I had an exchange with a Catholic about the Catholic Church preventing people from reading the Bible and the Church’s liberalism fits its convictions. He challenged me to provide a source, so I quoted T-blog quoting Reformation21:
Rome’s suppression of Scripture. To say the least, it is extensive! Consider the following:
- • Pope Gregory VII: forbade access of common people to the Bible in 1079, since it would “be so misunderstood by people of limited intelligence as to lead them into error.”
- • Pope Innocent III: compared Bible teaching in church to casting “pearls before swine” (1199).
- • The Council of Toulouse (France, 1229): suppressed the Albigensians and forbade the laity to read vernacular translations of the Bible.
- • The Second Council of Tarragon (Spain, 1234) declared, “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over. . . that they may be burned.”
- • In response to the labors of John Wyclif, the English Parliament (under Roman Catholic influence) banned the translation of Scripture into English, unless approved by the church (1408).
- • The Council of Constance (Germany/ Bohemia, 1415) condemned John Hus and the writings of Wyclif because of their doctrine of Scripture and subsequent teachings. Hus answerd: “If anyone can instruct me by the sacred Scriptures. . . , I am willing to follow him.” He was burned at the stake.
- • Archbishop Berthold of Mainz threatened to excommunicate anyone who translated the Bible (1486).
- • Pope Pius IV expressed the conviction that Bible reading did the common people more harm than good (1564).
- It is true that in many cases, the papacy suppressed Scripture because it was being used to teach against the church. But this is exactly the point the Reformers argued: Rome would not allow the Scripture to speak with authority and for that reason suppressed it. Wyclif wrote: “where the Bible and the Church do not agree, we must obey the Bible, and, where conscience and human authority are in conflict, we must follow conscience.” For this doctrine and its further implications, his body was exhumed and burned, his ashes scattered in a nearby river, and his Bible translation banned. So much for the Protestant “canard” regarding the Roman Catholic attitude to Bible translation, teaching, and distribution!
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/11/rome-was-against-bible-reading-before-they-were-for-it.html
Here was his response:
Ave Christus Rex:
The sources you provided were predicatable and nothing new. especially about people specifically and explicit defying the Church’s wishes in printing translations which are not approved thereby. Are you even against that? Where’s the limit on the disobedience. I guess I’m not sure.
The Church has always had the stance that many thousands, even BILLIONSof people with their own access to the Bible is the definition of horror. Just look at today. Every person is their own sect. No two agree. Think about it: Church history’s heresies, but times 1, 000, 000 (before Protestantism, only the bishops had access to Scriptures in the way that we mean, as it should be: meted out at Sunday mass to the people, via sermons). And since it was possible for people to read Scripture at their leisure (long after the invention of the printing press, even), the Church has encouraged Bible study WITH the proper understanding of the faith once delivered to the saints. NOT what you think it might mean, especially when it is against what the Church has always believed. What is objectionable about that? All you are saying here is ‘no, you may not innovate.’ What could possibly be heinous or criminal about that restriction and qualification of Bible study?
TheSire:
That just is to agree with my point that Catholics have been against reading the Bible if you’re not in the “Elites Club”. The other issue is that it leaves no independent way to verify the truth of Catholicism. Suppose for a moment you wanted to see if the Bible taught Catholic dogma. The issue is that you aren’t allowed to interpret the text apart from someone that already accepts that the Church is the ultimate arbiter on what interpretation is to be accepted by the text. That is like playing blackjack if the dealer holds your hand for you. The other issue is if I can’t interpret a verse and appeal to my bishop or priest and say they are Origen. I would be stuck believing heresy because of my situation to no fault of my own. The issue of apostasy and freewill undermind the idea that we just take interpretation on the Churches say so. The Church has no right to tell people not to read and interpret their Bibles. They have the right to correct interpretations, but they cannot demand people to not interpret a text that they are supposed to read. What is the point of reading if you don’t interpret what has been read? The Pope at any time could infallibly interpret the Bible and undermine any of even High Churchman interpretations. So, even they cannot speak authoritatively on the subject. Plus, you have the Old Testament that was being abused by the religious establishment of that time and yet Jesus holds them accountable to it without them having any ecclesial structure, but rather warring religious factions of Second-Temple Judaism to live with. Why should we think that interpretation would be any different from the way the Old Testament was interpreted? The other issue is that the Transmission of the New Testament was an open transmission. So, some non-clergy member would have a copy of a certain book.
Ave Christus Rex:
I agree wholeheartedly that the availability of Scripture to, inescapably, many thousands more heretics, does more harm than good: can’t one heretic mislead many thousands or millions of people, as indeed they did and have? Sure they can. That’s harmful. That’s bad; and avoidable.
TheSire:
How has the Church ever prevented heretics from arising using that strategy? Did that help Athanasius against the Arians? The Church has never been able to get rid of heretics that way. Secondly, that sounds like a consequentialist argument, but neither of us are a consequentialist. So, it holds little weight. The issue is you haven’t shown the Church has the right to prevent people from reading the Bible.
Ave Christus Rex:
At first ‘bishops read the Bible to the people’ sounds bad until you recognize the above obvious horror of heresy mayhem.
“The Bible is just a referent for those scriptures we believe are from God”
I’m sorry, and I could be wrong, but I think you’re being deceitful here. You can’t not know what I mean when I say that before you can say the words ‘the Scriptures that are from God’ you need to know from God or an authority by which you can know God’s will, that said Scriptures actually are.
Another way of testing this is: where did that Bible on your desk come from? Give me every step from God inspiring the words, to your Bible: KJV, ASV, whatever it is.
You must be more intelligent than to believe that “If anyone can instruct me by the sacred Scriptures. . . , I am willing to follow him” means anything other than “what I’ll accept the Scriptures mean.” For example, Luther and Calvin would’ve both held this statement true. Jehovah’s Witnesses, too. But they really mean what I’m convinced personally Scripture says, not the objective meaning. Surely you know that? Did you engage with my accusation that Protestants conflate their interpretation with the text they are interpreting or not?
TheSire:
There is nothing “deceitful” about saying the Bible is just a referent for the scriptures that we believe come from God. That is like saying it is deceitful to say “Jesus is God” because God can be used to refer to the Trinity. The question you are asking is “By what authority do I come to know that these scriptures are from God and not the Quran?” The reasons for supposing so are multifaceted. The historical evidence against its competitors is quite strong(suppose the Gnostic Gospels or something). The other would be if it could be attributed to an apostle or a close follower. It’s theological consistency with other books of the New Testament. Dr. Mike Kruger argues that scripture has “Divine Markers” that allow those to know by a non-inferential means that it is the Words of God. How do you know the Catholic Church is right? If you appeal to the Church, then you are begging the question. If you appeal to historicity and other things, then you’re in the same boat as the Protestant. I’ll refer you to these articles:
The Council 
One thought on “Blackjack Catholicism”