Do you actually know what Bible was printed on the Gutenberg press?
It was the Catholic Bible.
You may want to re-check facts.
My facts are not wrong. The first and ONLY major translation into English of the Vulgate was Wycliffe’s, which was brutally suppressed by the Catholic Church in England.
The DR version sold today is the revision made in the 1700s, largely a minor rewording of the KJV to make the KJV agree with Catholic theology.
“Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible, however, employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable; and consequently this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was in fact a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible [4] rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible
The Catholic Church bitterly opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years. The rich were allowed Bibles, but the commoners were not.
“The Catholic Church bitterly opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years. The rich were allowed Bibles, but the commoners were not.”
That’s completely false. First of all, commoners struggled to buy and produce Bibles simply because of the cost. The fact that most people could not read was also a huge problem in producing, buying and selling books. Second, the Church never “bitterly opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years”. The particular churches in France and England opposed two translations - Wycliffe’s and the one used by Albigensians - because they were being used by heretics to spread heresy. Even then translations were allowed - they were just expected to be examined by the bishop or someone he appointed.
Also, I think we might have to be more careful in the future about assuming that Wycliffe translated the whole Bible. As Cardinal Gasquet wrote many years ago:
Passing now to the translation of the Bible itself, it will probably be a surprise to many to learn that only “the New Testament portion,” as Sir E. Maunde Thompson has pointed out, can be said even “probably” to be due “to the hand of Wyclif himself.” The rest it is tolerably certain owes nothing to his pen. Of the second, or revised version of the whole Scriptures, the same high authority says: “Wyclif himself, who above others would be conscious of defects, may have commenced the work of revision. He did not, however, live to see it accomplished.”1 So far, then, as Wyclif personally is concerned, the New Testament portion of the version, which goes under his name, is all that can be said to be even probably his work. The part taken by Wyclif’s immediate followers will be treated of later; but first it is well to understand precisely upon what evidence even the probability of Wyclif’s having had anything to do with the translation of the New Testament is based.
1 Thompson, ul sup. p. xix. Blunt, Plain Account nf the English Bible (pp. 17-19) says: ‘’ There is scarcely any contemporary evidence, except that of his bitterest opponent, that Wyclife was really the author of this translation, but there can be no doubt that tradition is to be believed when it associates his name with it. . . . The popular idea of Wyclife sitting alone in his study at Lutterworth, and making a complete new translation of the whole Bible with his own hands is one of those many popular ideals which will not stand the test of historical inquiry.”
End paste
I don’t know off hand if the modern literature directly contradicts what Thompson said above.