There’s no ban on the production of vernacular translations there. The statement in fact presupposes the existence and production of vernacular translations.
“Which means you were wrong. Embarrassingly wrong.”
Yes, I erred. The Catholic Church spent hundreds of years suppressing vernacular translations, and Trent came in the middle. So sorry...
After all, they had banned them in England in 1408, nearly 150 years before Trent. My bad. Forgive me. The Catholic Church did much worse than what I suggested when I said Sorbonne was following Trent. Trent followed Sorbonne, and it also followed, as both of us know, 200 years of suppression. In discussing ONE SENTENCE I wrote, I got suckered in to suggesting trent began the suppression. Yet we both know it had gone on for hundreds of years prior...
Of course, TECHNICALLY vernacular translations were allowed. All one needed was permission - which was never given to commoners. So there were a few copies of Wycliffe’s translation signed off individually, yet others were punished for having excerpts of the same translation. It wasn’t the translation, per se, that was objected to, but commoners owning them and reading them.
As both Oxford in 1408 and Trent in the mid-1500s said, INDIVIDUALS could get permission, on a case by case basis. If you had enough money & power, and were firmly enough caught in the Catholic Church, you could own and use a vernacular translation - but the common man could not - for the reasons Schaff listed.
If someone was impressed when Bill Clinton parsed the meaning of “is”, they will be impressed with the argument that the Catholic Church allowed vernacular translations - provided almost no one ever got to touch, see or read one.
Contrast that with Tyndale, who was refused permission to translate by the Catholic Church, but who went ahead and did so. His goal WAS to allow commoners to read the scriptures, and he rejected the arguments by the Catholic Church that common men were not allowed to read the Word of God.
Boast, if you will, that the Catholic Church PERMITTED a few hundred to read the Word of God, while Martin Luther and Tyndale ensured that MILLIONS could do so. The difference, of course, is that Luther and Tyndale understood what access to the Word of God meant - a rejection of the deceitful theology the Catholic Church was built on.
No priests in the New Testament. No Purgatory. No indulgences. No transubstantiation. No Bishops. No Pope. No temporal power. The foundation of the Catholic Church - what makes it the Roman Catholic Church - doesn’t exist in scripture, and indeed is contradicted directly by it.
No priests, offering a sacrifice by the authority of Bishops and the Pope. Without that, there IS no Catholic Church. And that is why Luther and Tyndale WANTED people to read the scriptures for themselves, and the Catholic Church fought to prevent it.