The Bible Was Banned by the Catholic Church

C

Chuckt

Guest
"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should not be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."- The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 ADSource: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Scolar Press, London, England Copyright 1980 by Edward Peters,ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195

The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:

"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned..."- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD; 2nd Cannon - Source : D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.

"Opened on Thursday alongside the Inquisition archives was the infamous Index of Forbidden Books, which Roman Catholics were forbidden to read or possess on pain of excommunication. They showed that even "the Bible" was once on the blacklist. Translations of the holy book ended up on the bonfires along with other ``heretical'' works...The Index of Forbidden Books and all excommunications relating to it were officially abolished in 1966. The Inquisition itself was established by Pope Gregory IX in 1233...."-Vatican archives reveal Bible was once banned book By Jude Webber ROME, Jan 22, 1998 (Reuters)
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
What Bible did the Catholics read? There wasn't one because it wasn't translated.

We have Wycliffe's Bible in 1382 and we have the Catholic DOUAY-Rheims Bible in 1582. That is a difference of 200 years and I think the Catholics were forced to print it to compete. If you know your history and if it isn't a lie then show me a Catholic Bible translated for the masses before that because there wasn't one.

The Bible was one of the first textbooks in American schools so that people could read the Bible.

Quote:
William Tyndale (sometimes spelled Tynsdale, Tindall, Tindill, Tyndall; c. 1494–1536) was an English scholar who became a leading figure in Protestant reform in the years leading up to his execution. He is well known for his translation of the Bible into English. He was influenced by the work of Desiderius Erasmus, who made the Greek New Testament available in Europe, and by Martin Luther.[1] While a number of partial and incomplete translations had been made from the seventh century onward, the grass-roots spread of

Quote:
Wycliffe's Bible resulted in a death sentence for any unlicensed possession of Scripture in English
—even though translations in all other major European languages had been accomplished and made available.[2][3]
William Tyndale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the quote : "Wycliffe's Bible resulted in a death sentence for any unlicensed possession of Scripture in English."
The only people who learned latin or greek were connected to the monestaries because they were the center of learning and they wouldn't permit outsiders knowing the truth and that is why they were burning the Bible.

If the Bible was read then why wasn't it translated?

A war was fought between Protestants and Catholics over control. That is why the Catholics didn't want people to read the Bible. The Bible says that believers are a kingdom of priests and the Catholics would have no control over Papal States if we decided our own salvation. The Pope has no more papal states under his control so that is why he had to form the Vatican because he needed control over something.

Quote:

William Tyndale's Bible was the very first English language Bible to appear in print. It was first published in the year 1525. It may be difficult for us to imagine today, but during the 1500s the very idea of an English language Bible was shocking and subversive.

A Forbidden Language

Throughout medieval times the English church was governed from Rome by the Pope. All over the Christian world, church services were conducted in Latin. By Tyndale’s day, vernacular Bibles were available in parts of Europe, where they added fuel to the popular and subversive arguments initiated by the monk, Martin Luther – a religious crisis known as the Reformation, which resulted in the splitting of Christianity into Catholic and Protestant Churches. But in England it was still strictly forbidden to translate the Bible into English.


Most people in Europe were unable to speak Latin, and so could not understand the Bible directly. The Church therefore acted as the mediator between God and the people, with Priests interpreting the bible on behalf of their congregations.

But Tyndale believed that ordinary people should be able to read the Bible for themselves, and this spurred him to translate the Bible into English. He wrote that the Church authorities banned translations of the Bible in order 'to keep the world still in darkness, to the intent they might sit in the consciences of the people, through vain superstition and false doctrine... and to exalt their own honour... above God himself.' But his Bible was highly illegal: the book was banned, and Tyndale was eventually executed.

Tyndale's bible

Quote:
English Biblical Translation Before the King James Bible

At the Council of Oxford convened in 1408, Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, effectively killed all formal efforts to translate and disseminate the Bible in English. Translating, reading, and in some cases even owning English Bibles became illegal and punishable by stiff penalties, ranging from fines and imprisonment, to excommunication and even death. But in spite of Arundel's decree, the desire for vernacular Bibles in England continued to simmer, eventually coming to a boil with William Tyndale's translation project of the mid-1520s. Between 1525 and the publication of the King James Bible in 1611, no fewer than eight major translation and revision projects had been undertaken to meet the growing demand for a Bible that would be accessible to English readers. Featured here are examples of each of these translation efforts.
The King James Bible Virtual Exhibit

This is a quote from the Ohio State University. It means this information is credentialed, not my bias, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Radiant1

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Chuckt said:
"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should not be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."- The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 ADSource: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Scolar Press, London, England Copyright 1980 by Edward Peters,ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195

The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:

"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned..."- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD; 2nd Cannon - Source : D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.

"Opened on Thursday alongside the Inquisition archives was the infamous Index of Forbidden Books, which Roman Catholics were forbidden to read or possess on pain of excommunication. They showed that even "the Bible" was once on the blacklist. Translations of the holy book ended up on the bonfires along with other ``heretical'' works...The Index of Forbidden Books and all excommunications relating to it were officially abolished in 1966. The Inquisition itself was established by Pope Gregory IX in 1233...."-Vatican archives reveal Bible was once banned book By Jude Webber ROME, Jan 22, 1998 (Reuters)
Click to expand...

You're quoting quotes from another book that quotes. Do you even know what the councils were about? Let me clue you in, HERESY. Toulouse especially due to the Albigensian and Cathar heresies which claimed two gods. It would behoove you to check out the sources of your sources, and well, just get to the source.

So yes, there were times the Church banned bibles...PROTESTANT bibles...because they are incomplete and poorly translated. Of course, for the first 1500 years it wasn't an issue...you know, until heresy ran rampant.
___________

I won't bother re-copying your ridiculous copy/paste job from your last post, but I will respond to it...

You do realize that for a very, very, very long time the majority of people were illiterate, so therefore how could they read the bible? Do you want to know how the Church accommodated that? They made bible stories in picture form (statues, stained glass, etc), performed miracle plays, recited stories and poetry, and read scripture at every Mass. In addition, before the age of the printing press, bibles were hand copied...which were expensive...and therefore only available to rich households so therefore not readily available. You really need to stop viewing history through your 21st century lens and get a clue.

Do you want to know why the Church wasn't keen on translating the bible? Because shiat gets lost in translation, as has been proven today time and time again. But even so the Church didn't hold back too much. For example, both Cyril and Methodius (missionaries) CREATED the Slavic alphabet in the 9th century so that they could translate the bible for the Slavic people. I mean damn, if the Church was that adamant on keeping the bible out of the common people's hands they sure as hell wouldn't have sanctioned creating an alphabet now would they? I'm pretty sure you didn't know that, and the reason you didn't know that is because you didn't read it in your one-sided Protestant books with an anti-Catholic agenda. :buttkick:
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
Radiant1 said:
Do you want to know why the Church wasn't keen on translating the bible? Because shiat gets lost in translation, as has been proven today time and time again. But even so the Church didn't hold back too much. For example, both Cyril and Methodius (missionaries) CREATED the Slavic alphabet in the 9th century so that they could translate the bible for the Slavic people. I mean damn, if the Church was that adamant on keeping the bible out of the common people's hands they sure as hell wouldn't have sanctioned creating an alphabet now would they? I'm pretty sure you didn't know that, and the reason you didn't know that is because you didn't read it in your one-sided Protestant books with an anti-Catholic agenda. :buttkick:
Click to expand...

I don't believe stuff gets lost in translation. I look a lot of words up in the Greek and a lot of times it says the same thing in the English translation.
God had His words written down so people can't lie. If someone says, "I think God wants me to divorce my wife", who is going to say, "No"? Someone who doesn't believe in the accuracy of God's words? No. Someone who doesn't believe in the accuracy of God's words would go along with it. I read God's words and I will say, "no" because God said clearly in His word.

Your method of tradition allows all kinds of lies and misrepresentation to creep in whereas mine does not.
 
Radiant1

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Chuckt said:
Your method of tradition allows all kinds of lies and misrepresentation to creep in whereas mine does not.
Click to expand...

Oh goodie! Let's take a look at this. "Our" method of Tradition leads all the way to Jesus and the apostles. The Gospel was originally orally handed down. You owe your Christianity to that very Tradition for it existed before anything was written and accumulated into one book. In fact, whether you realize it or not you partake in this Tradition when you preach the Gospel to others and hand it down.

Now, I know you're going to tell me that what is written down is sufficient and there is no more need for Tradition, which is all fine and good except for one thing. How do *you* know that *you* are interpreting scripture correctly? Are *your* interpretations always the same as your neighbors, Suzy Sunshine, or mine? As we can see right here in this thread, the answer is no. And I should hope your interpretations were not the same as Jim Jones' or David Koresh's either. So where does that leave you? The Word of God doesn't come across as so clear by using "your" method, so how can you be assured of the Word of God?

The desire for personal interpretation and the protest in the early 14th century hasn't stopped. Protestants protest Protestants and we now find thousands upon thousands of various Christian denominations that believe different things by using the *same bible*. I don't know about you, but I think that's all kinds of confusing and fubar. 1Corinthians says God is not the author of confusion, right? So this tells us something. This tells us that scripture was not meant for our own personal interpretation. And, God being God already knew that, which is why He gave us an authority, which is *the Church that Christ founded* (Matthew 16), the Apostolic Church that has been handed down by Tradition. The same Church that gave you the bible. The same Church that can trace itself from Jesus to Peter to Linus to Anacletus to Clement, all the way to Francis. (If you want the entire list just ask and I'll list them all for you). Since you're so well-read in scripture, you will recall the Apostles found a replacement for Judas who was Matthias ("may another take his place in leadership") and they practiced the laying on of hands to those whom then received the Holy Spirit and then went out to preach the Gospel. The Apostolic Church has continued this practice up to this very day.

Both Tradition and Scripture go hand-in-hand much like faith and works do. You can try, but you truly can't have one without the other when all is said and done.

So, if your interpretation of scripture isn't in line with the Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded, then how can you be sure that *you* aren't the one lying and misrepresenting? And, while I'm at it, since you rely on scripture alone, then why aren't *you* following what is in scripture? Ironically, no where in scripture does it say that you should rely on it alone. Do you know why? Because scripture was written by the Apostolic Church, which relies on both Tradition and scripture.

Keep up the good work, chuck. :wink:
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
Radiant1 said:
Now, I know you're going to tell me that what is written down is sufficient and there is no more need for Tradition, which is all fine and good except for one thing. How do *you* know that *you* are interpreting scripture correctly? Are *your* interpretations always the same as your neighbors, Suzy Sunshine, or mine? As we can see right here in this thread, the answer is no. And I should hope your interpretations were not the same as Jim Jones' or David Koresh's either. So where does that leave you? The Word of God doesn't come across as so clear by using "your" method, so how can you be assured of the Word of God?
Click to expand...

Let me ask you the same question. God spoke. How much did He speak for your tradition?

We're about 2,000 years away from the cross and the crucifixion of Jesus. Right?

How many verses are in the Bible? 31,173. Right?

So if a Church studied the Bible and learned 31,173 verses, if the church read two verses a week, how many years would it take you to teach tradition from the Bible?

You're acting like you've arrived when you're not.

So if we have 52 weeks in a year and we learn 2 verses on Sunday then we learn 104 verses of tradition or Bible.

31,173 divided by 104 = 299.7403846153846 years.

So you've got it right doing it your priest's ways?

Ha.

People are confused because you are all in illiteracy of what God said.
 
Radiant1

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Chuckt said:
People are confused because you are all in illiteracy of what God said.
Click to expand...

1) Everything else was in addition to the readings at Mass.
2) Mass is a daily affair.
3) Three readings, which almost always include more than a mere two verses. I'll do the math for you -- two years to listen to the entire bible at Mass alone.
4) The first bible printed by hand or press was a Catholic bible -- not going to print a bible if the Church was trying to keep scripture from the laity.
5) There is absolutely nothing stopping a Catholic from reading their bible in their language.
6) Not one person, not even you, has arrived until that great and terrible day.

I notice you've failed to address any of my points and just go along with your lies. A little intellectual honesty goes a long way, Chuck. You truly are ignorant about Catholicism, and what you think you know is in error as has been shown in every thread you've started. You sure do waste a lot of time creating straw men to stab. Frankly, I have no respect for anyone who opens their mouth and doesn't know what the f they're talking about. You're looking like an idiot, so maybe you should listen to what we have to say, heed it, and then by all means formulate your argument from there. I've had some fantastically thought proving debates with people over the years who have done just that. For someone who claims to have been involved in apologetics since the 80s, you really kind of suck at it.

Let me ask you something (don't worry I'm not holding my breath that you will actually answer). Is your faith solely dependent upon refuting Catholic teachings?? If not, then truly it would behoove you to focus your efforts elsewhere. Maybe you can clothe the naked, feed the hungry, or perhaps tend to the sick. I could be wrong of course, but I'm thinking that would please God more than your persecuting your own brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ. Don't be a Saul.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
Radiant1 said:
1) Everything else was in addition to the readings at Mass.
Click to expand...

We can know that we have eternal life, and we can have assurance of our salvation because of the greatness of Christ’s sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered or re-presented. Hebrews 7:27 says, “He sacrificed for their sins once for all when He offered Himself.” Hebrews 10:10 declares, “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” First Peter 3:18 exclaims, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.” Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice was absolutely and perfectly sufficient. Jesus declared on the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Jesus’ atoning sacrifice was the full payment for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). As a result, all of our sins are forgiven, and we are promised eternal life in heaven the moment we receive the gift God offers us – salvation through Jesus Christ (John 3:16).
Click to expand...

http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html

In conclusion, a non-Catholic should not partake of Catholic Mass for two reasons. We do not meet the requirements set up by the Catholic Church, and we are not in agreement with the Catholic understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Communion should only take place among believers who share common views on communion and salvation.
Click to expand...

http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Mass.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Radiant1

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Chuckt said:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html



http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Mass.html
Click to expand...

Ok, and what's your point other than your interpretation is different than mine. Considering the Catholic Church is the reason you even have a bible, then surely the Catholics think their beliefs are biblical. It just goes to reason; however, reason apparently isn't your forte.

I'm thinking your response is an answer to my question, which would be a resounding yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top