Featured Was Bible possesion banned by the Catholic Church?

The KJVO myth is phony as a Ford Corvette. While this is not the place to discuss it, I'll be glad to in the correct sub-forum.

And the NKJV, which is basically the KJV with many of its goofs & booboos corrected, uses the TR.

As for the "Alex" mss. we weren't there when they were made, & we don't know who made them, when, or what sources they used. Same could be said for mosta the "Byz" mss. So, don't be too hasty to criticize mss. GOD preserved, same as He did those you prefer.

However, I DO agree with you that the RCC fought hard against the common people having access to the Scriptures for themselves.

 

This thread is the best evidence in favor of the Catholic Church banning lay people from the Scriptures.

 

Curious what others here think about

Which practice didn't stop there. Example, the notion of rebelling from tyrannical rule was vented by the KJV which were obvious in the Reformers notes surrounding the pages of the Geneva bible.

 

That would be in Latin. The Church of Rome was determined to keep the Bible away from ordinary people.
The sad fact was that many of the priests didn't know Latin either and recited the Latin liturgy without the faintest idea what it meant.

 

Most of the "ordinary people" of the time were illiterate, so what was the point of them having the Bible to read?

 

This is a common misconception. During the 14th and 15th centuries, more and more people learned to read, as can be seen by the large numbers of books written and purchased, especially, but by no means exclusively, after the invention of printing. Piers Plowman and Canterbury Tales were both written in English around 1375. If only priests could read, they would have been written, if at all, in Latin.
If you want corroboration for this from a Roman Catholic source, read Duffy, the Stripping of the Altars.

 

Why did the Sda, just likke JW, create their own Translation that added into many places ellen white statements and teachings?

 

More gobbledegook from Mr. Wylie and you. Both of you are ignorant of who compiled the New Testament as the world now knows it. You cannot change nor ignore the historical record.

 

I was banned on this forum for a several weeks for exposing anti-Catholic lies – so I don’t think I’ll be on here long after this post. Suffice it to say that your shoddy “history” is chocked full of LIES, to say the least. This site is just another example of blatant anti-Catholicism run amok.

First, you need to understand that about 85-90% of the population was functionally illiterate when the Church put restrictions on reproducing Bibles at the Council of Toulouse in the 13th century. MOST people had neither the need nor the desire to own a Bible that they couldn’t read in the first place.
STRIKE ONE . . .

Secondly – they were HANDWRITTEN at the time and took many years to complete – so they were VERY expensive to come by. MOST people couldn’t afford a Bible even if they wanted one, which were chained to pulpits to keep them from being stolen because of their value.
STRIKE TWO . . .

The idea that anybody was out to death for translating a Bible into English is simply revisionism. The Church had already translated many of the books into English on SEVERAL occasions prior to Tyndale or Hus.
STRIKE THREE – you’re OUT.

The NUMBER ONE reason that the Church took action and banned the unauthorized reproduction of Bibles was because of the perverted versions being copied that contained not only mistakes – but outright HERESY.

The Church, being the guardian of the Scriptures and the deposit of faith (2 Tim. 1:14) was 100% correct in her action.
Do your HOMEWORK . . .

 

Is that why Rome burned at the stake those who tried to translate into the common language the scriptures, and also burned alive those who tried to teach the true Gospel?

 

Apparently you didn't R*E*A*D my post.

Go back and read it.
I explained that many spurious and outright heretical versions were being privately translated.

You are also making the false claim that "Rome" burned at the stake those who tried to translate the Scriptures. "Rome didn't burn anybody at the stake. Executions of heretics were usually done by kings and heads of state who thought they were doing the "right" thing on behalf of the church.
To put it plainly - heresy was bad for commerce in a kingdom because it usually meant that heretical offshoots would rebel against the governments and disrupt the order of the kingdom.

YOU and @Hobie and a few others here desperately need to crack open a history book and learn about the past instead of simply making things up as you go along.
It's embarrassing . . .

 

If you are going to try and discuss this topic, you need to do your homework. You won't be able to get away with rewriting history or making erroneous assertions based on your own prejudices.

If you do your homework, you will learn the Church had no authority to execute anyone for heresy. Rather, in medieval Europe, the state ruled by what they believed were Divine right and this includes Protestant sovereigns as well. Thus heresy was considered an act of sedition, which was therefore punishable as a capital crime. Even in a few Western countries today, sedition is still punishable as a capital crime. The Church was merely used by the State to determine if one was a heretic or not.

Capital punishment was much more widely used in the Middle Ages than it is today. You cannot therefore not use a 21st century juridical mindset to judge medieval Europe. If you want to discuss whether the State's prosecution of heresy was ineffective, that's a valid position (and one to which I would agree). However, that's about the extent of any argument you can put forth, had you done your homework. Furthermore, it's an argument one would have to put forth against all states in the Middle Ages, including Protestant ones.

 

So the RCC did burn them, but do not judge that, as acceptable for those times?

 

No. Obviously neither read my post nor did your homework on this subject.

Do your homework before you try and discuss this topic.

The STATE punished people for heresy, which was considered sedition and a capital crime. This was the case for not just Catholic states, but also Protestant ones as well.

History 101 stuff here!

 

Rome was in full agreement though, correct?

 

Full agreement? In medieval Western Europe, there was no separation of Church and State. Sovereigns ruled by Divine right.

"Rome's" involvement was to determine if someone was teaching heresy, which again was considered sedition and therefore a capital crime (capital crimes were punishable by death, just like here in the United States). When the State's religion was Protestantism, the State looked to the various Protestant sects to determine "heresy", e.g. someone not believing in faith alone and doing things like participating in the Mass. Heresy was considered a seditious act because it threatened the State and the eternal salvation of the citizenry. It was the State's mandate to safeguard the common good of its citizenry.

If you are going to judge medieval Catholic states for punishing heresy as an act of sedition, you must also do so with Protestant states, otherwise you are being hypocritical and guilty of a double-standard.

Google ---> "German Peasants War of 1524" to see the connection in Protestant states between heresy and sedition.


Do. Your. Homework.

 

yes or no, did Rome kill those who they saw as heretics due to them teaching true gospel, or translating into common language the Bible?

 

Let me help you since you seem to not be reading my posts.

No, the STATE executed those found guilty of heresy, which was considered an act of sedition and a capital crime in BOTH Catholic and Protestant states.