to be translated into the vernaculars, in her attempt
to stop Catholics from leaving the Church and joining protestant denominations. Today, the
Church's position is that only the Church can "interpret" the Bible.

Just as the Muslims don't allow it's members to read the Koran in anything other than
Arabic, keeping the members ignorant is the result unless they learn Arabic. I believe that
this was part of the goal by the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation. Heck, people were
burned the stake by the hierarchy for interpreting the Bible.

So, yes the Church didn't prohibit Catholics from reading the Bible, she just didn't encourage
the practice. The result was that Catholics were generally ignorant about the Sacred Scriptures
until Vatican II, when reading the Bible became recommended.

Still, interpretation is still left to the Church, which it should be, as the Church has the history,
traditions and was there from the beginning.
Let us finish the story during the time period that you speak of. The far majority of people were illiterate, elementary schools were not a thing until later, and until sometime after the printing press became common, Bibles were not readily available for anyone, even the literate.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,999
8,473
50
The Wild West
✟789,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
It is quite easy to get an indulgence for reading the Bible, even a plenary indulgence. I can't count that high to figure out how many I have obtained by Bible reading. Bible reading IS promoted in the Catholic Church, and it's not just something cooked up a few years ago either.

I have a mid 20th century Challoner Douai-Rheims and a 1962 Tridentine Hand Missal in my physical library, contributed by my mother, and the Bible in question I am particularly fond of as it was my first interaction with the extremely important books which are also supposed to be in the KJV, being regarded as canonical by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Anglicans alike, but which nearly all printed KJVs omit. Beautiful books, like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus and Tobit.

This particular Douai Rheims contains a table in the back of indulgences for the convenience of the Roman Catholics it was printed to serve. I have heard that these have become rare in more recent Douai Rheims bibles.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,806
1,316
✟487,628.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Actually, translations of the Bible into the vernacular were forbidden by the Church right
through the Reformation. In Western Europe, the Church didn't forbid reading the Bible
per se, but it could only be written in Classical Latin and only those trained in Classical Latin
could read it. Even back in 1500s, St Teresa of Avila, not trained in Classical Latin could
not read the Bible, as translating it into anything but Classical Latin was prohibited by the
Bishop in Spain. Of course, Catholic priests were trained in Classical Latin, so they for the
most part were the majority who could read it. When the Reformation came, the first thing
Martin Luther did was to translate the Latin Vulgate into German. Then of course other
translations followed and even the Tyndale's Bible, an English translation came out in 1526.
Before the translations, the populace was kept ignorant of the Bible other than what they were
told by Bishops and priest.

Eventually, the Church allowed the Bible to be translated into the vernaculars, in her attempt
to stop Catholics from leaving the Church and joining protestant denominations. Today, the
Church's position is that only the Church can "interpret" the Bible.

Just as the Muslims don't allow it's members to read the Koran in anything other than
Arabic, keeping the members ignorant is the result unless they learn Arabic. I believe that
this was part of the goal by the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation. Heck, people were
burned the stake by the hierarchy for interpreting the Bible.

So, yes the Church didn't prohibit Catholics from reading the Bible, she just didn't encourage
the practice. The result was that Catholics were generally ignorant about the Sacred Scriptures
until Vatican II, when reading the Bible became recommended.

Still, interpretation is still left to the Church, which it should be, as the Church has the history,
traditions and was there from the beginning.
The Latin Vulgate St. Jerome translated in the 4th century was a translation into the venacular to accommodate the large number of people who spoke Latin in the Roman empire. The Church never forbade translation into the venacular and made it a priority where it made sense.

What people often fail to realize is what a monumental task that was. All by hand. As the Church expanded, hundreds of different dialects to deal with. People seem to think it was some minor task the Church wasn't willing to do instead of recognizng the enormity of what the Church actually did over time. And no, John Wycliffe wasn't the first to attempt to try to translate the Bible into English, the Venerable Bede was 600 years before. Wycliffe was the first to complete a translation into English, but English speakers had at least portions of the Bible available to them long before that.

Even today, with all of our technology there are millions of people in the world who do not have a copy of the Bible in their native langauge. There are groups that try to remedy this problem, but they're chasing a moving target because there are about 6500 languages in the world and that doesn't account for all the variances in regional dialects of those languages.

And frankly, why should the Church have encouraged people to read the Scriptures? Literacy rates really didn't change until the last 150-200 years. The ability to even afford a Bible didn't change until the printing press came along. Why encourage people to read the Scriptures when they could neither afford a Bible or read it? Those claims against the Church are so out of touch with the reality of the world the Church has been in for most of our existence they would be humorous if so many people didn't buy into them. But Catholics should work to set the record straight, not encourage it.

What the Church did do was make sure that if you attended Mass and were attentive you would hear the Scripture proclaimed and you could come to know and love them. Mother Church has been reading the Scriptures to her children for 2000 years and people want to come along and try to claim the Church didn't value people learning about Scripture. It's simply nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
19,663
4,258
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟252,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Let us finish the story during the time period that you speak of. The far majority of people were illiterate, elementary schools were not a thing until later, and until sometime after the printing press became common, Bibles were not readily available for anyone, even the literate.
This is true, but again, by the time of the Reformation, more people were literate.
As I posted, St Teresa of Avila, who was literate, could not read Classical Latin
and the Bible was not allowed to be translated into Spanish or anything but Latin.
Heck, St Teresa as well as others wrote books in their own tongue, but could not
read the Latin Bible.
 
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
19,663
4,258
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟252,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Latin Vulgate St. Jerome translated in the 4th century was a translation into the venacular to accommodate the large number of people who spoke Latin in the Roman empire. The Church never forbade translation into the venacular and made it a priority where it made sense.

What people often fail to realize is what a monumental task that was. All by hand. As the Church expanded, hundreds of different dialects to deal with. People seem to think it was some minor task the Church wasn't willing to do instead of recognizng the enormity of what the Church actually did over time. And no, John Wycliffe wasn't the first to attempt to try to translate the Bible into English, the Venerable Bede was 600 years before. Wycliffe was the first to complete a translation into English, but English speakers had at least portions of the Bible available to them long before that.

Even today, with all of our technology there are millions of people in the world who do not have a copy of the Bible in their native langauge. There are groups that try to remedy this problem, but they're chasing a moving target because there are about 6500 languages in the world and that doesn't account for all the variances in regional dialects of those languages.

And frankly, why should the Church have encouraged people to read the Scriptures? Literacy rates really didn't change until the last 150-200 years. The ability to even afford a Bible didn't change until the printing press came along. Why encourage people to read the Scriptures when they could neither afford a Bible or read it? Those claims against the Church are so out of touch with the reality of the world the Church has been in for most of our existence they would be humorous if so many people didn't buy into them. But Catholics should work to set the record straight, not encourage it.

What the Church did do was make sure that if you attended Mass and were attentive you would hear the Scripture proclaimed and you could come to know and love them. Mother Church has been reading the Scriptures to her children for 2000 years and people want to come along and try to claim the Church didn't value people learning about Scripture. It's simply nonsense.
I know that Latin was the language of the West when St Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate.

However, the language changed and by the Middle Ages, people didn't understand classical Latin.

People were literally burned at the stake for translating the Bible into the vernacular. William Tyndale
was one who was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English.

The more we accept that the Catholic Church has dirty laundry in it's history, the more we understand
who God's will was used to preserve her, but also to spread the faith to others.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,806
1,316
✟487,628.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I know that Latin was the language of the West when St Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate.

However, the language changed and by the Middle Ages, people didn't understand classical Latin.

People were literally burned at the stake for translating the Bible into the vernacular. William Tyndale
was one who was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English.

The more we accept that the Catholic Church has dirty laundry in it's history, the more we understand
who God's will was used to preserve her, but also to spread the faith to others.
The Catholic Church certainly has dirty laundry in her history. But a lot of things have also just been made up, and we should not simply accept those as fact and perpetuate them, which is what you are doing.

You said above that at the time of the Reformation most people were literate. That is not true.

"Prior to the seventeenth century, all states in Western Europe exhibit literacy rates close to the average of eighteen percent. During the seventeenth century, most Western European countries experience increases in literacy rates, yet only two experience significant growth above the average rate of 25 percent: The Netherlands and England, both of whom increased their literacy rates to 53 percent of their populations"


And Tyndale was not burned at the stake for translating the Bible into the vernacular. His crime was heresy, which at the time was a crime against the state and his execution was carried out by the state. A good review of what actually happened can be found here:


The Catholic Church believes it has a sacred obligation to guard Sacred Scripture. When somebody translates it in error, they are not promoting the Word of God, they are desecrating it. A good example today is the translation put out by the Jehovah Witnesses that changes John 1:1 to read "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Because the Church no longer has the authority of the state to help police it, people can put forth all kinds of translations that are heretical today. We can certainly debate whether it was right or wrong for the state to execute someone for heresy, but at the time it was considered an offense against the crown. But to promote the fallacy that the Church was trying to prevent Scripture from being translated into the venacular is simply false. The Church banned unauthorized translations because they wanted to guarantee what was promoted as the Word of God in fact was the unadulterated Word of God.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,999
8,473
50
The Wild West
✟789,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Let us finish the story during the time period that you speak of. The far majority of people were illiterate, elementary schools were not a thing until later, and until sometime after the printing press became common, Bibles were not readily available for anyone, even the literate.

Indeed. Let us also consider:

It is not the case that the population was kept ignorant of the Bible, in that those who were even somewhat educated would be able to understand the lections read at Mass and the Divine Office, and speaking of the latter, it has generally always been available in cathedrals, the problem with what Robert Taft SJ, memory eternal, refers to as the “devotionalization” of the Divine Office in his excellent history The Liturgy of the Hours East and West being largely a parish problem.

It must be stressed that in the Medieval period, furthermore, Latin was still widely understood, as it remained the Lingua Franca of the age, except in England, where it was used alongside Norman French, hence the origin of the term Lingua Franca, and in Southeastern Europe and Asia Minor and the former Byzantine Empire, where Greek was the Lingua Franca, and the Slavic lands where Church Slavonic served as the Lingua Franca.

And in Croatia and Dalmatia, the Roman Catholic Church celebrated the Galgolithic Mass, which is the Roman Mass in a dialect of Church Slavonic written using Galgolithic Latin rather than Cyrillic characters, into the 1970s, and even today on occasion. And likewise part of the raison d’etre for the Byzantine Catholic Churches and other Sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches is comprehensibility, as the Roman church sought to ensure that the Christian people in lands which came under the rule of Roman Catholic monarchs retained worship in a form comprehensible to them, and later on went so far as to prohibit the imposition of the Latin Rite on communities accustomed to worship in one of the Eastern liturgical rites.

And we must also consider that Latin, even the Classical Latin of the Mass, which is shared with the Vetus Latina Bible originally translated along with the liturgical texts in the second century at the direction of Pope St. Victor for the benefit of those citizens of the Western Roman Empire who did not speak Greek. In the city of Rome, these were predominantly middle and working class citizens and also slaves, who did not benefit from access to the Rhaetor, the Roman secondary school, or even the Grammaticus, let alone education in the Greek tongue, which was something that was widespread only because the upper classes desired it and the merchants and many civil servants and military officers having anything to do with the Eastern empire required it). This helped greatly in Rome but even more so in the provinces of the Western Empire, where outside of the Province, as the Romans liked to refer to Southern Gaul (hence the name Provence for the beautiful Mediterranean coast of France), knowledge of Greek became less and less widespread, so that one might well find it scarce even among the upper classes in a place such as London or Trier, for Latin was the language “understanded by the people” to borrow a phrase from Cranmer.

And as @narnia59 noted, the Roman church, when the Vetus Latina started to become harder to understand with the emergence of the Vulgar Latin dialects which in turn developed into the Romance Languages, the Roman church responded by commissioning St. Jerome to do a new translation, which became the Vulgate, and this work was an extremely important contribution to all of Christendom, in that, like the Syriac Peshitta and the Ge’ez language scriptures of Ethiopia, and the Septuagint, this directly translated the books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew and Aramaic in which they were written.

These translations help provide us with multiple sources of Old Testament material, which is invaluable when we consider the tragic loss of not only Origen’s Hexapla but several of the Old Testament versions it contained (such as Symmachus and Aquila).

In addition, even in the periods of peak illiteracy during the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church worked around the lack of literacy through vernacular preaching, and indeed the Dominicans were originally established specifically for this purpose, to preach to the Albigensians to persuade them to convert back to Christianity from Gnosticism. St. Dominic is one of my favorite saints for this reason. And the other Mendicant orders which developed concurrently with or subsequent to the Order of Preachers (the former title of the Dominicans), particularly the Franciscans, but also the Carmelites, Servites, Minims, and the ransoming orders*, the Mercedarians and Trinitarians, also developed a reputation for excellent preaching, as did the various groups of Canons Regular, such as the Augustinians and Norbertines. The Norbertines, like the Dominicans and Carmelites, also developed a standardized liturgy for use wherever they were assigned, and in many respects, the beautiful Dominican, Carmelite and Norbertine uses of the Roman liturgical rite paved the way for the later introduction of the standardized Tridentine mass and divine office in the 16th century. Likewise, the Tridentine mass and the standardization it provided helped facilitate the implementation of vernacular liturgies following Vatican II (since much of the Novus Ordo Missae is directly adopted from the Tridentine liturgy, for example, the Liturgy of the Word, and Eucharistic Prayer no. 1, which is based on the Tridentine form of the ancient anaphora known as the Roman Canon.**

*These two orders were founded for the special purpose of raising funds to ransom the large numbers of Christians abducted by Islamic terrorist pirates from North Africa, who somewhat like the Somali pirates of recent years, held them for ransom (unless they converted to Islam). These two orders added an additional vow to the standard vows of poverty, chastity and obedience which characterize the other mendicant orders, in that Trinitarian and Mercedarian Friars additionally agree to substitute themselves for, and take the place of, any hostage who is at risk of being converted to Islam. The importance of the work of these orders is one of the many unsung and underappreciated triumphs of the Roman Catholic Church, in that when the Trinitarians and Mercedarians were formed, at the end of the Middle Ages, Islamic pirates, protected by the rulers of North Africa, did not limit themselves to piracy at sea, but rather frequently raided the coastal highways of Southern Europe, so that even ordinary people walking from Naples to Rome on the old Roman highways were at risk of abduction.

**The beauty of the Roman Canon as an anaphora was not lost even on the Eastern Orthodox, for the Russian Old Believers made use of a Sluzhbenik, or Liturgikon, basically a priest’s service book, that contained in addition to the more well known Divine Liturgies of St. Mark and St. James, the Divine Liturgy of St. Peter, which consisted of the Byzantine synaxis, or Liturgy of the Word, with the Roman Canon.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Chesster
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
19,663
4,258
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟252,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Catholic Church certainly has dirty laundry in her history. But a lot of things have also just been made up, and we should not simply accept those as fact and perpetuate them, which is what you are doing.

You said above that at the time of the Reformation most people were literate. That is not true.

"Prior to the seventeenth century, all states in Western Europe exhibit literacy rates close to the average of eighteen percent. During the seventeenth century, most Western European countries experience increases in literacy rates, yet only two experience significant growth above the average rate of 25 percent: The Netherlands and England, both of whom increased their literacy rates to 53 percent of their populations"


And Tyndale was not burned at the stake for translating the Bible into the vernacular. His crime was heresy, which at the time was a crime against the state and his execution was carried out by the state. A good review of what actually happened can be found here:


The Catholic Church believes it has a sacred obligation to guard Sacred Scripture. When somebody translates it in error, they are not promoting the Word of God, they are desecrating it. A good example today is the translation put out by the Jehovah Witnesses that changes John 1:1 to read "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Because the Church no longer has the authority of the state to help police it, people can put forth all kinds of translations that are heretical today. We can certainly debate whether it was right or wrong for the state to execute someone for heresy, but at the time it was considered an offense against the crown. But to promote the fallacy that the Church was trying to prevent Scripture from being translated into the venacular is simply false. The Church banned unauthorized translations because they wanted to guarantee what was promoted as the Word of God in fact was the unadulterated Word of God.
I use Catholic history for my information. At the same time, I also see modern apologetics involved in order
to try and whitewash what took place.

The sooner we accept the dirty laundry that is true, rather than try and justify it, the sooner we'll grow
spiritually.

Fact is, between Judaism and Christianity, prophets and saints were persecuted by their own religions.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,806
1,316
✟487,628.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I use Catholic history for my information. At the same time, I also see modern apologetics involved in order
to try and whitewash what took place.

The sooner we accept the dirty laundry that is true, rather than try and justify it, the sooner we'll grow
spiritually.

Fact is, between Judaism and Christianity, prophets and saints were persecuted by their own religions.
I would like to know what you think has been whitewashed. I cited the information I gave; I haven't seen you provide any references. And I am not trying to make the point that people/leaders in the Church haven't made serious errors. I simply recognize that along with that a great deal of lies have been perpetuated to try to discredit the Church as well, and don't think we should fall for them and repeat them.

I don't think there is any "group" that doesn't persecute their own. For all people try to make of the Church persecuting scientists there is no comparison to what the scientific community does to their own when they don't fall in line. Eventually many of them have been vindicated when what other scientists considered to be crazy ideas are proven true, but in the meantime they've had their careers ruined by the persecution from their peers. So I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make about that is either.
 
Upvote 0

Sword of the Lord

In need of a physician.
Dec 29, 2012
14,062
7,683
Not in Heaven yet
✟180,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
We'd simply be liars if we said that at no time was it forbidden for lay people to own and read the scriptures on their own. But this hasn't been the case in a long, long time.

I think this myth is still in circulation because many Protestant denominations have people bring their Bible to church, but Catholics do not as their is no need. So they see this and assume lay people are not allowed to read the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,806
1,316
✟487,628.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
We'd simply be liars if we said that at no time was it forbidden for lay people to own and read the scriptures on their own. But this hasn't been the case in a long, long time.

I think this myth is still in circulation because many Protestant denominations have people bring their Bible to church, but Catholics do not as their is no need. So they see this and assume lay people are not allowed to read the Bible.
I think part of the problem is when people say "the Catholic Church" banned reading of the Bible by the laity. That implies it was a doctrinal position of the Church as a whole, and that has never been true. Certain translations were banned for sure because they were deemed unreliable. And specific local bishops groups did on occasion place bans on the laity to read the Bible. The question though comes down to intent. Protestants would claim that intent would be because if the laity could read the Scriptures for themselves then they would find what the Church teaches to be anti-Scriptural. There is no evidence that was ever the case. I think you see legitimate concern that when someone who is untrained in theology and hermeneutics begins to study the Bible and especially on their own without the guidance of the Church, there is a high likelihood they will misinterpret it and as a consequence become a heretic. And history has proven that concern to be true, no matter how much spin Protestants would like to put on that. If it weren't true then they would have found agreement on the meaning of Scripture and not split into factions over varying interpretations. They can't all be right.

It's much like the claim that Catholic Church used to chain Bibles in the churches so that people couldn't read them. There is some truth that Bibles were sometimes chained in churches. But was the intent so that people couldn't read them? Hardly, it was the opposite. The intent was so that if someone could read they could come to the Church and have access to the Scriptures since rarely would they be able to afford a copy of their own, and it was chained to keep an unscrupulous sort from taking what was probably the only copy the local church had. Anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that if the intent had been to keep the Scriptures from the people the Bible would have been placed out of sight under lock and key, not in plain view with access.

Intent is everything. And while a certain fact may have some truth to it, falsehoods about intent can and do abound. And those are just as much lies and just as damaging.

Regarding taking your Bible to church with you, certainly never a practice in the early Church although I've had Protestants try to tell me it was. They sincerely believe first century Christians went off to worship with their own personal Bible tucked under their arm every Sunday with no concept of the fact that the only available copies of Scripture were those hand-copied and circulated between local congregations. But Protestants removed what had been the central core of Christian worship for the entire life of the Church -- to offer sacrifice. They then had a void to fill and they did that with Bible study. But Bible study, while a truly good thing, is not worship.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Actually, translations of the Bible into the vernacular were forbidden by the Church right
through the Reformation. In Western Europe, the Church didn't forbid reading the Bible
per se, but it could only be written in Classical Latin and only those trained in Classical Latin
could read it. Even back in 1500s, St Teresa of Avila, not trained in Classical Latin could
not read the Bible, as translating it into anything but Classical Latin was prohibited by the
Bishop in Spain. Of course, Catholic priests were trained in Classical Latin, so they for the
most part were the majority who could read it. When the Reformation came, the first thing
Martin Luther did was to translate the Latin Vulgate into German. Then of course other
translations followed and even the Tyndale's Bible, an English translation came out in 1526.
Before the translations, the populace was kept ignorant of the Bible other than what they were
told by Bishops and priest.

Eventually, the Church allowed the Bible to be translated into the vernaculars, in her attempt
to stop Catholics from leaving the Church and joining protestant denominations. Today, the
Church's position is that only the Church can "interpret" the Bible.

Just as the Muslims don't allow it's members to read the Koran in anything other than
Arabic, keeping the members ignorant is the result unless they learn Arabic. I believe that
this was part of the goal by the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation. Heck, people were
burned the stake by the hierarchy for interpreting the Bible.

So, yes the Church didn't prohibit Catholics from reading the Bible, she just didn't encourage
the practice. The result was that Catholics were generally ignorant about the Sacred Scriptures
until Vatican II, when reading the Bible became recommended.

Still, interpretation is still left to the Church, which it should be, as the Church has the history,
traditions and was there from the beginning.
As the Church being shepherds and the ones on the line for souls it makes sense that folks should not try to figure it out because St Peter was pretty [no mincing words] serious about damnation if we twist the meanings and words of the written.


So it behooves the shepherds to watch over the flock.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,806
1,316
✟487,628.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
As the Church being shepherds and the ones on the line for souls it makes sense that folks should not try to figure it out because St Peter was pretty [no mincing words] serious about damnation if we twist the meanings and words of the written.


So it behooves the shepherds to watch over the flock.
This. Scripture says that our shepherds will give an account for how they watched over our souls. Intent is quite important and when people twist the intent to be something different than it actually is, they will also be accountable for every careless word they uttered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WarriorAngel
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,692
6,096
Minnesota
✟339,105.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Actually, translations of the Bible into the vernacular were forbidden by the Church right
through the Reformation. In Western Europe, the Church didn't forbid reading the Bible
per se, but it could only be written in Classical Latin and only those trained in Classical Latin
could read it. Even back in 1500s, St Teresa of Avila, not trained in Classical Latin could
not read the Bible, as translating it into anything but Classical Latin was prohibited by the
Bishop in Spain. Of course, Catholic priests were trained in Classical Latin, so they for the
most part were the majority who could read it. When the Reformation came, the first thing
Martin Luther did was to translate the Latin Vulgate into German. Then of course other
translations followed and even the Tyndale's Bible, an English translation came out in 1526.
Before the translations, the populace was kept ignorant of the Bible other than what they were
told by Bishops and priest.
After Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. In England long before Wycliffe and Tyndale, there were many translations of Biblical text by Catholics. To mention just a few of them, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants and much that was Catholic was sold off or destroyed. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible in 1455. By the way, much of the NT of the King James Bible came from a hurried Greek translation by a Catholic priest name Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims) of the Bible (the New Testament was first published in 1582, reprinted in 1600, 1621, and 1633, and a number of times in later centuries), they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England.
 
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
19,663
4,258
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟252,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
After Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. In England long before Wycliffe and Tyndale, there were many translations of Biblical text by Catholics. To mention just a few of them, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants and much that was Catholic was sold off or destroyed. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible in 1455. By the way, much of the NT of the King James Bible came from a hurried Greek translation by a Catholic priest name Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims) of the Bible (the New Testament was first published in 1582, reprinted in 1600, 1621, and 1633, and a number of times in later centuries), they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England.
Those translations were not authorized for the laity, but for clergy. They were limited and mostly made by the clergy
as a means of teaching the laity in homilies and such. The Catholic public in Western Europe, outside of the clergy,
had no authorized translation of the Bible into their own language.

You can't deny that the Church persecuted put to death those like Wycliffe and Tyndale. Keeping the populace
ignorant was the result of the persecution, there is no two ways about it.

As I posted earlier, in 1500's Spain, no translations other than Classical Latin were permitted and St Teresa of Avila,
was not able to read the Bible. She had to rely on clergy to teach her what was in it. Thank God St. John of the Cross
could read Classical Latin, as he was a priest. Heck, even he ended up under house arrest by his own order for his
teachings on spirituality.

Once the Reformation by Martin Luther took place, others followed suit and made other translations and of course
other denominations. I'm not sure how many denominations exist today, but back in the 1970's, it was estimated that
there were 20,000 different denominations.

So, the Catholic Church was wrong to stop translations that the public could read, but she was right in that
interpretation would run amok as it did with new denominations springing up every time some one picked up a Bible
and thought they had the absolute truth.

I'm not condemning the Catholic Church alone, for mistakes were made across the Christian world. However, the Church
got involved with the nobility of Europe and corruption led to the Reformation to begin with.
 
Upvote 0