No, I was absolutely right.
1) Neither Toulouse nor Tarragona banned possession of the Bible - everyone knew then and scholars know now, that the Bibles referred to were Albigensian Bibles. In other words, other Bibles were fine.
2) Tyndale was executed for heresy, not translating the Bible. That’s why he was never charged with translating - because there was no such “crime”. His translation was banned. His TRANSLATION. Other Bibles circulated freely in his day.
3) The exact same thing goes for Wycliffe and the Lollards. Wycliffe, however, died in his bed after a stroke. Translating the Bible was not a crime. Lollards were indeed burned - for heresy - but not for reading the Bible. The notes in Lollard Bibles were heretical, by the way. People, however, possessed even Lollard made translations and were never burned for that.
4) What you’ve posted is the usual Protestant fantasy - one that is simply not backed up by the sources. That is exactly why so many of the sources you quoted aren’t sources at all but silly Protestant fantasy histories.
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2006/06/did_the_catholic_church_forbid.html
With an incredible amount of supporting quotes:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/08/was-catholic-church-avowed-enemy-of.html
What Tyndale really got in trouble for:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=272675
Other Bibles were fine specifically because the uneducated people could not understand the language in which they were written.
The translation of scripture is an active issue even to this day. Rome has not exactly established itself today in using scripture that is a strict translation. For example..The King James is not a strict translation. This would by definition of your previous justifications, make Rome today guilty of heresy.
It seems to take less mental gymnastics to simply admit that men utilized the fear of eternal judgment in the political arena and this cost those in the way of that their lives.