“That sounds more like an opinion. The Church read Scripture in the Liturgy, used artwork to convey the teachings of the Bible, and had translations of the Bible in the vulgar tongues for 1500 years before Tyndale came along. “
Actually, very little scripture was used in the liturgy, artwork is hardly the same as reading God’s Word or hearing it in your own tongue, and there were no complete translations of the Bible into English except for Wycliffe’s.
The question was if the Catholic Church could control all access to God’s Word, or if men could read it for themselves. And the problem for the Catholic Church was that it was hard to sell indulgences to a populace that had read the word of God.
I don't know how much you consider very little. 2-3 readings per liturgy, over a period 1500 years, amounts to a lot of plowboys hearing Scripture.
artwork is hardly the same as reading God’s Word or hearing it in your own tongue
I didn't say it was the only way of getting God's Word. It was supplemental to hearing the Word in the Liturgy, especially for those incapable of reading it for themselves. That's what all the stained glass in the old Catholic churches is about.
there were no complete translations of the Bible into English except for Wycliffe’s.
What was the European literacy rate when Tyndale completed his translation? What percentage were English speakers? To make the claim that Tyndale got more Scripture to plowboys than through the whole history of the Church throughout the world, there needs to be some understanding of those statistics.
The question was if the Catholic Church could control all access to God’s Word, or if men could read it for themselves.
No, the question was of making sure translations were done accurately and stayed true. Also, of the people could read, what percentage were capable of reading it in English but were incapable of reading it in Latin?
And the problem for the Catholic Church was that it was hard to sell indulgences to a populace that had read the word of God.
That's a myth.
Reading was not an option for the majority who were illiterate (and why? because work was needed on the fields etc. and educating was taking someone out of this area, so many parents did not do this, or if they wanted their kids to be educated they made them clerics)
Artwork WAS the method in which people would talk about the works of Christ, there were travelling itinerant friars etc. and passion plays to tell the deeply religious populace about their faith.
This was also how history was relayed down through the ages, with information passed
You wrote:
“Actually, very little scripture was used in the liturgy,”
False. I attend the old Mass. It is drawn from and makes allusions to scripture from beginning to end.
“artwork is hardly the same as reading God’s Word or hearing it in your own tongue,”
People had not only artwork, but the scriptures in their own tongue long before Tyndale.
“and there were no complete translations of the Bible into English except for Wycliffe’s.”
As far as we know. There were many partial translations, however.
“The question was if the Catholic Church could control all access to God’s Word, or if men could read it for themselves.”
That is not the question. The question is, “Who is the appointed guardian of scripture?” It must be the Church. It certainly can’t be Protestants.
“And the problem for the Catholic Church was that it was hard to sell indulgences to a populace that had read the word of God.”
The Church never sold indulgences. And it seems that Protestant tele-evangelists have no problem selling Jerusalem holy rocks and Jordan “holy water” to “Bible reading” Protestants.