![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/06\/BibleChained.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He\u2019s active on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. I used\u00a0Google Translate<\/em>\u00a0to transfer his Portugese text into English.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to Lucas\u2019 article, \u201cConhe\u00e7a toda a persegui\u00e7\u00e3o e proibi\u00e7\u00e3o da Igreja Cat\u00f3lica \u00e0 leitura da B\u00edblia!\u201d<\/a> [Know all the Catholic Church\u2019s persecution against and prohibition of reading the Bible!<\/span><\/em>] (4-28-18). It\u2019s a massive<\/em> article: more than 14,000 words, and there is quite a bit of documentation, too (164 footnotes). But Lucas is only presenting one side<\/em>. Many of his citations need to be understood in larger immediate or historical context.<\/p>\n Moreover, one must also understand that there was plenty of Protestant<\/em> suppression of Bibles (whether justified or not) as well, and on the same basis as the Catholic rationale (they were thought to be dad and\/or dangerous translations<\/em>). By never presenting those<\/em> sorts of facts, an entirely one-sided and unfair perspective is set forth. It\u2019s well worth the time to refute assertions in this article from documented facts of history: to at least give Catholic and fair-minded non-Catholic readers another side of the issue.<\/p>\n Those who seek historical truth will read different perspectives. There is never only one. As the old saying goes, \u201cthere are two sides to every story.\u201d This is particularly true concerning Protestant-Catholic historical divisions. Feelings and party loyalties run very high. Even if both sides (Catholic and Protestant) regarding this issue are highly biased (and we all<\/em> <\/strong>have our biases), it\u2019s still good to read both so as to achieve a much more balanced and well-rounded picture.<\/p>\n This article is by far the most complete study available on the internet on the subject, which brings together the largest number of primary sources and quotes from scholars and historians to leave no room for doubt.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s long and detailed, but it\u2019s biased and one-sided.<\/p>\n All material is taken from a chapter in my book on the Reformation, in the final stages of construction.<\/span><\/p>\n Duly noted.<\/p>\n \u201cThey tell you that the Scriptures must not be in your mother tongue, but that is only because they want to blindfold you and lead you into captivity.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/b>(William Tyndale)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This headline-like citation illustrates the slanted perspective right off the bat. The Catholics are the \u201cbad guys.\u201d The reader knows exactly<\/em> what he or she will be getting<\/em>. But creating \u201cbad guys\u201d in historical analysis when it is a matter of honestly held religious differences, generally leads to bad and untrustworthy research<\/em>. The Catholic regards (or should<\/em> regard, according to what the Catholic Church teaches) Protestants as fellow Christians and \u201cseparated brethren.\u201d But the anti-Catholic Protestant (not all<\/em> Protestants! just a tiny minority) views Catholicism as a non-Christian cult or heresy. The diametrically opposed difference of perspective leads to massively different \u201cspirits\u201d in how one goes about analyzing an opposing viewpoint.<\/p>\n Among the documents he cited (which we will examine later) that prove that the Church prohibited the reading of the Bible were the Council of Toulouse (1229) . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is not \u201cthe Church.\u201d<\/em> It was a local synod<\/em>, specifically reacting to distorted translations or interpretations of Holy Scripture by the wildly heretical Albigensians and Cathari. The entire population of Toulouse was only about 32,000<\/a>\u00a0in 1229. The estimated\u00a0population of Europe in 1200<\/a>\u00a0was 68 million, and 72.9 million in 1250. Thus, the decree of the synod of Toulouse<\/a> in 1229 (using the European population of 1250) affected approximately only one out of 2278 Europeans (or, 0.04%): hardly a blanket condemnation \/ prohibition of Scripture!<\/p>\n The Albigensians were a Gnostic- and Manichaean-inspired heresy, which believed that matter was entirely evil. The\u00a0Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> (1913), in its article, \u201cAlbigenses\u201d<\/a> describes some of their more bizarre beliefs and practices:<\/p>\n Jesus Christ . . . is still a mere creature. The Redeemer could not take on a genuine human body, because he would thereby have come under the control of the evil principle. . . .<\/p>\n [T]he liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura<\/em> (starvation). The extinction of bodily life on the largest scale consistent with human existence is also a perfect aim. As generation propagates the slavery of the soul to the body, perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. . . .<\/p>\n Properly speaking, Albigensianism was not a Christian heresy but an extra-Christian religion . . . What the Church combated was principles that led directly not only to the ruin of Christianity, but to the very extinction of the human race.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For much more on this dangerous, radical sect and the related Cathari (documented mostly by Protestant scholars), see my article, Were the Albigensians Primitive or Proto-\u201cProtestants\u201d?<\/a> [6-7-98]. Once we understand what the council of Toulouse was reacting against, the more we understand that it was concerned with a very likely attack on the Bible, in order to promulgate these wild, demonic doctrines. That\u2019s not being \u201cagainst\u201d the Bible. It\u2019s being concerned for the integrity<\/em> and right preservation<\/em> of the Bible.<\/p>\n The\u00a0Cambridge History of the Bible<\/em> (not a Catholic work) stated that \u201cno universal and absolute prohibition of the translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular nor of the use of such translations by clergy or laity was ever issued by any council of the Church or any pope\u201d (p. 391). The 1910 New Catholic Dictionary<\/em>\u00a0(\u201cBible Reading by Laity\u201d<\/a>) reiterates this opinion:<\/p>\n In the history of the Church\u00a0there never has been a general prohibition against the reading of the Bible by the laity.<\/em> While the Church does not consider Bible reading necessary for salvation, she has always approved such reading under proper conditions. In consequence, we find that\u00a0any restrictions which the Church has placed on the reading of the Bible were aimed at the use of heretical or corrupt versions, or versions without proper notes or authorization, and not against the reading of the Bible itself.<\/em> The Albigenses and Waldenses who appealed to\u00a0unauthorized<\/em>\u00a0and, at times,\u00a0corrupt versions<\/em>\u00a0in their disputes with Catholics, gave occasion for the first restrictive decrees. These decrees, edited by the Synods of Toulouse (1229), Tarragona (1234), and Oxford (1408), aimed to restrict the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. [my bolding]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It should also be pointed out that early Protestantism was fully behind censorship<\/em> of views that each particular sect disagreed with. We grant that each had sincere and defensible views as to a proper Bible translation, just as the Catholic Church did and does. But their suppression of \u201cdissenting\u201d views<\/a>\u00a0was certainly no less strong than corresponding Catholic efforts, and arguably\u00a0more<\/em>\u00a0severe in many instances: not to mention more\u00a0hypocritical<\/em>, since the myth of the so-called \u201cReformation\u201d is supposed \u201cfreedom of the individual and their conscience\u201d all-around. That was never true, and it\u2019s not true with regard to censorship, either.<\/p>\n For example, one of Martin Luther\u2019s Catholic debate partners,\u00a0Jerome Emser<\/a>, produced a German version of the New Testament in 1527. Ironically, it was scarcely different from Luther\u2019s translation. His Wikipedia article states that \u201chis own version is merely Luther\u2019s adapted to Vulgate requirements.\u201d So that shouldn\u2019t have been a big deal, right?\u00a0 But how did Luther react to it?:<\/p>\n Luther . . . set his pen in motion concerning this Catholic translation of the Bible. \u2018The freedom of the Word,\u2019 which he claimed for himself, was not to be accorded to his opponent Emser . . . When . . . he learnt that Emser\u2019s translation . . . was to be printed . . . at Rostock, he not only appealed himself to his follower, Duke Henry of Mecklenburg, with the request that \u2018for the glory of the evangel of Christ and the salvation of all souls\u2019 he would put a stop to this printing, but he also worked on the councillors of the Elector of Saxony to support his action. He denied the right and the power of the Catholic authorities to inhibit his books; on the other hand he invoked the arm of the secular authorities against all writings that were displeasing to him.\u00a0(Johannes Janssen,\u00a0History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages<\/i>, 16 volumes, translated by A. M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [originally 1891],\u00a0vol. XIV<\/a>, 503-504)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not only were Catholic\u00a0Bibles<\/em>\u00a0forbidden and censored in many Protestant districts, but\u00a0all Catholic works whatever<\/em>, as Janssen noted:<\/p>\n [I]n Protestant districts all Catholic books, were strictly prohibited, and the printers forbidden under penalty to publish them. (Janssen,\u00a0ibid<\/em>., p. 502).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n My point is that these practices (like the larger issue of religious intolerance and persecution) were well-nigh universal<\/em> at the time. The big problem I have is that we always hear about Catholic<\/em> censorship: which is twisted and exaggerated, while hearing\u00a0next to nothing<\/em>\u00a0about Protestant censorship, which was in some ways more massive and autocratic and arbitrary than Catholic supervision of Bible-reading and other reading that the Church thought was proper or improper.<\/p>\n Among the documents . . . that prove that the Church prohibited the reading of the Bible were . . . the Council of Trent (1545\u20131563) . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Really<\/em>? That\u2019s news to me. Trent, like the council of Toulouse, was concerned with distortions and unauthorized versions of the Bible. It decreed concerning \u201cthe Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books\u201d (Session 4: 1546<\/a>):<\/p>\n And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,\u2013thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,\u2013print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author\u2019s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary . . .<\/p>\n Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and twisted to all sorts of profane uses, to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt, and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God, be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Trent also produced \u201cTen Rules Concerning Prohibited Books\u201d<\/a> (December 1563). Here\u2019s a portion of that:<\/p>\n I<\/b><\/p>\n All books which have been condemned either by the supreme pontiffs or by ecumenical councils before the year 1515 and are not contained in this list, shall be considered condemned in the same manner as they were formerly condemned.<\/p>\n II<\/b><\/p>\n The books of those heresiarchs, who after the aforesaid year originated or revived heresies, as well as of those who are or have been the heads or leaders of heretics, as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Balthasar Friedberg, Schwenkfeld, and others like these, whatever may be their name, title or nature of their heresy, are absolutely forbidden. The books of other heretics, however, which deal professedly with religion are absolutely condemned. Those on the other hand, which do not deal with religion and have by order of the bishops and inquisitors been examined by Catholic theologians and approved by them, are permitted. Likewise, Catholic books written by those who afterward fell into heresy, as well as by those who after their fall returned to the bosom of the Church, may be permitted if they have been approved by the theological faculty of a Catholic university or by the general inquisition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In summary: Bible translations from\u00a0heretics<\/em> are mostly prohibited; their translations of other texts requires ecclesiastical approval.\u00a0The Catholic Church simply wanted to check out and approve vernacular translations of the Bible. What in the world is wrong<\/em> with that? It\u2019s no different from Protestants being concerned to read a translation that is accurate and true to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. In section VI of this decree, it was stated also that theological writings in the vernacular languages (like Bibles) require Church approval. But they weren\u2019t absolutely prohibited.<\/p>\n This is little different in the main from the strong allegiance of many Protestants to the King James Version of 1611. It\u2019s not \u201canti-Bible\u201d to favor that version, nor is it \u201canti-Bible\u201d for the Catholic Church to strongly prefer its \u201cstandard\u201d: the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome and other approved versions drawn and inspired by it.\u00a0Ecclesiastically approved<\/em> vernacular versions had been encouraged and accepted all along. None of this is anti<\/em>\u2013Bible<\/em>\u00a0at all.\u00a0 Robert E. McNally, SJ, sums it up:<\/p>\n While it is true that the Council did not explicitly approve of translations of the Bible in the language of the\u00a0people, it is equally true that it did not condemn the preparation and\u00a0dissemination of such popular versions. (\u201cThe Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles\u201d<\/a>, pp. 225-226)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Lastly, if it is objected that Trent and the Catholic Church of the time only allowed the \u201cofficial\u201d versions of the Latin Vulgate, this, too, is demonstrably untrue. Catholic writer Barrett Turner made very interesting and helpful analyses of Trent and the Bible:<\/p>\n Trent nowhere forbids the use of the original languages, as if St. Jerome had not used them to revise the Old Latin texts or make his own translations. . . .<\/p>\n [S]cholars who remained within the Catholic Church had begun to use the original languages before Protestants started openly defying the Church\u2019s leadership and traditions. One need look no further than the Complutensian Polyglot (1516), completed in Alcala, Spain, under Cardinal Ximenes, who dedicated the work to Pope Leo X, or the Greek edition of the New Testament edited by Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) [with the permission of the same pope, and published in 1516<\/a>]. Such scholars desired to see greater familiarity with Sacred Scripture and were no less ardent in calling for the reform of abuses than were Protestants. . . .<\/p>\n The reluctance of the Council to ban translations of the Bible into vernacular languages opened the door for translations such as the Reims New Testament (1582) and the entire Douai-Reims Bible (1609-1610). . . .<\/p>\n Enshrining the Vulgate as the \u201cauthentic\u201d edition does not mean that the Vulgate cannot be revised in light of the best Latin manuscripts or that one may never correct the Latin text using the Hebrew or Greek manuscript traditions. In this openness to humanistic textual criticism, the Tridentine Fathers order that the Vulgate be corrected after the Council such that one version attaining as closely as possible to Jerome\u2019s original translation would find universal use. The employment of Greek and Hebrew to correct the Latin was not forbidden in any way. The revision of the Vulgate was completed under popes Sixtus V and Clement the VIII and published in 1598. (\u201cCalvin, Trent, and the Vulgate: Misinterpreting the Fourth Session\u201d<\/a>,\u00a0Called to Communion<\/em>, 6-13-11)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n All of this is clearly conscientious, responsible regulation of the proper translation<\/em> of Holy Scripture for the spiritual well-being of the people. To characterize this as \u201cprohibit[ing] the reading of the Bible\u201d is plainly a distortion of the reality: especially when committed by one as educated (in history!) as Lucas. Accuracy<\/em> and good research is Task #1 in apologetics.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n For further related reading, see my \u201cCouncil of Trent: Anti-Bible or Anti-Bad Bible Translations?<\/a>\u201d [5-12-21].<\/p>\n The third supposed scandalous \u201cprohibition\u201d mentioned\u00a0 was \u201ca Dogmatic Constitution of Pope Clement XI, entitled <\/span>Unigenitus Dei Filius<\/span><\/i><\/span> (1713).\u201d<\/span> Lucas has a field day with it. An absolutely indispensable analysis of this document is the article, <\/span>\u201cDid the Church Forbid Bible Study?\u201d<\/a> (1-20-12), by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin. One interested in this specific topic simply must<\/em> read the whole thing. But here are some key portions where he summarizes the gist of Unigenitus<\/em>:<\/p>\n It does not seem to be \u201cWe reject the idea of individual study of Scripture since Scripture is unclear.\u201d If a person has proper preparation (has a proper grounding in the faith, isn\u2019t going to leap to heretical conclusions, is well informed about the methods of Scripture interpretation, etc.) then what would be wrong with him studying on his own? . . .<\/p>\n [I]t\u2019s okay<\/em>\u00a0for a person to say, \u201cBy God\u2019s providence the Scriptures are not as clear as I would need them to be to study them on my own. I\u2019m in the position of the Ethiopian eunuch, who can\u2019t discern important points on his own, without guidance. The fact that the Scriptures contain this level of mystery\u00a0is<\/em> a reason for me not to do Bible study without guidance.\u201d . . .<\/p>\n [T]here are good reason for not endorsing universal, unguided Scripture study. Some people are simply not prepared for it. . . .<\/p>\n It also seems to me that they [the above propositions] do not add up to a rejection of individual Scripture study for those who are properly prepared for this. They are merely rejecting the idea that unguided Scripture study should be universally engaged in by all Christians, regardless of their level of preparation, and Christians are not at fault if they do not feel themselves prepared to undertake this task and are content to learn the Scriptures under ecclesiastical guidance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jimmy in effect fully refutes Lucas\u2019 accusations about Unigenitus<\/em>, with far more subtle and nuanced analysis than Lucas provides. For related reading, see my \u201c\u201cUnigenitus\u201d (1713) vs. Personal Bible Study? (+ Other Supposed \u201cAnti-Bible\u201d Catholic Proclamations & Analogies to Calvinist \u201cDogmatism\u201d at the Synod of Dort)<\/a> [5-14-21].<\/p>\n We have here a\u00a0Dogmatic Constitution<\/i>, dealing with matters of faith, signed by an infallible pope and confirmed by other infallible popes and councils, rejecting with all the horror of the world the reading of Sacred Scripture for all lay people, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Nonsense. Read Jimmy\u2019s article<\/em><\/strong> to be disabused of this shallow and hostile interpretation of its meaning. Lucas cited some Catholic apologists who didn\u2019t know what they were talking about in this instance. It\u2019s the old tactic of \u201cfind the worst<\/em> opponents of your position, not the best<\/em>.\u201d Jimmy Akin is one of the best Catholic apologists in the world, and has been for over 25 years now. He is never cited a single time in Lucas\u2019 14,000 words + treatment of this topic (nor are any number of credentialed, professional apologists).<\/p>\n Lucas cites the historian Paul Johnson, who is a Catholic (I read his huge and excellent book, Modern Times<\/em>, over thirty years ago), stating:<\/p>\n From the 13th century onwards, many vernacular versions of the New Testament began to circulate in different languages.\u00a0<\/span>From the late 14th century onwards, the availability of the Bible to the public became the central object of disputes between the Church and its critics, such as the Wycliffists and Hussites.\u00a0No popular Bibles were allowed by the authorities<\/span><\/b>, except in Bohemia . . . (History of Christianity.\u00a0<\/i>Rio de Janeiro: Imago Ed., 2001, p.\u00a0329)<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is \u2014 with all due respect to Johnson \u2014 untrue. In fact, the Catholic Church has always been a big advocate of vernacular Bibles. The true facts are quite contrary to the negative image that the anti-Catholic sector of Protestant polemicists have tried to create and foster these past 500 years. Perhaps the best and most decisive response to this myth is to cite the preface of the Authorised or \u201cKing James\u201d 1611 English translation of the Bible, which describes the long history of vernacular translations in England long before Protestantism ever arose:<\/p>\n Much about that time [1360], even our King Richard the Second\u2019s days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . . . So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, . . . but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any Nation; no doubt, because it was esteemed most profitable, to cause faith to grow in men\u2019s hearts the sooner, . . .<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The history of English Bible translation (preceded earlier by editions in the earlier common language of Anglo-Saxon) is very long, starting with Caedmon in the 7th<\/sup>\u00a0century, Aldhelm (c. 700), the Venerable Bede (d. 735), followed by Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert (all in Saxon, the vernacular language of that time in England). King Alfred the Great (849-99) translated the Bible, as did Aelfric (d. c. 1020). Middle English translations included those of Orm (late 12th<\/sup>\u00a0century) and Richard Rolle (d. 1349).<\/p>\n Vernacular Bibles in many languages appeared throughout the early and late Middle Ages (after Latin ceased being a common, widespread language). Between 1466 and 1517 fourteen translations of the Bible were published in High German, and five in Low German. Raban Maur had translated the entire Bible into Teutonic, or old German, in the late 8th<\/sup>\u00a0century. Between 1450 to 1520 there were ten French translations, and also Bibles rendered in Belgian, Bohemian, Spanish, Hungarian, and Russian. 25 Italian versions (with express Church sanction) appeared before 1500, starting at Venice in 1471. The Wikipedia article,\u00a0\u201cBible translations into German\u201d<\/a> recounts the rich history of pre-Luther German Bibles:<\/p>\n Charlemagne\u00a0promoted\u00a0Frankish\u00a0biblical translations in the 9th century. There were\u00a0Bible translations\u00a0present in manuscript form at a considerable scale already in the thirteenth and the fourteenth century (e.g. the\u00a0New Testament\u00a0in the\u00a0Augsburger Bible\u00a0of 1350 and the\u00a0Old Testament\u00a0in the\u00a0Wenceslas Bible<\/a>\u00a0of 1389). There is ample evidence for the general use of the entire vernacular German Bible in the fifteenth century.\u00a0In 1466, before Martin Luther was even born,\u00a0Johannes Mentelin<\/a>\u00a0printed the Mentel Bible, a\u00a0High German<\/a>\u00a0vernacular Bible, at\u00a0Strasbourg. This edition was based on a no-longer-existing fourteenth-century manuscript translation of the\u00a0Vulgate<\/a>\u00a0from the area of\u00a0Nuremberg. Until 1518, it was reprinted at least 13 times. In 1478\u201379, two Low German Bible editions were published in\u00a0Cologne, one in the\u00a0Low Rhenish<\/a>\u00a0dialect and another in the\u00a0Low Saxon<\/a>\u00a0dialect. In 1494, another Low German Bible was published in the dialect of\u00a0L\u00fcbeck, and in 1522, the last pre-Lutheran Bible, the Low Saxon\u00a0Halberstadt Bible\u00a0was published. In total, there were at least eighteen complete German Bible editions, ninety editions in the vernacular of the Gospels and the readings of the Sundays and Holy Days, and some fourteen German Psalters by the time Luther first published his own New Testament translation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Protestant Church historian James Gairdner confirms what I have written above:<\/p>\n The truth is, the Church of Rome was not at all opposed to the making of translations of Scripture or to placing them in the hands of the laity under what were deemed proper precautions. It was only judged necessary to see that no unauthorized or corrupt translations got abroad; and even in this matter it would seem that the authorities were not roused to special vigilance till they took alarm at the diffusion of Wycliffite translations in the generation after his death.<\/p>\n . . . To the possession by worthy lay men of licensed translations the Church was never opposed; but to place such a weapon as an English Bible in the hands of men who had no regard for authority, and who would use it without being instructed how to use it properly, was dangerous not only to the souls of those who read, but to the peace and order of the Church.\u00a0(Lollardy and the Reformation in England<\/i><\/a>, Vol. 1 of 4, 1908, 105, 117)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n [T]he overwhelming majority of Christians were prevented from having access to the sacred book, and the few who had access to its contents were already conditioned to accept the interpretation offered by the official Church, which obligatorily imposed it on the high clergy and that could burn anyone. who dared to contradict these interpretations. <\/span>In other words, the only ones who could have access to the Bible were puppet priests, who only served as puppets of the papal system. The people were left in utter ignorance of the Scriptures, just the way the Enemy wanted. As God already told Hosea, \u201cmy people perish for lack of knowledge\u201d (Hosea 4:6). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [L]ay people had no hope of having access to the Bible, thanks to the restrictive norms imposed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy.<\/span><\/p>\n This is pure anti-Catholic myth. It largely comes from Martin Luther\u2019s fairy tales about the supposed prior history of the Bible (in German) before he came onto the scene.\u00a0As early as 1518<\/a> Luther had proclaimed:<\/p>\n [T]he Holy Word of God has not only been laid under the bench but has almost been destroyed by dust and filth.\u00a0(Preface to the complete edition of\u00a0A German Theology<\/i>, Luther\u2019s Works<\/em>, vol. 31, 75-76)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In his\u00a0Commentary on Peter and Jude<\/i>\u00a0(1523), Luther opines:<\/p>\n And again he repeats the mantra in 1526:<\/p>\n Catholic scholar Hartmann Grisar wrote the six-volume biography, Luther. <\/i>The following is from Vol. 5 from 1916<\/a>:<\/p>\n [I]t is instructive from the psychological standpoint to trace the development in Luther\u2019s mind of the fable to be dealt with more fully below that, under Popery, the Bible had been discarded and that he, Luther, had brought it once more to light. . . .<\/p>\n When afterwards he had been dazed by his great success with his translation of the Bible he was led to fancy that he was the first to open up the domain of Holy Scripture. . . .<\/p>\n Accustomed as he was to hyperbole, we soon find him declaring, first as a paradox and then as actual fact, that the Bible had been buried in oblivion among the Catholics. The Papal Antichrist had destroyed all reverence for the Bible and all understanding of it; only that all men without exception might not run headlong to spiritual destruction had Christ, as it were by \u201cforce,\u201d preserved the \u201csimple text of the Gospel on the lecterns\u201d \u201ceven under the rule of Antichrist.\u201d . . .<\/p>\n According to a careful summary recently published by Franz Falk no less than 156 different Latin editions of the Bible were printed in the period between the discovery of the art of printing and the year of Luther\u2019s excommunication, i.e. from 1450 to 1520. To this must also be added at that time many translations of the whole Bible, many of them emanating from what was to be the home of the innovations, viz. 17 German, 11 Italian, 10 French, 2 Bohemian, 1 Belgian, 1 Limousine and 1 Russian edition, making in all, with the 6 Hebrew editions also known, 199 editions of the complete Bible. Of the German editions 14 are in the dialect of Upper Germany.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here are some more facts about the history of the Bible:<\/p>\n The number of translations . . . of the complete Bible, was indeed very great . . . Between this period [1466] and the separation of the Churches at least fourteen complete editions of the Bible were published in High German, and five in the low German dialect. The first High German edition was brought out in 1466 by Johann Mendel, of Strasburg . . . [Other editions in High German: Strasburg: 1470, 1485 \/ Basel, Switzerland: 1474 \/ Augsburg: 1473 (2), 1477 (2), 1480, 1487, 1490, 1507, 1518 \/ Nuremburg: 1483]. Bible Translations in Low German: Cologne: 1480 (2) \/ Lubeck: 1494 \/ Halberstadt: 1522 \/ Delf: before 1522] (Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages<\/em>, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891], vol. 1, 56-57; vol. 14, 388)<\/p>\n We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing . . .<\/p>\n In Italy there were more than 40 editions of the Bible before the first Protestant version appeared, beginning at Venice in 1471; and 25 of these were in the Italian language before 1500, with the express permission of Rome. In France there were 18 editions before 1547, the first appearing in 1478. Spain began to publish editions in the same year, and issued Bibles with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition (of course one can hardly expect Protestants to believe this). In Hungary by the year 1456, in Bohemia by the year 1478, in Flanders before 1500, and in other lands groaning under the yoke of Rome, we know that editions of the Sacred Scriptures had been given to the people. In all . . . 626 editions of the Bible, in which 198 were in the language of the laity, had issued from the press, with the sanction and at the instance of the Church, in the countries where she reigned supreme, before the first Protestant version of the Scriptures was sent forth into the world . . . What, then, becomes of the pathetic delusion . . . that an acquaintance with the open Bible in our own tongue must necessarily prove fatal to Catholicism? . . .<\/p>\n Many senseless charges are laid at the door of the Catholic Church; but surely the accusation that, during the centuries preceding the 16th, she was the enemy of the Bible and of Bible reading must, to any one who does not wilfully shut his eyes to facts, appear of all accusations the most ludicrous . . .<\/p>\n We may examine and investigate the action of the Church in various countries and in various centuries as to her legislation in regard to Bible reading among the people; and wherever we find some apparently severe or unaccountable prohibition of it, we shall on enquiry find that it was necessitated by the foolish or sinful conduct on the part either of some of her own people, or of bitter and aggressive enemies who literally forced her to forbid what in ordinary circumstances she would not only have allowed but have approved and encouraged.\u00a0(Henry G. Graham,\u00a0Where We Got the Bible<\/em>, St. Louis: B. Herder, revised edition: 1939, 98, 105-106, 108, 120)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See also in this regard, the wonderfully informative article by Andrew C. Gow,\u00a0\u201cThe Contested History of\u00a0 a Book: The German Bible in the Later Middle Ages and Reformation in Legend, Ideology, and Scholarship\u201d<\/a> (The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures<\/i>, Vol. 9, Article 13 [2009] ); and,\u00a0\u201cLuther\u2019s Condemnation of the Rostock New Testament,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0by Kenneth A. Strand.<\/p>\n To make matters worse, what little was read at Mass \u2013 conveniently selected texts \u2013 was read in\u00a0<\/span>Latin<\/span><\/i>\u00a0, which was not a problem for early Western Christianity (which spoke that language), but became a major problem for the medieval Church when Latin had already become a dead language that only the clergy \u2013 and with exceptions!\u00a0<\/span>\u2013 knew. . . . the Catholic clergy would rather speak ten thousand words misunderstood by the people than speak five intelligible words.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Medieval homilies at Mass were in the vernacular:<\/p>\n The\u00a0popular sermon<\/b>\u00a0(sermo modernus<\/b><\/i>\u00a0\u201cmodern sermon\u201d in\u00a0Latin) was a type of\u00a0sermon\u00a0in\u00a0vernacular, the language of common people, that was commonly delivered by\u00a0Catholic\u00a0friars\u00a0of the\u00a0Franciscan\u00a0and\u00a0Dominican\u00a0orders in the\u00a0Middle Ages, on\u00a0Sundays,\u00a0Feast Days, and other special dates. . . .<\/p>\n [T]he sermon was written in Latin and the oratory was done in the vernacular. (Wikipedia, \u201cPopular sermon\u201d<\/a>; many sources provided)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Holy Scripture had to remain \u201csecret\u201d, out of sight of the people, for only in this way could the clergy secure control over the masses.\u00a0As late as 1199, Pope Innocent III sternly rebuked the Waldensian \u201cheretics\u201d who translated the Bible into French, ranting:<\/span><\/p>\n Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine\u2026 Let no simple and uneducated man dare to occupy himself with the sublimity of Holy Scripture or preach it to others. [Denzinger-Sch\u00f6nmetzer, <\/span>Enchiridion Symbolorum <\/span><\/i>770-771]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n First of all, I\u2019d like to note that Holy Scripture itself does indeed teach the principle of a necessity for authoritative guides<\/em>\u00a0with regard to\u00a0reading\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0understanding<\/em>\u00a0Holy Scripture:<\/p>\n Exodus 18:20<\/strong> and you shall teach them the statutes and the decisions, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Moses was not simply to deliver and read the Law (Torah: first five books of the Bible) to the Hebrews, but also \u201cteach them\u201d about it. Since he was the Lawgiver and author of the Torah, it stands to reason that his interpretation and teaching would be of a highly authoritative nature.<\/p>\n Leviticus 10:11<\/strong>\u00a0and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by Moses.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Moses\u2019 brother Aaron was also to teach the true meaning of the Torah. It was true at this early stage,. just as it was in Jesus\u2019 time, that believers were not simply given Bibles (as if it were a mass \u201cGideon\u2019s Bible\u201d crusade) to read. Authoritative interpretation was stressed as necessary from the beginning.<\/p>\n Deuteronomy 33:10<\/strong>\u00a0They shall teach Jacob thy ordinances,\u00a0and Israel thy law . . .<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Authoritative interpretation of the Torah was also the responsibility of the Levite priests.\u00a0Compare this with 2 Chronicles 15:3; Malachi 2:6-8 \u2014 the latter calls them \u201cmessenger of the LORD of hosts\u201d.<\/p>\n Ezra 7:6, 10\u00a0<\/strong>this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses which the LORD the God of Israel had given; and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the LORD his God was upon him. . . . [10]\u00a0For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel.<\/p>\n Nehemiah 8:1-3, 7-8, 12\u00a0<\/strong>And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel.\u00a0[2] And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month.\u00a0[3] And he read from it . . . [7] Also Jesh\u2019ua, Bani, Sherebi\u2019ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab\u2019bethai, Hodi\u2019ah, Ma-asei\u2019ah, Keli\u2019ta, Azari\u2019ah, Jo\u2019zabad, Hanan, Pelai\u2019ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places.\u00a0[8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly [footnote, \u201cor with interpretation\u201d]; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. . . . [12]\u00a0And all the people went their way to eat and drink and to send portions and to make great rejoicing, because they had understood the words that were declared to them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n 8:7 describes thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra, and \u201cwho helped the people to understand the law.\u201d Much earlier, in King Jehoshaphat\u2019s reign, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chronicles 17:8-9). There is no\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, with its associated idea \u201cperspicuity\u201d (evident clearness in the main) here. The people did indeed understand the law (8:12), but not without much assistance \u2014 not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself, but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc.<\/p>\n Luke 24:25-27<\/strong>\u00a0And he said to them, \u201cO foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!\u00a0[26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?\u201d\u00a0[27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.<\/p>\n Acts 8:27-31\u00a0<\/strong>And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can\u2019dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship\u00a0[28] and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.\u00a0[29] And the Spirit said to Philip, \u201cGo up and join this chariot.\u201d\u00a0[30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, \u201cDo you understand what you are reading?\u201d\u00a0[31] And he said, \u201cHow can I, unless some one guides me?\u201d And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.<\/p>\n 2 Peter 3:15-17<\/strong>\u00a0So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. [17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s not just \u201cthe medieval Catholic Church\u201d that came up with this concept. It\u2019s clearly taught in inspired revelation. It\u2019s also true that in the first five centuries of the Church, it was a deliberate and widespread practice to only\u00a0gradually<\/em>\u00a0introduce new Christians to the \u201cdeeper\u201d elements of Christianity. This practice was known as the\u00a0Discipline of the Secret<\/a>, or\u00a0Disciplina Arcani\u00a0<\/em>in Latin.<\/p>\n Therefore, not only the Bible in both Testaments, but also the early Church for some 500 years, held that not everyone should simply be given a Bible to read, with no authoritative guidance to steer them from erroneous interpretations (many of which have been observed throughout history, especially among schismatic and heretical \u201csects\u201d or \u201ccults\u201d).<\/p>\n The quotation from Pope Innocent III in 1199, if read closely, never states that the Bible was to be \u201cforbidden\u201d. Rather, he stated that a \u201csimple and ignorant person\u201d ought not \u201cpresume to reach the sublimity of Sacred Scripture, or to preach it to others.\u201d This is a different concept altogether from saying that \u201cno one who is not theologically educated can read the Bible.\u201d<\/p>\n I have in my own library the hardcover edition of\u00a0Denzinger\u2019s\u00a0Enchiridion symbolorum<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(the standard source for the dogmas of the Catholic Church): 43rd edition from 2012, edited and translated in part by my good friend,\u00a0Dr. Robert Fastiggi<\/a> (who in fact translated the very passage I shall produce below).\u00a0The letter in question appears in the 2012 edition on pages 251-252. It\u2019s entitled, \u201cLetter Cum ex iniuncto<\/em>\u00a0to the Inhabitants of Metz, July 12, 1199.\u201d The earlier part makes it clear that the pope is not prohibiting Bible reading. It alludes to the people of Metz having obtained French translations of most of the New Testament (the Latin Vulgate then being the \u201cstandard\u201d edition of the Bible). The Holy Father continues:<\/p>\n [E]ven though\u00a0the desire to understand the divine Scriptures<\/strong>\u00a0and the eagerness to exhort in accordance with them\u00a0should not be criticized but rather commended<\/strong>, nevertheless, in this case, it is clear that these people are justifiably rebuked, because they conduct their own secret gatherings and\u00a0\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n