Censorship?

[Amo2]

Why included a mere local example in the small number you have posted if you have all of these better and great examples? Please provide your one best example, detailing how sweeping it was (the number of countries) and how long it was.

As to your last comments about the 1980s, that's absolutely true. There were a number of priests who said reading the Bible might be difficult or one could come away with misunderstandings. There were times when individual Bible study was indeed not encouraged, and most of the understanding of the Bible came from homilies at mass. In fact for the majority of the history of the Catholic Church the people were illiterate. That's a different subject than your claim of banning the Bible from the people and trying to hide the Word of God from the people. Attitudes about individual Bible study have changed and we can have a later discussion about that if you wish. I will say that prayer and a deep personal relationship with Jesus have been a priority over Bible study for many Catholics. But Bible-study can bring us closer to Jesus. Realize too that Catholics are NOT Bible-only, that one can be a saint without picking up a Bible, as were the Fatima children. As I have explained the Bible is a series of liturgical books that were used at readings at mass during the early centuries of the Catholic Church. Readings varied from area to area and the decision as to what books made the final 73 canon spanned centuries and did not come until the late 300s.

We of course have some strong disagreements. If one can read and they have a bible or easy access to one, then they have a responsibility to read the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ, His prophets, and Apostles. There would be no Jews, Catholics or Christians if not for the holy scriptures, the testimony of which all truth is based, established upon, and authenticated. This in accordance with the testimony of scripture itself. Nor did the Catholic Church as we know it today, give us the holy scriptures. Nor did any human institution see to it that God's word was and has been preserved, but by the providence of God alone, whom all authentic bible believers would attribute such miraculous preservation to. Certainly not taking credit for what God has done unto themsleves. Even if, they were honored as the vessel through whom He accomplished His will.

Jhn 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Jhn 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Jhn 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

We shall be judged by the word of God, which God Himself has preserved for humanity, through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is verily the WORD OF GOD. Through His chosen prophets and Apostles. Not Popes, prelates, denominations, governments, or institutions of any kind. Save the authentic church who preaches and teaches the truths of the word of God above all else. Which church is defined exactly by the word of God, not any institutions, governments, religions, or denominations of this world. Amen!

If Roman Catholics remained largely illiterate for well over a thousand years, and therefore unable to read or understand scripture, whose fault is that? That of their religious or political leaders? Concerning the biblical testimony provided above, who should have been most motivated to ensure that their people could read and understand holy scripture? The clergy and royalty could read and understand in Latin and their own languages, why didn't either seek to make their populations literate as well? Especially the clergy of Catholicism? They not only had no emphasis on upon making people literate, but actually kept and still keep large portions of their services expressed in a dead language that most do not know today. Why?

One of the first things Protestants wanted to do, was supply people with copies of holy scripture that they could actually read in their own languages, which naturally lead to an emphasis upon education for all as well. Which is nothing less than to say that a great many Roman Catholics who no longer agreed with their leaders about what the scriptures teach, or even being able to have and read for themselves among other issues, did so without clergy approval. Then for this reason were they excommunicated, branded as heretics, and eventually labeled Protestants.

Either the above is true, or there was as a matter of fact, a great many non Catholics within Catholic claimed nations who disagreed with and never had submitted to the papacy. It doesn't work both ways. So which is the actual case? Did the Catholic church forcibly mandate its teachings over a great many people who never agreed with them in direct contradiction to our Lord's teachings and example? Or did a great many Roman Catholics who had and have no say in the leadership of their denomination, ignore and eventually refuse their leadership unto the great strife of the Protestant Reformation?

Nevertheless, public education became greater and then established unto literacy after the Protestant Reformation, as a natural result of the same. That is to say the natural enlightening effect of a people able to read and understand holy scripture for themselves, if or when they will maintain a desire to do so. Which a great many no longer have a desire for today. Therefore also are we witnessing a moral and societal decline. There is no question but that, by the 1980's of course, literacy was no longer a problem. Though it seems to be reappearing today, which is another subject altogether, though not completely detached from this one.

I have already supplied a great many sources and historical documentation of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church trying to forbid people from having and reading the scriptures in their own languages for whatever reasons. The thread containing them was locked down. As no doubt this one will be as well, as soon as certain people decide they are to offended by what others have said and or pointed out. So be it. I will no doubt post them again eventually, but for now I will proceed with examining the spirit or attitude that lead to such in the first place, as such is the underlying reason for censorship. Since you are set upon defending the Catholic clergies reasons for the very few instances in which you claim they did so, perhaps this would be a good time for you to more fully expound upon what exactly their reasoning was. What were the problems they had with the translations they forbade? That all may understand this reasoning for themselves please. And then perhaps explain the Catholic churches position of why they think they had and have the authority to censor people not of their faith, or even of their faith who disagree with what exactly they do censor.

 

[Amo2]

The following excerpts are taken from the first papal encyclical after the French Revolution, during which time the French people rejected the authority of the Catholic Church, their Catholic monarchy, and religion altogether. Which included the removal of the present Pope into exile, and the disbanding of the Vatican. They reveal her new efforts to undo all that the masses effected in their wholesale rejection of her usurped authority just over three decades prior to its publication. Some of those she considers enemies of this desired purpose are identified in the encyclical as well. The link provided above the quoted excerpts, is where the encyclical may be viewed in its entirety. Emphasis is mine, my comments are in blue.

Mirari Vos - Papal Encyclicals

Mirari Vos

On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism

Pope Gregory XVI - 1832

ON LIBERALISM AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM

To All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World.
Venerable Brothers, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction.​

We think that you wonder why, from the time of Our assuming the pontificate, We have not yet sent a letter to you as is customary and as Our benevolence for you demanded. We wanted very much to address you by that voice by which We have been commanded, in the person of blessed Peter, to strengthen the brethren.[1] You know what storms of evil and toil, at the beginning of Our pontificate, drove Us suddenly into the depths of the sea. If the right hand of God had not given Us strength, We would have drowned as the result of the terrible conspiracy of impious men. The mind recoils from renewing this by enumerating so many dangers; instead We bless the Father of consolation Who, having overthrown all enemies, snatched Us from the present danger. When He had calmed this violent storm, He gave Us relief from fear. At once We decided to advise you on healing the wounds of Israel; but the mountain of concerns We needed to address in order to restore public order delayed Us…………………

Is the Catholic church the New Covenant Israel?

4. We come to you grieving and sorrowful because We know that you are concerned for the faith in these difficult times. Now is truly the time in which the powers of darkness winnow the elect like wheat.[3] “The earth mourns and fades away….And the earth is infected by the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinances, they have broken the everlasting covenant.”[4]

Whose laws had they transgressed, and whose "everlasting" covenant had they broken? Is disobeying the Catholic church, and breaking covenant with it, disobeying and breaking the everlasting covenant with God?

5. We speak of the things which you see with your own eyes, which We both bemoan. Depravity exults; science is impudent; liberty, dissolute. The holiness of the sacred is despised; the majesty of divine worship is not only disapproved by evil men, but defiled and held up to ridicule. Hence sound doctrine is perverted and errors of all kinds spread boldly. The laws of the sacred, the rights, institutions, and discipline — none are safe from the audacity of those speaking evil. Our Roman See is harassed violently and the bonds of unity are daily loosened and severed. The divine authority of the Church is opposed and her rights shorn off. She is subjected to human reason and with the greatest injustice exposed to the hatred of the people and reduced to vile servitude. The obedience due bishops is denied and their rights are trampled underfoot. Furthermore, academies and schools resound with new, monstrous opinions, which openly attack the Catholic faith; this horrible and nefarious war is openly and even publicly waged. Thus, by institutions and by the example of teachers, the minds of the youth are corrupted and a tremendous blow is dealt to religion and the perversion of morals is spread. So the restraints of religion are thrown off, by which alone kingdoms stand. We see the destruction of public order, the fall of principalities, and the overturning of all legitimate power approaching. Indeed this great mass of calamities had its inception in the heretical societies and sects in which all that is sacrilegious, infamous, and blasphemous has gathered as bilge water in a ship’s hold, a congealed mass of all filth.

6. These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

7. Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: “the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty”[5] and the admonition of Pope Agatho: “nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”[6] Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings.[7] To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: “He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church.”[8]…………………….

Is the cause of Roman Catholicism the cause of God? Are all those who oppose her congealed masses of heretical filth? Are they blasphemous for doing so? Are all those who seek to separate themsleves from the Church of Rome audacious, infamous, bilge waters in ships holds?

9. Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced…………

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”[20]

14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

Should the Catholic Church never be subject to the authorities of the many nations she exists within? Will all perish who do not hold the catholic faith whole and inviolate? Are claims of liberty of conscience for all, indifferentism, erroneous, and absurd propositions? Is freedom to publish one's beliefs freely for all who care to read such, harmful and to be denounced? Does the Catholic church have the right to do so, while denying to all others she wishes? Is all such declaration not at exact variance the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of The United States of America? This dress to be continued in the next post.

 

[Amo2]

16. The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books.[23] It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest “that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful.”[24] This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine.[25] “We must fight valiantly,” Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, “as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames.”[26] Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.

Did Jesus or His apostles really teach the banning and burning of books? Is it not most obvious that the Catholic church did and does condone censorship and the burning of books, which included all translations of the bible she did not approve of? Does the above declaration not conclusively state that the papacy should have the right to decree and maintain book banning and burning?

17. We have learned that certain teachings are being spread among the common people in writings which attack the trust and submission due to princes; the torches of treason are being lit everywhere. Care must be taken lest the people, being deceived, are led away from the straight path. May all recall, according to the admonition of the apostle that “there is no authority except from God; what authority there is has been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists authority resists the ordinances of God; and those who resist bring on themselves condemnation.”[27] Therefore both divine and human laws cry out against those who strive by treason and sedition to drive the people from confidence in their princes and force them from their government…………

19. These beautiful examples of the unchanging subjection to the princes necessarily proceeded from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion. They condemn the detestable insolence and improbity of those who, consumed with the unbridled lust for freedom, are entirely devoted to impairing and destroying all rights of dominion while bringing servitude to the people under the slogan of liberty. Here surely belong the infamous and wild plans of the Waldensians, the Beghards, the Wycliffites, and other such sons of Belial, who were the sores and disgrace of the human race; they often received a richly deserved anathema from the Holy See. For no other reason do experienced deceivers devote their efforts, except so that they, along with Luther, might joyfully deem themselves “free of all.” To attain this end more easily and quickly, they undertake with audacity any infamous plan whatever.

20. Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty. ……………………………

Was it really better when church and state were united and all citizens were subject to people whose authority they had nothing to do with establishing over them? Who were abused and even killed by these authorities of disobeying them? Popes, priests, and clergy lorded over them, without any input or consent by them. Kings, Queens, and royalty established by birth and or favor, without the consent or favor of those whom they lorded themselves over? Nor most obviously, any measure of character or even common decency as a great many of them repeatedly demonstrated throughout history? Is not all of the above exactly what democracies and Constitutional governments for and by the people were established to overcome and prevent? Did not these very forms of government arise in the battle against united Papal and monarchial abuses of the dark ages Feudalism of Europe? Directly connected to the Protestant Reformation and or Rationalist movements of many people seeking relief from oppressive united Papal and Monarchial governments? Yes to all of the above.

23. May Our dear sons in Christ, the princes, support these Our desires for the welfare of Church and State with their resources and authority. May they understand that they received their authority not only for the government of the world, but especially for the defense of the Church. They should diligently consider that whatever work they do for the welfare of the Church accrues to their rule and peace. Indeed let them persuade themselves that they owe more to the cause of the faith than to their kingdom. Let them consider it something very great for themselves as We say with Pope St. Leo, “if in addition to their royal diadem the crown of faith may be added.” Placed as if they were parents and teachers of the people, they will bring them true peace and tranquility, if they take special care that religion and piety remain safe. God, after all, calls Himself “King of kings and Lord of lords.”

24. That all of this may come to pass prosperously and happily, let Us raise Our eyes and hands to the most holy Virgin Mary, who alone crushes all heresies, and is Our greatest reliance and the whole reason for Our hope.[33] May she implore by her patronage a successful outcome for Our plans and actions. Let Us humbly ask of the Prince of the Apostles, Peter and his co-apostle Paul that all of you may stand as a wall lest a foundation be laid other than that which has already been laid. Relying on this happy hope, We trust that the Author and Crown of Our faith Jesus Christ will console Us in all these Our tribulations. We lovingly impart the apostolic benediction to you, venerable brothers, and to the sheep committed to your care as a sign of heavenly aid.

Given in Rome at St. Mary Major, on August 15, the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin, in the year of Our Lord 1832, the second year of Our Pontificate.

Have all governments and earthly authorities received such by God for the defense of Roman Catholicism? Do they owe more to the papacy than to their own nations and or citizens? Is the papacy not still to this very day commanding these very same things by continually supporting and calling for the submission of all nations to international organizations of unelected officials, over and above the wishes and desires of their own citizens? Yes she is, as will be demonstrated by her own words many times over on this thread, God willing. This is not to mention her support of internet, news, and social media censorship as well.

Should it be any surprise that an institution promoting and supporting such sentiments as those quoted above, should have forbidden a great many books and translations of the bible according to the dictates of the institutions own corporate conscience and in violation of a great many others, corporate or individual?
Yes it should, as such sentiments are more in line with the following Catholic proclamations as well.

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”(Unam Sanctam)

’If Catholics ever attain, which they surely will, though at a distant day, the immense numerical majority in the United States, religious liberty, as at present understood, will be at an end. So say our enemies; so say we.’ (Our Sunday Visitor, pg. 3, Apr. 18, 1915)

Am I a bigot for quoting, addressing, and stating my opinions regarding the above quotes from actual documents? Should I be censored for doing so? I guess we shall see. The above is just the first exhibit of the many examples revealing a spirit and attitude which most obviously would and does support censorship simply for disagreement, not actual and real harmful content. In any case, obviously the Vatican continued a manner and spirit supportive of censorship even of holy scripture they claimed was dangerous well into the 1800's.

 

[Amo2]

There are, admittedly, missteps in church history. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater by painting things with such broad and inflexible brush. Especially not by mischaracterizing and misrepresenting what took place to fit a narrative.

I have begun and do intend to greatly broaden the brush unto proper factual narrative, established by the Vatican itself throughout history, in her own words. This isn't just a blame game, but rather an investigation into motives of and teachings unto effect. There is plenty wrong to be addressed with all human institutions granted they are around long enough to be infected with the plenty of wrong existing within each one of us. This discussion has nothing to do with anyone being any better than anyone else, as none actually are. We are all infected with sin, and in desperate need of salvation.

 

[jas3]

Did Jesus or His apostles really teach the banning and burning of books?

This is probably a reference to Acts 19:19-20: "Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed."

 

[Valletta]

I have already supplied a great many sources and historical documentation of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church trying to forbid people from having and reading the scriptures in their own languages for whatever reasons. T

As I said, please provide your one best example, detailing how sweeping it was (the number of countries) and how long it was. Two if you can't decide on one. Then we all can if the facts support your claim. You said you posted many sources, pick the best one or two and copy or paste. How hard is that?

If Roman Catholics remained largely illiterate for well over a thousand years, and therefore unable to read or understand scripture, whose fault is that? That of their religious or political leaders? Concerning the biblical testimony provided above, who should have been most motivated to ensure that their people could read and understand holy scripture? The clergy and royalty could read and understand in Latin and their own languages, why didn't either seek to make their populations literate as well? Especially the clergy of Catholicism? They not only had no emphasis on upon making people literate, but actually kept and still keep large portions of their services expressed in a dead language that most do not know today. Why?

I am not going to condemn Jesus or the Apostles and their successors in the Catholic Church for not making the population literate. Jesus sent out his disciples to what . . . ? Not to make people literate or hand out Bibles. Blaming the Catholic Church, the very Church that developed our university system, for not making the public literate is something. As to Latin being the universal language of the Church, it was practical, especially without modern day communications, to have a universal language for a religion that eventually existed in every country in the world. If you wish you can start a different thread on these subjects. Meanwhile, let's see what you come up with for your best example of the Catholic Church censorship of the Bible.

 

[Valletta]

Is the Catholic church the New Covenant Israel?
Whose laws had they transgressed, and whose "everlasting" covenant had they broken? Is disobeying the Catholic church, and breaking covenant with it, disobeying and breaking the everlasting covenant with God?
Is the cause of Roman Catholicism the cause of God? Are all those who oppose her congealed masses of heretical filth? Are they blasphemous for doing so? Are all those who seek to separate themsleves from the Church of Rome audacious, infamous, bilge waters in ships holds?
Should the Catholic Church never be subject to the authorities of the many nations she exists within? Will all perish who do not hold the catholic faith whole and inviolate? Are claims of liberty of conscience for all, indifferentism, erroneous, and absurd propositions? Is freedom to publish one's beliefs freely for all who care to read such, harmful and to be denounced? Does the Catholic church have the right to do so, while denying to all others she wishes? Is all such declaration not at exact variance the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of The United States of America? This dress to be continued in the next post.

This is supposed to be a thread on censorship, not a forum for you to launch more and more attacks against the Catholic Church. Please make an effort to stick to the subject.

 

[Amo2]

This is probably a reference to Acts 19:19-20: "Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed."

Yes it is. The apostles did not command book burnings, those who were converted decided to do this with the books which taught things they no longer believed.

 

[Amo2]

This is supposed to be a thread on censorship, not a forum for you to launch more and more attacks against the Catholic Church. Please make an effort to stick to the subject.

There it is. Valletta has determined that addressing the underlying issues of censorship, which would and did cause an institution to call for censorship and the burning of books, is off topic from the issue of Roman Catholic censorship of books or the bible. Next step I suppose, will be to complain that I am going off topic, and this thread should be locked down or perhaps I should be shut down. Hmmm, seems a little like I don't know, manipulated censorship. So be it. Papal Encyclicals and documents reveal the spirit and attitude of those who have , do, and will no doubt continue to be in favor of censoring those they disagree with. If I cannot even establish these facts by the words of Roman Catholic leadership itself, then why even bother discussing the issue when one side of the issue is allowed to manipulate and or control the parameters of conversation.

Why is quoting directly from Papal Encyclicals and documents and asking pertinent questions about what is said, considered attacking the Catholic Church? If what these documents say is true and right, then why not defend them instead of just declaring all such questions about them, an attack? The document is before you and all interested, with a link to it without any of my questions about it. Why wouldn't people who do not believe in the liberty of conscience, and do believe in censorship and burning of books even by burning them, censor them whenever they have the opportunity to do so. Which is the exact issue we are addressing, concerning the exact issue of censorship or not addressed in the Papal Encyclical under examination. If this is off topic, then what is on topic?

 

[Valletta]

There it is. Valletta has determined that addressing the underlying issues of censorship, which would and did cause an institution to call for censorship and the burning of books, is off topic from the issue of Roman Catholic censorship of books or the bible. Next step I suppose, will be to complain that I am going off topic, and this thread should be locked down or perhaps I should be shut down. Hmmm, seems a little like I don't know, manipulated censorship. So be it. Papal Encyclicals and documents reveal the spirit and attitude of those who have , do, and will no doubt continue to be in favor of censoring those they disagree with. If I cannot even establish these facts by the words of Roman Catholic leadership itself, then why even bother discussing the issue when one side of the issue is allowed to manipulate and or control the parameters of conversation.

Why is quoting directly from Papal Encyclicals and documents and asking pertinent questions about what is said, considered attacking the Catholic Church? If what these documents say is true and right, then why not defend them instead of just declaring all such questions about them, an attack? The document is before you and all interested, with a link to it without any of my questions about it. Why wouldn't people who do not believe in the liberty of conscience, and do believe in censorship and burning of books even by burning them, censor them whenever they have the opportunity to do so. Which is the exact issue we are addressing, concerning the exact issue of censorship or not addressed in the Papal Encyclical under examination. If this is off topic, then what is on topic?

Again, please provide your one best example to support your claims about the Catholic Church effort to keep the Bible out of the hands of the people, detailing how sweeping it was (the number of countries) and how long it was.