Perhaps this was a bit strong but not entirely inaccurate. The Church prohibited owning or distributing a bible without the Church's permission and you were not allow to make any interpretation contrary to the Church on fear of excommunication.
And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,—thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,—print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said 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; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran
As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors.
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent The Fourth Session
A bit too strong?? You claimed Trent stated it was forbidden to read or own the Bible. Trent claimed nothing of the sort. What you accused the Church of is blatantly false. It is surprising to me that there are still people here making such a claim, especially since it has been fully addressed on FR so many times.
The Church prohibited owning...a bible without the Church's permission
And then instead of making a retraction of your false claim you attempt to waffle by making another. You didn't need the Church's permission to own a Bible, you just needed to make sure it was an authorized version you owned. You make this sound like a bad thing, that the Church protects its members from false Scripture.
you were not allow to make any interpretation contrary to the Church on fear of excommunication.
True, if you belong to the Church you should adhere to its teachings. Does your church encourage its members to believe contrary to its doctrines?
Why do you think the Church canonized the Scriptures? To protect the inspired works of the Faith once delivered from forgeries (such as various Gnostic "gospels" our media call "Chirstian").
Besides, this is not some "corruption" of the Church at Trent; this is something that was taught by the Church (Greek and Latin) from the beginning.
The Church was trying to PROTECT man by preventing heretics from changing the Word of God to suit their own twisted concepts, like Luther's addition of "alone" to Romans 3:28. Tyndale's "bible" was even worse. A person reading these contortions would not get the Word of God, but the Word of some man. Wouldn't you expect the Church to prevent this from happening?
Regards