Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Campion; Tucker39
Where are you getting your information from? Care to specify exactly where and when Catholics were forbidden from reading the Bible for themselves?

Catholics prohibited from owning Scripture

COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.

The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon:

“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.” (-D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.)

73 posted on 03/01/2015 8:44:29 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: metmom

You cited SR Maitland, a Protestant Church historian of the early 19th century. He summed up Protestant anti-Catholic stupidity over the “They had no Bibles in the vernacular in the Middle Ages” this way:

Did they know anything about The Bible?

I believe that the idea which many persons [in Protestant England in the 19th century] have of ecclesiastical history may be briefly stated thus: that the Christian church was a small, scattered, and persecuted flock, until the time of Constantine; that then, at once, and as if by magic, the Roman world became Christian; that this Universal Christianity, not being of a very pure, solid, or durable nature, melted down into a filthy mass called Popery, which held its place during the dark ages, until the revival of Pagan literature, and the consequent march of intellect, sharpened men’s wits and brought about the Reformation; when it was discovered that the pope was Antichrist, and that the saints had been in the hands of the little horn predicted by the prophet Daniel for hundreds of years without knowing so awful a fact, or suspecting anything of the kind. How much of this is true, and how much false, this is not the place to inquire; but I feel bound to refer to this opinion, because the necessity of describing the church during the kingdom of the Beast in such a way as scarcely to admit of her visible existence, even when it has not led popular writers on the prophecies to falsify history, has at least prepared their readers to acquiesce without surprise or inquiry in very partial and delusive statements.”

Maitland knew many of his fellow Protestants were stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited anti-Catholics who continued to dwell in their own self-made ‘dark ages’ of Protestant fostered ignorance (Protestant and ignorance in that sense are redundant terms). Hence, he wrote The Dark Ages; a series of essays intended to illustrate the state of religion and literature in the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries. The quote is on page 188 or 189.

This by the way is what he goes on to say in answer to his own question:

To come, however, to the question,—did people in the dark ages know anything of the Bible? Certainly it was not as commonly known and as generally in the hands of men as it is now, and has been almost ever since the invention of printing. I beg the reader not to suspect me of wishing to maintain any such absurd opinion; but I do think that there is sufficient evidence—(I.) that during that period the scriptures were more accessible to those who could use them; (II.) were in fact more used—and (III.) by a greater number of persons—than some modern writers would lead us to suppose.


96 posted on 03/01/2015 9:28:05 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: metmom

Thanks to you, and to Mr. Rogers for providing examples of what is out there in the historical record, having read some of it myself many years ago.


140 posted on 03/02/2015 4:42:50 AM PST by Tucker39 (Welcome to America! Now speak English; and keep to the right....In driving, in Faith, and politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: metmom

And the light exposes the darkness ...


169 posted on 03/02/2015 6:05:58 AM PST by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: metmom; Campion; Tucker39
Care to specify exactly where and when Catholics were forbidden from reading the Bible for themselves?

Catholics prohibited from owning Scripture

Which is it?

1?
2??
All the above???

172 posted on 03/02/2015 6:08:49 AM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: metmom
An Intelligent person would ask: "Why?" What specific reason did the Catholic Church have for taking such drastic actions. An intelligent person would not just blindly accept the canned response from a seriously biased source.

It is your move.

189 posted on 03/02/2015 6:32:06 AM PST by verga (I might as well be playing Chess with a pigeon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson