“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.
This is an interesting debate. I will note for clarity an actual account of shutting down Bible reading. Remember the Jansenists? They were shut down hard we are told because of unauthorized Bible copying and reading. I think the real danger was they preached original sin, human depravity, the necessity of divine grace, and predestination.
Sound familiar? Sure one would say Calvin. However they backed up their unauthorized Bible studies with Augustine’s works. That was a danger to the Papacy that had to be crushed right away or the cat would have been out of the bag.
I am busy, and that is your job when making assertions, and which applies to such in the rest of your post.
“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?
Then you disagree with Rome now allowing readership of materials it once forbade, while giving the stamp the commentary in your own official American Bible which teaches or did teach such things as ,
that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.
the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson.
Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.”
On Gn. 1:26 states that “sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth,” thus negating this as literal, and God as referring to Himself in the plural (“Us” or “Our”) which He does 6 times in the OT.
Likewise, the current footnote regarding the Red Sea (Ex. 10:19) informs readers regarding what the Israelites crossed over that it is literally the Reed Sea, which was “probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters!
It likewise explains as regards to the sons of heaven [God] having relations with the daughters of men, as “apparently alluding to an old legend.” and explains away the flood as a story that “ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood.” Its teaching also imagines the story as being a composite account with discrepancies. The 1970 footnote on Gen. 6:1-4 states, “This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology.” It goes on to explain the “sons of heaven” are “the celestial beings of mythology.” - http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Remarks