The Errors of Martin Luther's German Bible

http://www.cogwriter.com/luther.htm ^

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

LOL! “alone” is not needed if you are talking about, German, Greek, English, French, Swahili, or Martian.

and since the NT was written by, to and for the Church, it has every right to complain about individuals “editorializing” their own opinions of what the verses should say into the text.

we certainly object to when the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons do it, don’t we?

[Dr. Sivana]

For specific information regarding the teachings of Martin Luther, please see the article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert Armstrong.

Is this the same organization that published "The Plain Truth" and gave short term apocalyptic warnings in the '70s and earlier? The ones who believe that the Lost Tribes of Israel wound up in England?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

the one and the same, as i said earlier, READER BEWARE.

they reject the Trinity, they keep the Sabbath and other OT festivals, and have a kooky theory about the lost tribes of Israel, just to name a few of the issues Orthodox Christians would have with them.

[Mr Rogers]

The Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope had nothing to do with the writing of scripture.

And the Catholic Church violently opposed allowing commoners to read scripture. It wasn’t a ‘bad translation’ they opposed, but common people reading God’s Word.

And if you will read my link, you will find that translations authorized by the Catholic Church DID add ‘alone’:

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

The Catholic Church’s objection to Luther’s translation was that commoners COULD and DID read it.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

these are not translations of the Scriptures, but commentaries by theologians....big difference.

The Catholic Church wrote the NT ( since all the human writers were Catholic ), received the books, preserved the books, copied the books and set the canon of Scripture by rejecting books which claimed to be Scripture but taught doctrines that did not agree with the Catholic Faith.

deal with it.

[Mr Rogers]

They were translations made in commentaries. Thus, translations. There were not, after all, a huge number of complete translations made during medieval times...

“The Catholic Church wrote the NT ( since all the human writers were Catholic )”

If by Catholic, you mean someone accepting the authority of the Pope, then no, that is not true. There is no indication during the first 400 years that anyone considered the Bishop of Rome to be the single human head of the church. Indeed, the Orthodox constituted the majority of the Christian Church, and they still do not accept the Pope as their head...do they.

The writers of the NT were catholic - part of the universal church - but NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC.

Nor did the Catholic Church set the canon. Not authoritatively until the Council of Trent, AFTER Luther. That is why the accuser of Luther was free to question the canon status of the Apocrypha.

[rzman21]

The title Catholic Church was created by the Anglicans who speciously pretended they still belonged to the Catholic Church. The Orthodox believe they are the Catholic Church. I might add that they accept the same OT canon as the Catholic Church with the additions of the 3rd Book of Maccabees, the First Book of Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh. So what's your point about the canon? The Orthodox local Council of Jerusalem reaffirmed what the Council of Trent said a century earlier, which further reaffirmed what the early councils of the Church said. QUESTION III. What Books do you call Sacred Scripture? Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril {Lucar ELC} collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seemeth that not always have all been by all reckoned with the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, as well by Synods, as by how many of the most <156> ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture. http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

[Mr Rogers]

“Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

Same link.

Also see “An Open Letter on Translating” By Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546:

http://www.archive.org/stream/anopenletterontr00272gut/ltran11.txt

An excerpt:

“I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in
either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me
that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these
knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same
time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -
if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.
I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our
language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word
“not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer
brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no
money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet
drunk”; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a
vast number of such everyday cases.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German
tongue to add “allein” in order that “nicht” or “kein” may be
clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say “The farmer
brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words “kein money” do
not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer
brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word “allein” helps
the word “kein” so much that it becomes a clear and complete
German expression.

We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
speak German - as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother
in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner
of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they
will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
them.

For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I
am to follow these asses, they will lay the original before me
literally and translate it as: “Out of the abundance of the heart
the mouth speaks.” Is that speaking with a German tongue? What
German could understand something like that? What is this
“abundance of the heart?” No German can say that; unless, of
course, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too
magnanimous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be
correct, as “abundance of the heart” is not German, not any more
than “abundance of the house, “abundance of the stove” or
“abundance of the bench” is German. But the mother in the home
and the common man say this: “What fills the heart overflows the
mouth.” That is speaking with the proper German tongue of the
kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always
successfully. The literal Latin is a great barrier to speaking
proper German.

So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: “Ut quid perditio
haec?” and in Mark 14: “Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?”
Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate
it: “Why has this loss of salve occurred?” But what kind of
German is this? What German says “loss of salve occurred”? And
if he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is
lost and must be looked for and found again; even though that is
still obscure and uncertain. Now if that is good German why do
they not come out and make us a fine, new German testament and let
Luther’s testament be? I think that would really bring out their
talents. But a German would say “Ut quid, etc..” as “Why this
waste?” or “Why this extravagance?” Even “it is a shame about the
ointment” - these are good German, in which one can understand
that Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done
wrong. That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used
it better.”

---

Luther was not trying to make a literal translation, but a good one.

“Why should I talk about translating so much? I would need an
entire year were I to point out the reasons and concerns behind my
words. I have learned what an art and job translating is by
experience, so I will not tolerate some papal ass or mule as my
critic, or judge. They have not tried the task. If anyone does
not like my translations, they can ignore it; and may the devil
repay the one who dislikes or criticizes my translations without
my knowledge or permission. Should it be criticized, I will do it
myself. If I do not do it, then they can leave my translations in
peace. They can each do a translation that suits them - what do I
care?

To this I can, with good conscience, give witness - that I gave my
utmost effort and care and I had no ulterior motives. I have not
taken or wanted even a small coin in return. Neither have I made
any by it.”

[rzman21]

Although the extent of the Roman primacy as it developed in the Middle Ages came to be disputed the primacy of the Pope of Rome was a matter of historical fact. I'm a Melkite Catholic, so I adhere to the theory of the pentarchy, which views the papacy in a horizontal fashion. Rome has always been first. "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

the historical ignorance is breathtaking.

prior to 1054, the Orthodox were in communion with the Catholic Church, all part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

the Baptist heretics( that i believe you follow ) did not show up for 500 years after the Great Schism.

i am grateful that unlike Baptism and the Eucharist, the Baptists accepted the Catholic canon of the NT.
since the canon of Scripture was not attacked until the 16th century, there was no reason for the Church to authoritatively set the canon. there were no 66 book Bibles used by anyone prior to the 16th century. various Church councils in the 4th century set the 73 book canon and this was universally accepted until 7 books were thrown overboard by certain sects in the 16th century.

one is only Catholic if they hold to the Catholic Faith. since Baptists do not accept the Nicene Creed, they can not be considered “Catholic” in any sense.

[Mr Rogers]

“The Orthodox believe they are the Catholic Church. I might add that they accept the same OT canon as the Catholic Church with the additions of the 3rd Book of Maccabees, the First Book of Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh. So what’s your point about the canon?”

Well, if the Orthodox have the same canon PLUS extra books, then the Orthodox do NOT have the same canon as the Roman Catholics.

Further, the Roman Catholic Church left unsettled at Trent if the Apocrypha was good for just reading, or if it was also good for determining doctrine. That remains an open question for Catholics.

[Lee N. Field]

Who is this “Living Church of God” “tradition” and on what authority do they claim primacy regarding the Word of God?

"The Living Church of God is a new organization with an old history. The Presiding Evangelist, Dr. Roderick C. Meredith, was one of the original evangelists ordained by the late Herbert W. Armstrong in December 1952. blah blah blah."

Looks to be a Worldwide Church of God spinoff.

"The Father and the Son comprise the 'Godhead.' There is one God (1 Corinthians 8:4 and Deuteronomy 6:4). Scripture shows that God is a divine Family which began with two" (!!)", God the Father and the Word (Genesis 1:26; Ephesians 2:19; 3:15; Hebrews 2:10-11)"

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

don’t bother quoting St Irenaeus to our FRiend mr rogers, since Irenaeus believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist and apostolic succession, he probably considers him a pagan!
everyone knows the Church went apostate in the late 1st century and had to be restored in the 16th century.

[rzman21]

19th century Protestant scholar Philp Wace Schaff observes:
Luther was not the first, but by far the greatest translator of the German Bible, and is as inseparably connected with it as Jerome is with the Latin Vulgate. He threw the older translation into the shade and out of use, and has not been surpassed or even equaled by a successor. There are more accurate versions for scholars (as those of De Wette and Weizsäcker), but none that can rival Luther’s for popular authority and use.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html

Why people believe such ignorant lies about the Catholic Church and the Bible is beyond me.

[dragonblustar]

I’m enjoying your posts. This is very interesting.

[Mr Rogers]

It seems you know nothing of history OR baptists.

Did you not know that the Orthodox NEVER accepted Papal authority over them?

Were you not aware that there were MANY discussions about what was scripture and what was not, although the majority of the NT was never questioned?

Were you not aware that the accuser of Luther had written that the Apocrypha wasn’t to be used for doctrine?

And no, I’ve never met a Baptist who claimed to be Roman Catholic. We do claim to be Christians - which I believe the Roman Catholic church now accepts - and thus part of the catholic - universal - church.

[rzman21]

That’s spurious. What happened at the Council of Trent was any debate over the canon was sealed and Tradition was reaffirmed.

My point is that the only people who dispute the canon of the Old Testament are the Protestants who preferred to listen to anti-Christian Jewish rabbis in selecting their canon rather than to the consensus of the early fathers and councils.

But Trent didn’t make any decisions on 3rd Maccabees, etc., so it is conceivable that they could be admitted as canonical by the Western Church at some point.

Referring to Judith, Maccabees, etc. was a Protestant innovation.

The Apostolic Constitutions c. 380 A.D., which constituted part of Roman Catholic canon law until 1917 and still do for the Orthodox:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/apostolic.html
Canon 85: Concerning Holy Scripture.

Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity. Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of Joshua the son of Nun; one of the Judges; one of Ruth; four of the Kings; 1 two of Paralipomena (the books of Chronicles); two of Ezra; 2 one of Esther; [one of Judith;] 3 three of the Maccabees; one of Job; the one hundred and fifty Psalms; three books of Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; the sixteen of the Prophets. And see that those newly come to discipleship become acquainted with the Wisdom of the learned Sirach. 4 And ours, that is, of the New Testament, are the four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the fourteen epistles of Paul; two epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you, the bishops, by me, Clement, in eight books, which it is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us, the Apostles.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

there is only one authority on earth that can definitively state what the canon is and it has this authority because it received it directly from Jesus as recorded in Matthew 28. that authority is the Catholic Church, it alone is the pillar of truth and it alone has been promised the Holy Spirit to lead it to all truth.

since you state i know nothing about the baptists, enlighten me, where were the baptists in the 2nd century? who were it’s church fathers? what about the 3rd century? 4th? 5th? etc etc til the 16th. let’s see what you know about them.

[Mr Rogers]

“Why people believe such ignorant lies about the Catholic Church and the Bible is beyond me.”

Hmmmm....

See here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/wyclif5.html

and this:

“II. The Middle Ages:

Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff;, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular.

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

86
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 Bcher, 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.

III. The Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation:

Luther’s translation of the Bible and its propagation could not but influence the Roman Catholic Church. Humanism, through such men as Erasmus, advocated the reading of the Bible and the necessity of making it accessible by translations; but it was felt that Luther’s translation must be offset by one prepared in the interest of the Church. Such editions were Emser’s of 1527, and the Dietenberg Bible of 1534. The Church of Rome silently tolerated these translations.

1. Action by the Council of Trent.

At last the Council of Trent took the matter in hand, and in its fourth session (Apr. 18, 1546) adopted the Decretum de editione et usu librorum sacrorum, which enacted the following: “This synod ordains and decrees that henceforth sacred Scripture, and especially the aforesaid 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; or in future to sell them, or even to possess them, unless they shall have been first examined and approved of by the ordinary.” When the question of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular came up, Bishop Acqui of Piedmont and Cardinal Pacheco advocated its prohibition. This was strongly opposed by Cardinal Madruzzi, who claimed that “not the translations but the professors of Hebrew and Greek are the cause of the confusion in Germany; a prohibition would produce the worst impression in Germany.” As no agreement could be had, the council appointed an index-commission to report to the pope, who was to give an authoritative decision.

2. Rules of Various Popes.

The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264). 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

87
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).

3. Rules and Practice in Different Countries.

In England the reading of the Bible was made by Henry VIII (1530) to depend upon the permission of the superiors. Tyndale’s version, printed before 1535, was prohibited. In 1534 the Canterbury convocation passed a resolution asking the king to have the Bible translated and to permit its reading. A folio copy of Coverdale’s translation was put into every church for the benefit of the faithful, and fastened with a chain. 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). The rise of Jansenism in the seventeenth century, and especially the appearance, under its encouragement, of Quesnel’s New Testament with moral reflections under each verse (Le Nouveau Testament en franois avec des reflexions moroles sur chaque vers, Paris, 1699), which was expressly intended to popularize the reading of the Bible, caused the renewal, with increased stringency, of the rules already quoted. The Jesuits prevailed upon Clement XI to publish the famous bull Unigenitus, Sept. 8, 1713, in which he condemned seven propositions in Quesnel’s work which advocated the reading of the Bible by the laity (cf. H. J. D. Denzinger, Enchiridion, Wrzburg, 1854, 287). In the Netherlands, Neercassel, bishop of Emmerich, published in 1677 (in Latin) and 1680 (in French) a treatise in which he dealt with the fourth rule of the Tridentine index as obsolete, and urged the diligent reading of the Bible. In Belgium in 1570 the unlicensed sale of the Bible in the vernacular was strictly prohibited; but the use of the Antwerp Bible continued. In Poland the Bible was translated and often published. In Germany papal decrees could not very well be carried out and the reading of the Bible was not only not prohibited, but was approved and praised. Billuart about 1750, as quoted by Van Ess, states, “In France, Germany, and Holland the Bible is read by all without distinction.” In the nineteenth century the clergy took great interest in the work of Bible Societies. Thus Leander van Ess acted as agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society for Catholic Germany, and the society published the New Testament of Van Ess, which was placed on the Index in 1821. The princes-bishop of Breslau, Sedlnitzki, who afterward joined the Evangelical Church, was also interested in circulating the Bible. As the Bible Societies generally circulated the translations of heretics, the popes;Leo XII (May 5, 1824); Pius VIII (May 25, 1829); Gregory XVI (Aug. 15, 1840; May 8, 1844); Pius IX (Nov. 9, 1846; Dec. 8, 1849) issued encyclicals against the Bible Societies. In the syllabus of 1864 “socialism, communism, secret societies, . . . and Bible Societies” are placed in the same category. As to the effect of the papal decrees there is a difference of opinion within the Catholic Church. In theory the admonition of Gregory XVI no doubt exists, but practise often ignores it.”

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm

[rzman21]

That makes Martin Luther a pagan too because he believed in baptismal regeneration as do Lutherans to this day, which is why so many Lutherans become Catholic.
Here's a Protestant service done the right way. :)