Why did the Catholic Church burn the Bibles they approved of in 389 A.D.?

Question

In 389 A.D. the Catholic Church finally caught up with the rest of christianity and 'cannonized' the set of books we non-catholics call the New Testament.

The Apocrypha was rejected at this time by the Catholic Church.

However, throughout all centuries after this if the Catholic Church found any other version of the Bible in any other langugage it burned it.

After the Protestants got fed up with the Catholic Church and joined us non-catholics the Roman Church proceeded to condemn the Protestant Bible and burn it as well.

Based upon these facts of History I have posted this question. I am trying to understand this contradiction.

As of 250 A.D. there were two branches of Christianity. The Lapsii/Catholic/Pagan - worshippers of the image of Cesar. They became the government church in 325 A.D., are historically arrogant, violent and carnal.

The second branch was the churches who rejected those who worshipped the idol of Ceasar to escape persectution. These pure churches rejected the baptism of the catholic churches. The New Testament scriptures (of which they had many copies and translations) were the only authority they recognized. They followed the Tradition of the Apostles, and not the traditions of men that began to creep into churches that left the teaching of scriptures for their own carnal ideas just as Jesus predicted would happen. This was the persecuted church that contineud to stay separate from the world.

So indeed, when in 367 A.D. Canon Of Athanasius was written by Constantine's Church the Catholics joined the rest of Christianity that extended well beyond the borders of the Empire.

It is a dishonest mis-representation of the facts to say that the Bible did not exist until the 4th century.

The scriptures themselves were in wide circulation well beyond the Roman Empire. This is why in 600 A.D. that the local churches rejected the Catholic Churches offer to work together. They already had their own Bible. Where did it come from? Why was it different? Why was it burnt after all the Pastors were killed?

The New Testament was in full use by churches all over the Empire and beyond. What were the Persecuting Ceasars seeking to burn? The scriptures!!!

What were those called who surrendered the scriptures to be burned? Traiditors!

What writings were surrendered in order to convince that Roman Soldiers that they had burnt the scriptures? Non-canonical writings like Tobit & Maccabees.

The believers of the 1st-4th centuries certainly had the scriptures just as you and I, and they discerned what was what.

Why else was Jerome so passionate?

By the way, no one has addressed the core of the question.

Why did Catholics burn the Word of God?

Answer 1

Understandably, a lot of Catholics are hot under the collar about this Q. They've never heard anything like it before! It's just nonsense - well, it must be, musn't it? Or does that depend where your history lessons come from?

Catholics may suppose the RC church was established from Peter till today and that no other bona fide Christian groups existed till the Orthodox branch resisted the Pope. They have been told that heretical groups kept springing up and were suppressed. Now some heretical groups DID exist, but some were genuine Christians. Their literature was burned and they were tarred with the same brush. Yet of what survives, no trace of heresies can be found in believers who simply called themselves Christians (to distinguish themselves from 'Romans'). They separated so as not to become spiritually prostituted by the union of Church with State; to object to infant baptism and giving the Lord's Supper to unbelievers. They were widely found in Asia Minor, Armenia, Mount Ararat and beyond the Euphrates, violently persecuted by Catholicism, so successfully that it's no wonder most people have no idea of the extent of the existence of these congregations that would not bow their knee to any Pope. They stuck to New Testament teaching, which they had, in writing. Part of the persecution program was to burn scriptures because its authority was what made these Christians 'different'. Here's a specific, known example:

About 653 an Armenian who'd been captured by the Saracens was released. He was helped by another Christian, Silvanus. They read the scriptures together, including a manuscript containing the four Gospels and the Epistles of Paul. Silvanus was transformed by these scriptures and he joined those believers who rejected the image worship and superstitions of the Byzantine Church. He lived in Kibossa, Armenia, converting many heathens and Catholics for 30 years and travelling widely. He was stoned to death and his followers were called heretics. Any group that resisted idolatry (image devotion, praying to the Saints etc) was branded heretical and persecuted by Rome which knew their knowledge of the New Testament gave them the courage to resist papal decrees. That's why Catholicism has such a track-record of burning the scriptures. It has tried to control the New Testament and keep it to itself for centuries. Even up to the late 1800s, Catholic priests were forbidden to read the Bible! In their seminaries they were taught the Classics but not Greek scripture! And no member of the laity could be allowed a copy in their own language! Any Catholic wanting to look into this will have to get their history from a non-Catholic source.

I recommend 'The Pilgrim Church' by E H Broadbent, a Pickering Classic first published in 1931 and reprinted today. See also '50 Years in the Church of Rome' by former Quebec RC priest Chiniquy (his father was told by the local RC priest to burn the Bible that Chiniquy was found reading as a 10 year old child). My edition is the 1874 one.

Answer 2

There are documented burnings starting in the 16th century (ie, before the KJV), and although the Church burned them because of errors in translation, I wonder if much of it had to do with ego more than anything. Tyndale's translation was published with the aim of refuting the Pope, and while you and I hold to more democratic views today, back then you could be imprisoned or worse for challenging authority of any kind. Call it a product of the times. But I find no evidence of the Catholic Church burning Bibles prior to that time.

There is record of Diocletian (a pagan Emperor) ordering the burning of Christian literature (including the Septuagint and copies of epistles) as early as 303 AD. The Church ordered the writings of Arius (who argued that Jesus was not divine) burned in 325, but these didn't include Scripture.

Likewise, Nestorian literature was ordered burned in 435 AD, and his supporters were removed from their positions of power. The reason? Nestor argued that Jesus was two different persons, one divine, one human. This theological conflict was part of the split that later resulted in the separation of Catholic and Orthodox churches. But again, no Bibles were burned here.

In 1085, prayer books were tossed in the fire to determine whether the Mozarabic Rite or Roman Rite should be used. The Roman Rite prayer book burned, while the Mozarabic Rite (in a heavier binding) did not. The scientific value of this test was akin to that of letting a woman sink in water to see if she is a witch. Again, no Bibles burned.

In the 12th century, the Cathar texts (which did not reflect Scripture so much as writings of their leadership) were burned in France.

Seriously, I'd like to know in what books of history you're finding your "facts." They don't agree with anything I've read. Are you privy to some secret knowledge?

Where is this "rest of Christianity" that had it all together before 389 AD?

Answer 3

Pray tell, what was this "rest of Christianity" that the catholic church was supposed to have caught up with? Because all of Christianity was, by definition, the Catholic church at that time. Tell me what Non-catholic sect can trace it's roots beyond the 14th century. The Eastern Orthodox rite doesn't count, because it is recognized by Rome as part of the catholic church.

It wasn't until more than a thousand years later that the protestant heretics started picking and choosing what part of the canon to accept and what part to leave out.

Protestantism seems to me to be a cafeteria christianity. People have fallen into the trap of creating God in Man's own image.

The KJV is derived entirely from the Latin Vulgate codex, which is itself in turn derived from original greek and aramaic manuscrpts. The new American standard is more up to date with 21st century english, and references the older greek and aramaic manuscripts where available, providing a more comprehensive discussion of terms which don't translate well (NEWSFLASH! Jesus did NOT speak queen's english! Film at Eleven!).

Answer 4

I think you need to read your history.

The Catholic church was the ONLY Christianity in the beginning. Before the Canon, there WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT. The Catholic Church determined what books would be contained in that Canon.

The Apocrypha was NOT rejected by the Catholic Church; it has been a part of the Catholic Canon since the beginning. It WAS rejected by Luther some 1100 years later.

The Catholic Church believed (and seems to have been proved in some sense right), that if the general population had the entirety of scripture in popular languages, that it would lead to thousands of conflicting interpretations. Just look at the number of protestant denominations today and tell me that they were wrong in that observation.

There is no contradiction in Catholic teaching. There is misunderstanding in your facts.

Answer 5

The Douay version (may not be the correct spelling). The Catholic Bible has a few extra books (writings), otherwise very much the same. It tells the same story, just in a different style. Again as someone else mentioned, it will say Catholic Bible. Any Christian book store will have them.

Answer 6

The Deuterocanonicals of the OT were always accepted in the Catholic Church even with the contoversies of biblical canon before Carthage.
Protestants accept the Catholic canon of the OT ;why do they not accept the Catholic Canon of the OT? Why do they accept the Pharisee Canon of Tanak but not the Pharisee rejection of NT?
The Bible needs to be interpreted in union with Apostolic tradition and the One holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

The catholic Church actually fostered translations. The Latin Vulgate was a Catholic(even Pope)-sponsored translation as was the Slavonic Bible.
The Church did condemn heretical versions and mistranslations of the Bible
Protestants would have no Bible at all if it were not for the Catholic Church and its monk-copyists.
You really need to get your facts straight

Remember that the Orthodox Churches were part of the Catholic Church until 431, 451 nd 1054

Answer 7

"seek and you shall find, knock and the Door will be opened unto you"

my question to you is do you actually believe what you profess here? you say "after the Protestants got fed up with the Catholic Church they joined you non-catholics" this would imply you consider yourself christian though not Protestant. mind telling me which heretical christian group you belong to? you will only find consolation and answers to your questions in the true Church of Jesus Christ. all seekers of the Truth should be attracted to the Church that He established. The Catholic Church is the only Church that has the authority to teach in His Name. Accepting only part of Her teaching and teaching Her Message according to your own opinion to others as Truth is spreading a false message. There is ONE GOD , ONE JESUS, ONE MESSAGE FOR ALL.

Answer 8

My Catholic brothers and sisters answered you well enough, so I won't elaborate. All I'm doing write now is shaking my head and laughing. Do you write fiction in your spare time? If not, you might consider it because you're good at it.

Answer 9

Like you, I also questioned the Catholic Church. I suggest you do some real study of it, from Catholic, non-Catholic, and historical sources.

I did and became Catholic.

If you really want to know what Catholics believe and why, all you need to do is get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. All of our beliefs and references as to why we believe as we do are in there.

Read it, then come back and we will talk.

Peace, and God Bless you!

Answer 10

The Catholic Church, at the time, felt that they were the ones who had a say in what they thought was Biblical Scripture.

During the Reformation, the Catholic Church felt that the Bible should only be in Latin and if it were translated to another language, the text would be scripturally invalid.

God makes it clear that the Word must be brought out to the world, even if it means translating it to other languages. In Jesus' time, the Middle East was a huge melting pot of cultures and languages.