Was Bible possession banned by the Catholic Church?

[hobie]

Now this is one that people tell me didn't happen, and yet history clearly shows what happened and who was the power behind it. The Roman Catholic Church from early on tried to stop laymen from possessing or reading the Bible on their own and this intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages. (See http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/did-the-catholic-church-forbid-bible-reading.php, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-christians-were-denied-access-to-their-bible-for-1000-years_b_3303545)

The Roman Catholic Church burned the Bibles with the scripture holding what was later to be called the Majority true text or Textus Receptus which came from Jerusalem through Pella where the Christians had fled after the fall in 70 AD, and suppress any writings from it. And also the Bibles that came from Antioch where the Christians had formed their center of studies during the early church, and the true text that reach the Waldensians which they spread to the Reformation and used by Luther and others, so now you have an inkling why they had to be destroyed. They also actually forbid it from being read in a attempt to keep people from seeing the corruption they were allowing into the church, to bring in more pagan converts, and the changes they were making in direct contraction to the Bible truths, calling it traditions, including changing the Sabbath. Many claim it was a misunderstanding or try to deny it, or say there is no proof, or that it is just a story concocted by those who were against the Catholic Church, but lets take a look.

An extraordinary decision is found in the records of the First Council of Constantinople of 381-3, convened by Roman Emperor Theodosius. What was decided at that assembly presents an historical fact, and involved Pope Damasus, who was in attendance. He was a man that encouraged the pagan 'veneration' of the dead or 'saints' and so notorious with women that he was called the 'tickler of Matron's Ears.(Lives of the Popes, Mann, c. 1905)

The historical record shows Pope Damasus banned the Bible and the laity was strictly "forbidden to read the word of God, or to exercise their judgment in order to understand it."(The Library of the Fathers, Damasus, Oxford, 1833-45)

After he suppressed the Bible, Damasus created an array of formidable penances and additional anathemas "designed to keep the curious at bay", (Early Theological Writings, G. W. F. Hegal). The primary intent was to keep the Bible away from people and to substitute Church authority as the rule of life and belief.

Owning a Bible was actually made a criminal offence by the Roman Catholic Church. In 860, Pope Nicholas I pronounced against all people who expressed interest in reading the Bible, and reaffirmed its banned public use (Papal Decree).

In 1073, Pope Gregory supported and confirmed the ban, and in 1198, Pope Innocent III declared that anybody caught reading the Bible would be stoned to death by "soldiers of the Church military." (Diderot's Encyclopedia, 1759).

In 1229, the Council of Toulouse, passed another Decree "that strictly prohibits laics from having in their possession either the Old or New Testaments; or from translating them into the vulgar tongue".

By the 14th Century, the possession of a Bible by the laity was a criminal offence and punishable by whipping, confiscation of real and personal property, and burning at the stake. Now your getting an idea why so many were being burned at the stake, and the hidden purpose of the various inquisitions.

With the Bible banned from public scrutiny by a series of decrees, popes endorsed the public suppression of the Bible for over a thousand years, right up until after the Reformation and the printing of the King James Bible in 1611.

Here are some of the decrees...

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.):  “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “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...”

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.:  Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.
 

[pierrepaul]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Many churches control or regulate reading of the Bible by saying "only certain ones" get to "interpret" it correctly.

The reality is that theological and ideological unity can only be maintained where a "magesterium" determines the official doctrine, teaching or interpretation. Contrary to the oft-made assertion, the Bible doesn't interpret itself and the "plain meaning" is far from obvious. Reasonable, sincere and devoted believers can and do come to mutually incompatible conclusions. And contrary to a popular interpretation of John 16:13, sincere prayer prior to Bible study does not guarantee that one will arrive a the single true meaning of a particular text.

Every protestant group adhering to the position that "the Bible is our only creed" splinters over differing interpretations of that Bible.

[B/W Photodude]

The topic goes past a couple of important points from that era (the Dark Ages and beyond). 

Books produced during the medieval times were still largely produced by hand. The printing press had not yet been invented. One source estimated all the books in the European continent to be about 30,000.

The largest group of citizens were of the peasant class and they were illiterate. So, even if they had a Bible, they could not read it. 

The Waldenses would copy parts of the Bible and handout small pieces of paper with short sections of the Bible. So, someone who could read may have been able to read small sections of the Bible. 

Overall, up until Wycliffe, owning a Bible or being able to read it was not much more likely to happen than someone being able to read it in North Korea today.

[B/W Photodude]

5 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

Reasonable, sincere and devoted believers can and do come to mutually incompatible conclusions. And contrary to a popular interpretation of John 16:13, sincere prayer prior to Bible study does not guarantee that one will arrive a the single true meaning of a particular text.

The warnings of the word of God regarding the perils surrounding the Christian church belong to us today. As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. To many the Bible is as a lamp without oil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief that bring misunderstanding and confusion. The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives. By spiritualism, multitudes are taught to believe that desire is the highest law, that license is liberty, and that man is accountable only to himself. - AA474

[pierrepaul]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Its not just the fact that we pray, but HOW we pray.

Absolutely. However, I remain troubled by the observation that sincere men and women who pray for guidance and wisdom in humility will come to different incompatible conclusions, each believing that the Holy Spirit is guiding him or her to such conclusion. Was one or the other praying incorrectly? Did the Holy Spirit lead two people to opposite conclusions? Was the Holy Spirit not leading one (or both) of them, and the person merely thought the Holy Spirit was in fact leading?

[JoeMo]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Its not just the fact that we pray, but HOW we pray.

I know I'm kinda taking this quote out of context; but I am of the opinion that it's not how we worship, but what or Who we worship that matters.  Worship is not a universal process or recipe.  While we may not be in unity on the how of worship based on cultural or ethnic differences,  we can be unified by Who we worship; worshipping in Spirit and Truth.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

I can say for now, that doesnt trouble me at all. It may very well be true that The Holy Spirit is leading, even when different conclusions are made, I dont think it is His purpose to make us all agree on everything. Unity in Christ certainly doesnt mean this at all. Look at His disciples. They certainly didnt have doctrinal consensus.

I totally agree.  God finds us all on different paths when He finds us.  In my life, He is "fixing" my issues consecutively rather than concurrently.  It seems like He started with the "little" issues in my life; and when He "fixed " those, He started working on the "biggies".  Your "little" and "big" issues may be different than mine; and God may have a different strategy to draw you into intimacy than He does me.

I am still a work in progress.

[R. G. White]

On 5/10/2019 at 8:32 AM, pierrepaul said:

Absolutely. However, I remain troubled by the observation that sincere men and women who pray for guidance and wisdom in humility will come to different incompatible conclusions, each believing that the Holy Spirit is guiding him or her to such conclusion. Was one or the other praying incorrectly? Did the Holy Spirit lead two people to opposite conclusions? Was the Holy Spirit not leading one (or both) of them, and the person merely thought the Holy Spirit was in fact leading?

I am also troubled by this. There is John 7:17, that we can claim for ourselves. In the NASB, it reads:

" If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself."

Still, it often happens that two people who sincerely believe that they have met this condition are unable to agree on doctrine. Nor can we be absolutely certain that the other person is the one in error. A healthy self-distrust is essential.

I believe that we need to question our own beliefs and interpretations, especially where they differ from an apparent consensus of the main body of Seventh-day Adventists (that I believe to be the true church). But we also need to think for ourselves, and be free moral agents when it comes to doctrine and Bible interpretation. So there is a fine balance to be sought.

Also, it is not necessary that everyone in the church totally agree on every point, however minor. I do believe that every error has its consequences, and you will see me arguing in this forum for what I believe. But I can still fellowship with those who I believe are mistaken on some points.