Reading the Bible during the Middle Ages

[Guest Sean73]

I have often heard that the Catholic Church did not allow the people to read the Bible during the Middle Ages and that it wasn't until the Reformation that this was allowed. For those who believe this I would like to know why you beleive this and what proof do you have?

Edited August 3, 2005 by Sean73

[nebula]

How about what happened to every man who tried to translaate the Bible from Latin to the common language of the people.

[Guest Sean73]

How about what happened to every man who tried to translaate the Bible from Latin to the common language of the people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is what???

[Ovedya]

Proof?

I didn't think there needed to be any proof, since history is pretty much abundantly clear on the matter.

Read >>HERE<< about William Tyndale.

Also read >>HERE<< about John Wyclif.

Also read the following:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/banned.htm

The Council of Constance (1414-18) declared John Wyclif as a heretic and condemned various writings by the reformer, commanding them to be burned. In fact, Wyclif's writings were on a long list of "banned books" the Roman Church had. As I recall, this list was not officially rescinded until around Vatican II in the early 70s. The complete text of the Ecumenical council can be found >>HERE<<.

What is further interesting about this, is that the Council of Constance declared Wyclif a heretic no less than 30 years after his death, and ordered Wyclif's bones to be exhumed and burned. That actually did not occur for yet another 12 years after the decree, however. It was at the commend of Pope Martin V that Wyclif was exhumed, burned, and cast into the river Swift.

Edited August 3, 2005 by Ovedya

[Iryssa]

I had no idea that such a matter of recorded history was up for debate.

[Joy in the Journey]

I had no idea that such a matter of recorded history was up for debate. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it wasn't, everyone would believe the Bible ( which is useful for teaching [ 2 Timothy 3:16 ] ) I know it's a little off the topic, but I had to throw that point in. Even when truth stares some right in the eyes, they choose to close them [ their "eyes" ] and pretend it's [ the Truth ] not there- hoping it will go away ? Truth is truth; good or bad.

Sorry to stray off the subject

Tim

[Guest Sean73]

If it wasn't, everyone would believe the Bible ( which is useful for teaching [ 2 Timothy 3:16 ] )    I know it's a little off the topic, but I had to throw that point in. Even when truth stares some right in the eyes, they choose to close them [ their "eyes" ] and pretend it's [ the Truth ] not there- hoping it will go away ? Truth is truth; good or bad.

Since we are off topic if there was truly one truth there would be only one church as there was for most of history. There wouldn't be the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churchs and 28,000+ different protestant denominations. Even though there are a couple of basics that most Christians believe in the truth is still relative. Two different people can read the same verse out of the Bible and come up with opposite beliefs.

[Leonard]

What do you mean there was 'only one Church for most of history'? The Eastern Orthodox certainly predates the Roman church.

And the Roman church readily admits that it did indeed discourage the laity from reading the Bible. There's no great secret about that. I don't accept the reasons they give for having done so, but I understand why they felt the necessity.

[Guest Sean73]

What do you mean there was 'only one Church for most of history'?  The Eastern Orthodox certainly predates the Roman church.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Catholic Church being the church in union with the Pope is the Church that has existed from the beginning of church history. The Orthodox Church broke away from the Catholic Church over a dispute on the authority of the Pope among other things.

[Ovedya]

What do you mean there was 'only one Church for most of history'?