“The university was not the Church. Both were Catholic, but only one was the Church.”
Sorry, but there was no separation of church and state in the 1500s. Nor did I cite the Sorbonne as an authoritative statement of church policy, but as an example of the measures Catholics, operating in accordance with the Council of Trent, took to suppress vernacular translations - and WHY they did so.
If you think the Faculty of Theology at the Sorbonne did not operate as an arm of the church, you need to study history some more. There was no such thing as a secular government in Europe in the 1400s and 1500s. There is a reason people fled to America in search of religious freedom. Protestant or Catholic, the governments of Europe acted IAW their state church - the C of E in England after Henry VIII, or the Catholic Church in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, etc.
The Sorbonne Index of prohibited publications was the act of the Catholic Church, for the reasons given, to suppress vernacular translations (and a great many other works, many secular) by the power of the state. Remember, this was the time of events such as the Massacre of Mérindol (1545), done with the approval of both the King of France and Pope Paul III.
One cannot draw a distinction between church and state when none of the principle actors did.
>> Sorry, but there was no separation of church and state in the 1500s. <<
Wrong!
The Papal Inquisition was created in 1230. Its intent was to claim jurisdiction over all religious offenses, such as heresy, so that the secular authorities could not use allegations of religious offenses to imprison, harass, suppress or execute political opponents who did not otherwise violate the law. For instance, British kings claims a right to rape newlyweds, and if you opposed that right, you were called a heretic; the Inquisition gave church authorities to assert that such a notion was counter to the Christian/Catholic faith.
No-one who denied being a Christian was subject to the Papal Inquisition, or any of the other Catholic inquisitions. For instance, the Spanish Inquisition was set up to deal with the problem of Muslims pretending to be Catholic to subvert the Catholic Church, yet overt Muslims were allowed to be judges, bankers, government officials, etc., Even Columbus’ navigator was a Muslim.
Once cleared of heresy, the state courts could not oppress the accused. That in no way meant heretics couldn’t prosecute heretics, merely that they had to do so on grounds other than heresy: The Arnoldites of Italy were also political insurrectionists; Jan Hus denied state authority to conduct war. In both cases, the Church officials found that their actions were not justified by religion, and, once found to be heretics, they were turned over to the state for prosecution on civil grounds.
There were, however, cases where the separation was taken down, most notable the Spanish Inquisition, which was done to counter the forced conversion of Spain to Islam. Although it DID apply only to those claiming to be Christian, it treated secretly being a Muslim as a crime against the state.
Much confusion over this stems from oppression born solely out the imagination of anti-Catholics: Galileo’s grand punishment was to wear a silly hat for a day and live in a beautiful estate. He was ordered not to publish his works, but was allowed to do so anyway, precisely because the order held no civil authority.
“Sorry, but there was no separation of church and state in the 1500s. “
Of course there was. If there was no separation, then there never would have been a Protestant Revolution. Secular princes supported the Protestant movement. If there were no separation between Church and state then there would have been no secular princes. Everyone knows they existed and had real authority.
“Nor did I cite the Sorbonne as an authoritative statement of church policy,”
Really? And you haven’t been suggesting that the Sorbonne and the Church are one and the same? Seriously?
“but as an example of the measures Catholics, operating in accordance with the Council of Trent, took to suppress vernacular translations - and WHY they did so.”
And that doesn’t work either. Now, I want you to pay close attention to what I’m about to say because this is indicative of your whole effort so far. The Sorbonne index you cited, according to your own source, is from 1544. The Council of Trent didn’t start until December 1545! That means - unless you’re claiming the theology faculty of the Sorbonne had invented time travel - that your claim is simply impossible. What an embarrassing error.