Policy: “1. a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.: We have a new company policy.
2. a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.: our nation’s foreign policy.
3. action or procedure conforming to or considered with reference to prudence or expediency: It was good policy to consent.”
The Catholic Church repeatedly took a course of action either banning vernacular translations, or restricting their reading to people who wouldn’t cause a problem by reading a vernacular translation. At times, it required the Pope himself to approve a person.
With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary. “We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue” (Harduin, Concilia, xii, 178; Mansi, Concilia, xxiii, 194). The Synod of Tarragona (1234) ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned. James I renewed thin decision of the Tarragona synod in 1276. The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). The order of James I was renewed by later kings and confirmed by Paul II (1464-71). Ferdinand and Isabella (1474-1516) prohibited the translation of the Bible into the vernacular or the possession of such translations (F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen i, Bonn, 1883, 44).
In England Wyclif’s Bible-translation caused the resolution passed by the third Synod of Oxford (1408): “No one shall henceforth of his own authority translate any text of Scripture into English; and no part of any such book or treatise composed in the time of John Wycliffe or later shall be read in public or private, under pain of excommunication” (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vi, 984). But Sir Thomas More states that he had himself seen old Bibles which were examined by the bishop and left in the hands of good Catholic laymen (Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England, 4th ed., London, 1878, i, 505). In Germany, Charles IV issued in 1369 an edict to four inquisitors against the translating and the reading of Scripture in the German language. This edict was caused by the operations of Beghards and Beguines. In 1485 and 1486, Berthold, archbishop of Mainz, issued an edict against the printing of religious books in German, giving among other reasons the singular one that the German language was unadapted to convey correctly religious ideas, and therefore they would be profaned. Berthold’s edict had some influence, but could not prevent the dissemination and publication of new editions of the Bible. Leaders in the Church sometimes recommended to the laity the reading of the Bible, and the Church kept silence officially as long as these efforts were not abused....
...In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: “Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.” Regulations for booksellers follow, and then: “Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without special license from their superiors.” Sixtus V substituted in 1590 twenty-two new rules for the ten of Pius IV. Clement VIII abolished in 1596 the rules of Sixtus, but added a “remark” to the fourth rule given above, which particularly restores the enactment of Paul IV. The right of the bishops, which the fourth rule implies, is abolished by the “remark,” and the bishop may grant a dispensation only when especially authorized by the pope and the Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 333). Benedict XIV enlarged, in 1757, the fourth rule thus: “If such Bible-versions in the vernacular are approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations derived from the holy fathers of the Church or from learned and Catholic men, they are permitted.” This modification of the fourth rule was abolished by Gregory XVI in pursuance of an admonition of the index-congregation, Jan. 7, 1836, “which calls attention to the fact that according to the decree of 1757 only such versions in the vernacular are to be permitted as have been approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations,” but insistence is placed on all those particulars enjoined by the fourth rule of the index and afterward by Clement VIII (Reusch, ut sup., ii, 852)...
...In Spain the Inquisitor-General de Valdes published in 1551 the index of Louvain of 1550, which prohibits “Bibles (New and Old Testaments) in the Spanish or other vernacular” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 133). This prohibition was abolished in 1778. The Lisbon index of 1824 in Portugal prohibited quoting in the vernacular in any book passages from the Bible. In Italy the members of the order of the Jesuits were in 1596 permitted to use a Catholic Italian translation of the Gospel-lessons. In France the Sorbonne declared, Aug. 26,1525, that a French translation of the Bible or of single books must be regarded as dangerous under conditions then present; extant versions were better suppressed than tolerated. In the following year, 1526, it prohibited the translation of the entire Bible, but permitted the translation of single books with proper annotations. The indexes of the Sorbonne, which by royal edict were binding, after 1544 contained the statement: “How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed (of whom there are many in our times) may be seen from the Waldensians, Albigenses, and Poor Men of Lyons, who have thereby lapsed into error and have led many into the same condition. Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 151). “
You wrote:
“2. a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.: our nation’s foreign policy.”
That can be the only definition of “policy” that fits your usage.
Here is how you stated things:
“Posts 68 & 69. It was a matter of policy.”
And:
“If you wish to explain away the policy, have a nut - but don’t pretend it didn’t exist.”
And here’s what you are saying the policy was:
“The Gutenberg Bible has almost no impact, since only the enormously wealthy could own it. It was NOT meant for the common man, but for the very wealthy - who were in alliance with the Catholic Church. The Church wasn’t worried about the nobility, but the common man.”
And:
” The Catholic Church actively tried to keep scripture out of the hands of profane commoners - like me.”
And, as expected, you completely failed, utterly failed, to provide any proof whatsoever that any such policy existed.
SHOW ME THE POLICY which you claim existed. SHOW IT TO ME. Please explain why you have no documents at all, NONE, that show any such policy, any such policy debate, any such canon law, any such papal edict, any such ecumenical council canon or decree, any such catechism passage, etc.
All you posted that even remotely looks like what you claim is an edict from Pope Pius IV - PUBLISHED DURING THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION when false Bible interpretations were leading to bigamy, polygamy, murder, revolutions and other idiocies - saying the vernacular Old Testament should be read by pious and learned men ACCORDING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE BISHOP as a help to understanding the Vulgate. Thus, there is no policy of “actively [trying] to keep scripture out of the hands of profane commoners - like [you].”
First of all, if you had lived then in a Catholic country and were a Catholic at that time, counted as a “profane commoner” or unlearned man? Nope. Think about it. Do you have 12 years of education under your belt? This is how you describe yourself, “Retired military. 3 kids (2 out of the house), 3 horses and 3 dogs.” Does that sound like a commoner - with at least 12 years of education to boot - in 1564? Did any of that even occur to you? I bet not.
You wouldn’t qualify as “pious” because you attack Christ’s Church - but that’s your own choice.
Secondly, even if you were a “commoner” - which you clearly would not be - that doesn’t mean you would be able to read the Bible. You might have a new copy of the Old Testament - and ONLY the Old Testament - restricted to you, but that would only be if your bishop thought you were impious or so unlearned that you might harm yourself spiritually by twisting the scriptures. Logically you have to look at the fact that Bible publications continued to increase - in the vernacular - under Church auspices and with the Church’s blessing. Just a few years later the Douay Rheims OT was completed (but not published until 1610 because of lack of money).
Please explain this to me: The modern Vietnamese alphabet was created by Jesuits in the 17th century and Jesuit missionary Alexandre de Rhodes used it for the first Bible in Vietnamese in 1651. Clearly the Jesuits knew about the Index. How could they produce a Bible for people who never could attend a Catholic university nor be a Catholic noble and in fact just learned how to read their own native language in modern script - AND ALL OF THIS WITH THE CHURCH’S BLESSING - if your understanding of Dominici Gregis is right?
Once again, you are wrong.