That is simply an undocumented assertion. What we do know from actual scholarship, including Catholic, testifies not to easy access, but (in contrast with attitude) to a long term hindrance of reading Scripture via forbidding reading of it in the common tongue without special permission. And which power to grant permission (under Sixtus V and Clement VIII) was even reserved to the pope or the Sacred Congregation of the Index of Prohibited books. And sometimes a local decree could forbid reading the vernacular altogether. .
And which restriction testifies to the second class status to which Rome relegates the wholly inspired words, exalting herself above it. And unlike the NT church, dealing with the danger of challenges to her claims not by subjecting herself to testing by Scripture, by which apostolic claims were proven by noble souls, (Acts 17:11) but by keeping the Scriptures from the people under the premise of her assured veracity.
Today, having lost her unScriptural use of the sword of men, and her control over the multitudes, while she encourages Bible reading, she impugns its authority via her own claims and liberal scholarship, and is contrary to objective examination of evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of her claims.
"A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church...We must also keep in mind that whenever or wherever reading endangers the purity of Christian thought and living the unum necessarium it has to be wisely restricted." — A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953) pp. 11-12.
A Catholic dictionary states that, “In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people. and the Fathers encouraged them to do so...No prohibitions were issued against the popular reading of the Bible...New dangers came in during the Middle Ages...To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse, France (1229) and Terragona, Spain, (1234) [local councils], forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. (Toulouse was in response to the Albigensian heresy, and while this reveals a recourse of restrinction of access to Scripture when faced with challenges, it is understood that when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France.) http://www.lazyboysreststop.org/true_attitude.htm; A Catholic Dictionary: William Edward Addis, ?Thomas Arnold, p. 82
The local Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14: "We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue" (Pierre Allix, Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213).
Between 1567 and 1773, not a single edition of an Italian-language Bible was printed anywhere in the Italian peninsula. “When English Roman Catholics created their first English biblical translation in exile at Douai and Reims, it was not for ordinary folk to read, but [primarily] for priests to use as a polemical weapon.—the explicit purpose which the 1582 title-page and preface of the Reims New Testament proclaimed. Only the Jansenists of early seventeenth-century France came to have a more positive and generous attitude to promoting Bible-reading among Catholics" (Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History, 2003, p. 406; p. 585.)
The Douay–Rheims Bible...is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English undertaken by members of the English College, Douai in the service of the Catholic Church.
Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue..In our own country [there was] no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude...(http://www.bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html)
From The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10624):
During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not promulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the Sacred Books according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenæus, "Adv. haer.", III, iv...).
The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text. ( St. Gregory VII, "Epist.", vii, xi).
The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned. ("Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, "Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III", Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.)....
On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, "Dominici gregis", the Index of Prohibited Books . According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate.
The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice.
Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix.
Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it.
This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible , by the Bull "Unigenitus" issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816.
Regarding the aforementioned
Bull Unigenitus, it was published at Rome, September 8, 1713, and as part of its censure of the propositions of Jansenism*, also condemned the following as being errors:
79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.
84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.
85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication. (INNOCENT XIII 1721-1724 BENEDICT XIII 1724-1730, CLEMENT XII 1730-174, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm)
And the aforementioned
Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.” (Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1887, page 82).
Trent did allow reading of Scripture, but only after a license in writing was obtained from the proper ecclesiastical authority:
Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp
Officiorum ac Munerum, Encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII. The prohibition and censorship of books Apostolic Constitution, January 25, 1897:
Editions of the Original Text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in Theological and Biblical Studies, provided also that the Dogma of Catholic Faith are not impugned in the Prolegomena or Annotations.
Those who, without the Approbation of the Ordinary, print, or cause to be printed, books of Holy Scripture, or notes of commentaries on the same [by non-Catholics], incur ipso facto excommunication, but not reserved.
If one justifies RC censorship in the past then he must explain why that is not necessary now.
It fascinates me to watch Catholics deny not only secular history but the written history of the very organization they hold to.
LOL! So as in gun licensing, it's "may read" versus "shall read," and we all know how badly that usually goes, cf. Maryland, where "may issue," is a transparent excuse for authoritarian suppression of a fundamental right, based on either an irrational fear or a malignant desire for unwarranted control. Interesting analogy.
BTW, thanks for the research. I had seen this discussed before without clear resolution, but your last post is very helpful.
There is no great scandal to the fact that there were no Italian-language bibles published in Italy, at a time when Italian was to Latin what Ebonics is to English! The situation that those who could read could read Latin was universal throughout the jurisdiction of the Latin patriarchy. There is no evidence that anyone wrote anything in Italian at all until nearly 1000 AD!
Insisting on Latin rather than Italian (or even French) is far more akin to insisting on the King James Version instead of slang and Ebonics bibles than it is to “banning the bible.”
“That is simply an undocumented assertion.”
By me, perhaps, but not by other historians. Cardinal Gasquet - look him up.
“What we do know from actual scholarship, including Catholic, testifies not to easy access, but (in contrast with attitude) to a long term hindrance of reading Scripture via forbidding reading of it in the common tongue without special permission. And which power to grant permission (under Sixtus V and Clement VIII) was even reserved to the pope or the Sacred Congregation of the Index of Prohibited books. And sometimes a local decree could forbid reading the vernacular altogether. .”
False. How do you explain, for instance, the 22 editions of the Bible - the Catholic Bible - before Luther’s? Does that sound like there were many restrictions on the translating or production of Bibles in Germany? What you need to do is look at the specific situations and see why things happened as they did. Protestant anti-Catholics generally don’t do that because they like to make sweeping generalizations that serve their side of the argument.
“And which restriction testifies to the second class status to which Rome relegates the wholly inspired words, exalting herself above it.”
Actually the opposite. If you believe in something you want it protected and handled properly. That means some rules come into being when that thing is abused. That’s just common sense. That’s why it eludes Protestant anti-Catholics.
The quotes you posted actually only show that the Church reacted - and understandably over reacted - to the depredations of Protestant anti-Catholics after the start of the Protestant Revolution. Other quotes I already dealt with if I am not mistaken.
“If one justifies RC censorship in the past then he must explain why that is not necessary now.”
I believe it is necessary now. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Catholic Church refusing to publish, pay for, give an imprimatur to, or provide a nihil obstat to any material whatsoever, any translation whatsoever, any book, any DVD, any CD, any document, website, etc. that is contrary to the Catholic faith. Why would you have a problem with that? Do you expect the Lutheran sects to publish materials contrary to their own sectarian beliefs? Do you expect the Presbyterians to provide materials to their sect members that are contrary to their sectarian beliefs? Seriously do you think before you post this stuff? It’s as if Protestant anti-Catholics never think of the obvious.
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”