not quite the way it happened...The Catholic church tried its best to keep perverted versions out of the hands of people....not the true bible. The VAST majority of people in that time could not read and the church required that their members should rely on the church itself to interpret scripture. The KJV, while a fairly accurate translation, left out some very important books and is thus WRONG. When you lead people away from true Christianity to a man made denomination....you have endangered their souls and somehow I don't think that Christ is going to be all that impressed with a condensed version of the church that He established...
More lies. While not totally keeping the Bible out of the common tongue and the laity, Rome came to much hinder personal access to it, and in some places at times effectively forbid it - in contrast o the past.
Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests (De Lazaro concio, iii, MPG, xlviii, 992; Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, lvii, 30, NPNF, 2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament (Hom. ix in Col., MPG, lxii, 361, NPNF, xiii, 301).
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm): : 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.
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:...
But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844.
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
While it is claimed that a general prohibition of Bible reading was never unconditionally forbidden, yet not only was reading forbidden without special permission, but since the laity usually could not read Latin, what the decrees such as the synods of Toulouse and Tarragona amount to is a prohibition on reading Scripture for most, even if local and a small portion was allowed.
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).
John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff�, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular...
With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. (Philip Schaff, Bible reading by the laity, restrictions on. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II: Basilica – Chambers)
Pius IV (1499 -1565) 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)
Council of Trent
Session XXV: Rule IV of the Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books Drawn Up by The Fathers Chosen by the Council of Trent and Approved by Pope Pius:
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. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp)
“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.)
ouay-Rheims
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, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all , or could be easily understood by every one that readeth or heareth them in a known language; or that they were not often through man's malice or infirmity, pernicious and much hurtful to many; or that we generally and absolutely deemed it more convenient in itself, and more agreeable to God's Word and honour or edification of the faithful, to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages ...
In our own country, notwithstanding the Latin tongue was ever (to use Venerable Bede's words) common to all the provinces of the same for meditation or study of Scriptures, and no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude , yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church,.. (http://www.bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html)
The Bull Unigenitus, published at Rome, September 8, 1713, as part of its censure of the propositions of Jansenism*, also condemned the following as being errors:
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.
"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.
Eph. mine. More .
You act like you are talking to other Catholics who don't know any better...
Your religion used the Douay Rheims...Tho a poor translation it was far better than any of the rags your religion now calls bibles which it now uses...
“The KJV, while a fairly accurate translation, left out some very important books and is thus WRONG. “
The KJV translators weren’t the first to identify those particular “very important books” as being outside the canon of scripture.
St Jerome dismissed them as ‘apocrypha’, and St Jerome happens to be the man who produced the Latin Vulgate translation that the Catholic Church uses. His preference was to not include them as part of the Bible.
“not quite the way it happened...The Catholic church tried its best to keep perverted versions out of the hands of people....not the true bible.”
After the fall of Constantinople European scholars once again had access to Greek texts of the Bible. Dutch Catholic scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam used six of these Greek texts to produce the Textus Receptus.
Erasmus’ Textus Receptus was used as the basis for the German Luther Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the KJV and other Reformation era Bibles. Modern scholars have access to Greek texts besides the ones used by Erasmus. The Byzantine text is the most common and the Alexandrian text the oldest.
Erasmus sometimes altered his text to conform with the Latin Vulgate. As a result the KJV is closer to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate than are modern translations from the Greek text.
We'll see...
Oh?
I have it, on GOOD authority, that those 'books' WERE in the first KJV bibles.
Perhaps you should research this a bit more.
And just what books did the King Jimmy leave out?
What is this nonsense you are going on about?
I own a 1611 KJV with in-line apocrypha, and a std KJV with Apocrypha as an addendum. You can buy them right now, today. E-sword has an electronic version readily available.