Walter, I think you are too glibly repeating Catholic talking points.
The example of Cyril and Methodius, for example, leaves out a good deal. They were not "papal missionaries" before Cyril's death, and poor Methodius endured abuse by the German bishops (who even threw him into prison) for using Slavonic in the Mass. He was on a see-saw that sometimes saw him encouraged by the bishop of Rome and sometimes condemned.
Now, I do not think that a reading of history will show that the Roman church forbade translations into the vernacular (as you have pointed out), it is also true that the church did not consider it advantageous that such translations be distributed willy-nilly to the laity. Even vernaculars, before the Reformation, were intended for a small audience, most of whom would have been clergy or the aristocracy (primarily the court).
And I would disagree that Bibles were "hideously expensive" before the Industrial Revolution. Yes, they were expensive, but not above the means of tradesmen, as shown by Bunyan's possession of a Geneva Bible. And portions printed on cheap paper would be even less expensive and thus available to people of more modest means.
What really is the dividing line is the question of who should be allowed access to the scriptures. For better or ill, the Protestant view was that the scriptures should be made available widely (really, universally). And we Protestants should remember that the pre-Trent Roman church allowed much more variability on such questions than the post-Trent church would.
Forgive me, but I want to quote, at length, Thomas More, who in his Dialogue Concerning Heresies laid out what I think is an accurate view of traditional Roman understanding of the use of scripture by the laity (and I think we can agree that More was no opponent of a proper translation into the vernacular):
" ... now since the veil of the Temple is broken broken asunder that divided among the Jews... the people from the sight of the secrets, and that God had sent his Holy Spirit to be assistant with his whole Church to teach all necessary truth; though it may therefore be the better suffered that no part of Holy Scripture were kept out of honest laymen’s hands—yet would I that no part thereof should come in theirs which to their own harm and haply their neighbors’ too... would handle it over-homely... a nd be too bold and busy therewith.
And also, though Holy Scripture be, as ye said while ere, a medicine for him that is sick... and food for him that is whole: yet, since there is many a body sore soul-sick that taketh himself for whole; and in Holy Scripture is a whole feast of so much diverse viand... that, after the affection and state of sundry stom achs, one may take harm by the selfsame that shall do another good; and sick folk often have such a corrupt tallage in their taste that they most like the meat that is most unwholesome for them—it were not, therefore, as methinketh, unreasonable that the ordinary (whom God hath in the diocese appointed for the chief physician... to discern between the whole and the sick, and between disease and disease, should, after his wisdom and discretion, appoint everybody their part... as
he should perceive to be good and wholesome for them. And therefore,as he should not fail to find many a man to whom he might commit all the whole: so, to say the truth, I can see no harm therein
though he should commit unto some man the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, or Luke... whom he should yet forbid the Gospel of Saint John; and suffer some to read the Acts of the Apostles... whom he would not suffer to meddle with the Apocalypse. Many were there, I think, that should take much profit by Saint Paul’s epistle ad Ephesios ... wherein he giveth good counsel to every kind of people... and yet should find little fruit for their understanding in his The Epistle to the Romans epistle ad Romanos
... containing such containeth high difficulties, high difficulties as very few learned men can very well attain. ..."
"So that, as I say, though the bishop might unto some layman betake and commit, with good advice and instruction, the whole Bible to read, yet might he to some man well and with reason restrain the reading of some part; and from some busybody, the meddling with any part at all... more than he shall hear in sermons set out and declared unto him; and in like wise, too, take the Bible away from such folk again... as be proved by their blind presumption to abuse the occasion of their profit unto their own hurt and harm. And thus may the bishop order the Scripture in our hands... with as good reason as the father doth by his discretion appoint which of his children may, for his sadness, keep a knife to cut his meat... and which shall for his wantonness have his knife taken from him, for cutting off his fingers. And thus am I bold, without prejudice of other men’s judgment, to show you my mind in this matter: how the Scripture might without great peril, and not without great profit, be brought into our tongue and
taken to lay men and women both — not yet meaning thereby but that the whole Bible might, for my mind, be suffered to be spread abroad in English."
And I will acknowledge that the modern Roman church has not attempted to keep the scriptures from the laity (as if this could be done). What puzzles me is how the church can accommodate various translations, none of which are fully acceptable in the new liturgy. I understand this from Protestants, but not from the Roman church.
