Of course since literacy was limited to a very few, the dissemination of scripture is a moot point and thus protestant conjecture on this allegation is rendered meaningless and irrelevant.
You need to immerse yourself in this medieval history of the monasteries to appreciate the contribution Catholicism made in preserving scripture. Yet I suppose, "Eaten bread is quickly forgotten" thus the protestant gives no thanks where thanks is due.
The Eastern Church united to the Western Church did play a prominent role in scriptural formation. Any comments I have read from adherents of the Eastern Church would not accept revisionist protestant history which seems to be favored by many protestants on this forum.
“Of course since literacy was limited to a very few, the dissemination of scripture is a moot point and thus protestant conjecture on this allegation is rendered meaningless and irrelevant.”
Nope. If that was true, there would have been no need for ANY translations, yet there were multiple translations into the current form of English - PARTIAL translations, one of which included the Gospels.
However, it took Wycliffe to translate the entire Bible - why? And why were his copies spread by hand at great risk, and yet spread? After outlawing any English translation without approval in 1408, why did no Catholic approve a translation into English? Why did Thomas More complain about Tyndale’s translation, yet Tyndale’s translation is the basis for the KJV, and the DR revision in the 1700s? Why did the Catholic Church try to prevent Tyndale’s translation from being distributed, even though it is still a very good translation, available from Amazon.com:
Also, why was it that the Apostles knew scripture without printing presses? Hmmmm?????