It is fairly common for people opposed to the Catholic Church to make the assumption that the Catholic Church intentionally kept the Scriptures from the people (at least) during the Middle Ages (I personally remember having this view). Partly for this reason, this period in history has been coined by some as the "Dark Ages". Various motives have been assigned to the Church for why she would do such a thing. One of these motives is to keep the people "in the dark" so they won't know they are really being duped into believing falsehoods that are dressed up as truth. In this way, it is said, the people end up just following in blind faith, and this is what the Church hierarchy really wants so they can maintain control. If the people could read the Bible for themselves, and understand it on their own terms, they would come to see just how tyrannical and false the Catholic Church is. Furthermore, it is claimed, the Church hierarchy knows this, fears it, and on this basis keeps the people "in the dark".
We must ask, however, is this all true?
Did the Church really keep the Scripture out of the hands of the people? Was it really the intention of the Catholic Church to keep the people in the dark so that they could maintain control through the people's blind faith? What verifiable sources are there to show this and are they reliable?
Did the Church really keep the Scripture out of the hands of the people? Was it really the intention of the Catholic Church to keep the people in the dark so that they could maintain control through the people's blind faith? What verifiable sources are there to show this and are they reliable?
There is a plethora of evidence which demonstrates this is a false claim. We will not be able to show it all, but will begin to bring some of it forward as we can on this blog.
For now, there is a short excerpt below from a book written by Henry Graham, titled, "Where We Got the Bible". This selection starts in the middle of a chapter titled, "Bible Reading in the 'Dark Ages'". I recommend reading more of the context of the chapter and book, but for the sake of greater brevity within the post, I will only include this short section for now. As stated below, you can access the rest of the book online from the link provided. Here is the excerpt:
"But, again, I think I hear the voice of theobjector, who will not believe all this if he canpossibly help it-'Yes; well, perhaps the clergy didknow the Bible, but nobody else did; it was a closedand sealed volume to the poor lay people, because,of course, it was all in Latin.' Now, leaving aside thequestion of Latin for a moment (for I shall comeback to that immediately), it is utterly false to sayor suppose that the lay folks were ignorant of theScriptures. They were thoroughly well-acquaintedwith them so far as they required to be in their stateof life. It is true, of course-and how could it beotherwise?-that ecclesiastics being the reading menand writing men, in short, the only well-educatedpersons of those days, naturally have left behindthem more evidence than most lay people could doof their familiarity with the Sacred Word; but it isyet the fact that the literature of those ages, outsideclerical documents altogether, which has come downto us, is steeped and permeated through and throughwith Scripture."
As said above, this is just a short excerpt, but to read more from this point click here and see page 83ff. You can also read earlier portions, or simply read the entire book by Henry Graham at the same link. It is also in the right hand sidebar of this blog under Check This Out: Where We Got the Bible.
It is no false claim. One writer observed: “For centuries Rome had kept the Bible from the common people. Even where there is no sufficient proof that this was deliberately done in order that they might be kept in ignorance of the truth, the fact remains that that was the result both of what was left undone and of what was done” (William Muir, Our Grand Old Bible, 1911, p. 45).
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with Muir and say that it was deliberately done. Forgive the formatting of the following. I had it on a word document, but when I pasted it in here, it didn't work well. These are from Catholic documents, as much as I could do:
• “We prohibit also the permitting of the laity to have the books of the Old or New Testament, unless any one should wish, from a feeling of devotion, to have a psalter or breviary for divine service, or the hours of the blessed Mary. But we strictly forbid them to have the above-mentioned books in the vulgar tongue.” —
ReplyDeleteLabbey and Cassort’s Councils, part I., tom. ii. Paris, 1671
• Council of Toulouse, 1229
• The Synod of Tarragona, 1234
• The fourth rule of the congregation of the "Index Of Prohibited Books", approved by Pius IV : "Since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bible in the vulgar tongue be suffered to be read everywhere without distinction, more evil than good arises, let the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor be abided by in this respect, so that, after consulting with the parish priest or the confessor, they may grant permission to read translations of the Scriptures, made by Catholic writers, to those whom they understand to be able to receive no harm, but an increase of faith and piety from such reading (which faculty let them have in writing). But whosoever shall presume to read these Bibles, or have them in possession without such faculty, shall not be capable of receiving absolution of their sins, unless they have first given up their Bibles to the ordinary."
ReplyDelete• Pope Leo XII, in an Encyclical dated May 3, 1824, addressed the Latin bishops thus:
"We also, venerable brothers, in conformity with our apostolic duty, exhort you to turn away your flocks from these poisonous pastures [i.e., vernacular Bibles]. Reprove, entreat, be instant in season and out of season, that the faithful committed to you (adhering strictly to the rules of the ‘Congregation of the Index’) be persuaded that if the Sacred Scriptures be everywhere indiscriminately published, more evil than advantage will arise thence, because of the rashness of men."
• UBI PRIMUM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XII, ON HIS ASSUMING THE PONTIFICATE, MAY 5, 1824:
ReplyDelete17. You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,[16] it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ's gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil![17]
18. To prevent this evil, Our predecessors published many constitutions. Most recently Pius VII wrote two briefs, one to Ignatius, Archbishop of Gniezno, the other to Stanislaus, Archbishop of Mohileu, quoting carefully and wisely many passages from the sacred writings and from the tradition to show how harmful to faith and morals this wretched undertaking is.
19. In virtue of Our apostolic office, We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures. Do everything possible to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language, wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.
• NOSTIS ET NOBISCUM, ON THE CHURCH IN THE PONTIFICAL STATES, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX, DECEMBER 8, 1849
14. The crafty enemies of the Church and human society attempt to seduce the people in many ways. One of their chief methods is the misuse of the new technique of book-production. They are wholly absorbed in the ceaseless daily publication and proliferation of impious pamphlets, newspapers and leaflets which are full of lies, calumnies and seduction. Furthermore, under the protection of the Bible Societies which have long since been condemned by this Holy See,[7] they distribute to the faithful under the pretext of religion, the holy bible in vernacular translations. Since these infringe the Church's rules,[8] they are consequently subverted and most daringly twisted to yield a vile meaning. So you realize very well what vigilant and careful efforts you must make to inspire in your faithful people an utter horror of reading these pestilential books. Remind them explicitly with regard to divine scripture that no man, relying on his own wisdom, is able to claim the privilege of rashly twisting the scriptures to his own meaning in opposition to the meaning which holy mother Church holds and has held. It was the Church alone that Christ commissioned to guard the deposit of the faith and to decide the true meaning and interpretation of the divine pronouncements.[9]
I'm sorry for the multiple post. It wouldn't let me do it in one, but I wanted to cite the different references.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteIn one of your comments above, you state, "I would disagree with Muir and say that it was deliberately done." Putting this together with the quote you cite from Muir, are we to understand you to believe that the Catholic Church (CC)kept the Bible from the common people with the express purpose of keeping them from knowing the truth? In other words, would you accuse the CC of wanting her people not to know the truth of God revealed in the Bible?
Yes, I would definitely say that that was the case. There was a lot of money and power at stake if the common people knew what the Bible actually said, and what it was being purported to say. The words I cited above show this clearly.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteVarious Popes issued encyclicals such as the ones you cite above to do just the opposite of what you claim was their intention. I'm not sure how you would judge their motives to be otherwise. The Church had precisely the desire for the protection of the common people's understanding of the Word of God in view when taking these measures to warn them. This was their stated purpose. As is clear from the entire context of the encyclicals you cite above, her role as guardian of the truth entrusted to her by God was being exercised in order to protect the "common people" from heresies being bantered about by various individuals, groups, their literature, and including their un-authorized translations of the written Word of God. This is the role of a shepherd: and this is what the Church understands her role to be under God.
If you think the encyclicals you cite clearly demonstrate that the Church wanted to keep her people from understanding the Bible, then you will need to show this. Thus far, you have not (you have only issued claims and cited selections from documents which do not support your claims, but rather, show evidence of the converse); and thus far, I maintain, the Church did not keep the people ignorant of the Scriptures.
BTW, in case you don't have ready access to the full encyclicals cited above, you can access them at the following locations. I am listing them in chronological order: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo12/l12ubipr.htm and http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9nostis.htm.
ReplyDelete